JohnS

In regards to the "inventive age": We could argue that forever...I don't think it would be an edifying experience for either of us. The likelyhood of you convincing me that labor safety laws (as opposed to letting the free market decide) were / are a bad idea isn't worth the time it would take to explore this avenue; mine or yours. It is that power of an employer to keep a person in fear and rule them. If an employer can fire me because of any irrational reason, do I REALLY have freedom of speech? Threat of losing a job is no small matter. I simply cannot tolerate a society that would allow someone the power to tell me "If you put an Obama sticker on your car, I will fire you; you will lose your house, car, insurance, and quality of life". I don't want an employer to be able to do that. You may say too bad to me...I say too bad for them. If I have to choose between principle and allowing the elite minds of the world to bully the average then so much the worse for principle. My main concern is not to have an unassailable philosophy of rationality. That is a secondary concern to having a balanced world that most can live with; maximum contentedness without destruction of progress. I desire the unassailable philosophy, sure, and will come as close as I can without abandoning my main goal. I would assume that is what makes me a pragmatist? At the very least I know the importance of that aspect of my philosophy and its cons. I knew this would be educational and challenging

I'm afraid that the rich will control too much. I'm afraid my boss will fire me because of my atheism. I'm afraid my gay friend will be fired because of that. I'm afraid of the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the Fords, and the Rockefellers. I'm afraid of tyranny; not only governmental tyranny, but tyranny of one person who controls a huge amount of production. What if in WWII Henry Ford decided to just shut down the US war machine by stopping production. This wasn't unheard of; FDR was afraid of it and had a plan to take over the factories. Now I don't want to make this into a WWII referendum, but the power of one industrialist to cold stop a war that was supported by hundreds of millions is simply not acceptable. In a left wing state, yes, the government will screw with you to some extent. At least I have a vote in that. Note: I read the first part of "The Menace of Pragmatism". The online article isn't full so I don't feel comfortable responding to half an idea :\ To adrock: I'll look into that. I've taken micro and macroeconomics in college; that is my only exposure. I learned about how a monopoly can slightly cheat the laws of supply and demand by controlling a market. :\ In any case, thanks for the info. I'm chagrined to admit I've never even heard of the Austrian / Chicagoan schools of thought on economics. I was an education major who took a lot of history classes (those damned humanities).

Closing my eyes won't do anything. I'm not sure what this suggestion is. To avoid a gilded age what do I need to do? I think I have to, politically, beat you. I have to convince people to be more liberal than they are Objectivist without putting so much weight on capitalism that the engine breaks under the pressure. The "Golden Middle" as it was called. Also, I think that man is not that independant. We are a highly-evolved and social species. I believe in an interconnectedness with a biological foundation. I believe that collectivism is a machine that trades liberty for power, and I want an equal balance of both. Both of us would hate an extreme of power and no liberty (Stalin) but where I think we differ is I'm afraid of the over-abundance of liberty. I see the history of the Gilded Age and Soviet Russia and recoil at both.

Hot damn Avgleandt now we are talking. I obviously disagree that the whole system would devolve into repression. I don't think it would become "everyone for everyone" and if it did then people would have done so with their own permission. I do reject the idea that evil cannot lead to good. You can't build civilization without breaking a few eggs and by eggs I mean tribals societies that didn't want to be in Rome and do as the Romans do (or did). I think that the Golden Middle can be maintained and that, pragmatically, immoral actions can have results that are both moral and immorals. You don't get the USA without Native Americans being killed off. I honestly don't know how to morally handle these events. Obviously I find the conquering of the New World as bad, but I like that the U.S. exists. Contradictory, no? Contrary to principle, no? Yet I know not what else to do. While pragmatism seems to make "all possible", I truly feel that principle is just too rigid and a non-starter as the only contributor to political action. Note on principle: I will look into this. I think that when I was 'into' the Objectivist ideas this principle thing is what turned me off without me realing knowing it. It was quite a step for me to consciously accept the pragmatic point of view. I finally decided to hell with principle as I found it too rigid and too easy to contradict. I'd spend so much time trying to find that perfect principle and I just couldn't make it work. At the end of the day I just don't like the reprecussions of objectivism :\ If have to to embrace the all-too-dangerous "the ends justify the means" to avoid a gilded age (and liking it) then I will. When I think of this, I don't neccessarily like it but I truly don't know how else to react. Objectivism may indeed be the perfect philosophy; a pure diamond of thought. Yet it is far too sharp, I feel, to be a philosophy over the vicissitudes of life. I am not for a total rejection of principle. I just think that it must be dilluted by the pragmatic. Maybe pragmatism can be a principle itself?(hmm...thinking cap time) I guess you could say I pragmatically mix pragmatism and principle as needed. In what proportions do I mix them? Well that's arbitrary depending on the situation. Oh come on that was funny. While I enjoy the "theoretical" side of this, if someone can tell me why the social programs of Roosevelt that helped salve (if not solve) the Great Depression were bad ideas without relating to principle alone, I would really appreciate it. I can't eat on principle; I can eat by being employed by the CCC. I tend to go to analogies / examples quite often and if someone wants to move on this terrain, by all means engage. Edit: We did go to debate didn't we. It's ya'lls forum (I'm from Mississippi, I get to use ya'll) and if I cross any lines, please let me know. I ain't (Mississippi) gone (Mississippi again) cross any lines on purpose.

I'll admit to having a Machiavellian strain, Kendall. I've loved every word of The Prince so far. (I might get lynched for that one...) Kevin: Pink elephants are far less likely, statistically, to be produced as opposed to future generations. If we somehow generated consciouss pink elepehants or I had some reason to think they were imminent then I would take it seriously. Wasn't I warned against using "silly" scenarios As far as the prole-theft being evil...ok. I think you left out the fact they also do stuff (make the dreams of the elites a reality) but I can dig what you're saying. Again, my Machiavellian strain is a bit more concerned with what you can get away with than what is moral but I have my moral side too. For some reason the discussion just hasn't hit those notes with me yet. I genuinely hope I can showcase something different from a worldview that seems only composed of Marx and Machiavelli. Lastly back to Kevin: I have to say this...but I don't "get" that...I really don't. It is not in my self interest to steal (and not get caught)? Maybe you mean the destruction of the 'soul' through the guilt involved...flew right over my head. :\ EDIT: To Brian: You realize to the adaptive pragmatist like me, that's all part of the system right? I don't believe in the 'perfect' government. It must be constantly amended, and fixed, and adapting. If it isn't adapting, it's dying. Even if that does cause a bit of nausea in the principled.

Do you guys agree with Kevin? 'Cause...woah. I mean this in the most non-arrogant way I possibly can: You all realize that with statements like that, for better or worse, you will be forever politically irrelevant? You're fighting the biological and cultural pull of leaving a decent living place for our descendants. Talk about Up-hill battle. To Maximus: I admitted I should. If you don't want me here, just say so. Nick: I think you're close. I don't think the relationship is largely equal between the producer and the average (nonproducer?). However, I'm not saying that you guys have 'enslaved' the proletariat. I think you kinda want to but that's a debateable issue. I think they have enslaved the producers . I don't see Objectivists actually living "Give me liberty or give me death". How many Objectivists actually have quit producing becuase they were so sick of giving to the government? The proletariat government have bought off the elites by letting them keep whatever percentage of their own production. That's what I see with my "Objectivist Glasses" on anyway. I think the elites and the proles are constantly vying for supremacy, despite the fact that they both need each other. A labor and production yin and yang if you will. I see the communists as destructively for the proles, and I see the Objectivists as destructively for the elites. EDIT: I've just seen Kendall's response. Damn you may have me. I'll give it a shot. I go on a case-by-case basis. When I see something like abortion I hammer it out: What would I want to happen to me. I put myself in all positions and try to judge fairly. A woman's body and her reproduction are vested in her. To take that away would be too much. Technically, principally, it is unfair for someone to be born a citizen to a country they have had no input in. I turned 18 and didn't vote on anything that ruled me. Yet what else can I do? I might be an ardent pacifist but I must pay taxes to promote a military. I find principal ruling all decisions too restrictive. I think there should be general principles (Liberty, truth, justice, equality) that we try to average out as best as possible. Throughout history the rigid principaled have fallen as they failed to adapt.

No I have not. I know I should. I've read a lot about it from various sources. My hunch is it glorifies the "Atlas" people and acts like the average of the world couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight. If I'm right, Atlas Shrugged makes the mirror image mistake of communism. Communism acts as though all are equal and we don't need the elites to make the world move. This is wrong, we absolutely do. Ayn Rand, I fear, acts as though we don't need the average to make the world move. This is also wrong. There seems to be some inherent judgement of quality over quantity. You need both. There are simply not enough elite innovators to actually do all of the great things they come up with. We as a species, if we wish to advance, need the ideas of the innovators and the muscle of the average. As a liberal I think we are a bit too favorable to the innovators and not enough to the muscle. If we went significantly left, I would hold the opposite view. The trick is to take from the elites, without taking so much they feel listless and have no incentive to do what they do. That may offend you morally, but it doesn't me and I think it works. Basically, we shouldn't push the elites into an Atlas Shrugged situation where they just up and quit (I think that's the plot, right?). Too many edits, sorry. This was written on the fly.

I hate to leave all the unanswered questions of my previous post behind but this is quick. I think you're absolutely right. If 90% of Americans were against abortion or for slavery, then those things would be borne out. Thankfully, most people find those ideas as backwards as we do. Again, it is all about attempting to balance it out. Yes, my liberal...er....left of center secular humanist pragmatist (dammit) views can go into a repressive fascism. I see no problem with having a 'static' point. We shall go here, and no further. I think that is possible. I think it is possible to have an adaptive view of politics. I don't blame George Washington for not recognizing gay relationships as equal to hetereosexual ones. I likewise have no problem saying that police, fire, and yes healthcare should be socialized...but Red Lobster dinners don't. Arbitraryness is easily punctured by the principled (you) but so far it is the only point of view flexible enough to deal with political situations as they arrive. Herbert Hoover was principled. FDR wasn't. I'll take FDR over Hoover any day.

< I just typed a 15 minute post and accidentally deleted it. Argh! > First I don't want to get into a debate over what I am, I get it: a classical liberal I am not. I don't think Jefferson was either (I didn't know presidents could just buy huge tracts of land on their own volition). I had this fruitless debate about semantics and labels at Protest Warrior and I don't want to revisit it. I am flexible but I won't acquiesce to being called a Communist, Marxist, or Socialist. I really don't want to have to type left of center secular humanist pragmatist everytime I want to self-identify. The point of language is to convey meaning. You know what I meant and that was the point. KendallJ: I would say ineffective/effective in regards to reducing pollution below levels of toxcicity or highly undesirable. As a left of center secular humanist pragmatist (dammit) I have no problem with some amount of arbitraryness to these decisions. How much arbitraryness? Well its arbitrary I see what you're saying about the government "stealing" production and obviously that is a fundamental disagreement of philosophy. I've got my debate points and you've got yours but I'm here on the selfish idea of educating myself on how you feel; not why I think you're wrong on the points I do understand. I guess you could say it's in my rational self interest to learn about major philosophies As a left of center secular humanist pragmatist (dammit) I want to balance between too much state power, and too much individual power. That is not the way I would frame it if I debated in public but that's most likely how you see it and it isn't fundamentally incorrect. Your last paragraph I feel is a slippery slope argument :\ I don't want to go too far in any direction; maybe you feel we are doomed to constantly fall after making a fatal choice; I think we can balance. Again, fundamental disagreement but at least I'm learning. Brian: Some really good points. I'll admit I wasn't event thinking of corruption in this discussion. As government gets more pervasive obviously corruption is more of a problem. Still, even in a bare bones government an arms dealer could bribe the government to "steer" towards a war. Then again maybe you have a fully fleshed out vision on how an Objectivist government / society deals with corruption. Interesting stuff. I want to quickly mention I'm not avoiding the overarching point of government coercion is bad. I get that, it's a fundamental thing that is hard to discuss without going to debate. In my original typing of this post I made the same argument as Brian does in response to zip. It is in the self interest of these companies for people to believe they are acting green. If they can do so without actually doing it or get more "marketing play" while doing something very small and insignificant then they win and the green cause doesn't. As a left of center secular humanist pragmatist (dammit) I concur with many other left of center secular humanist pragmatists (dammit) that corporations' overtures of altruism are highly suspect. Lastly, another question. Let us assume a man named Bob. Bob Bobberson. Bob is not all that smart, but he recognzies this. Bob knows that he doesn't have the Darwinian fitness to achieve the quality of life he would desire. Eureka! Bob realizes that there are many more people like him, than there are with said Darwinian fitness. Isn't it in rational self interest of Bob (and all the Bobs) to team up and subjugate the elites. The Bobs don't want to destroy the elites as they produce really great stuff. They decide to let the elites (let's humanize them to; the Tom's) keep the majority of the fruits of their production, but take through force enough for themselves. In return, the Bobs are available as the people who make the grand designs of the Toms come to fruition. An "analogy of this analogy" is hyenas vs. lions. A lion is better at hunting than a hyena. Hyenas, however, team up. Or....should the Bobs, despite knowing their probably failure to achieve their desires, attempt to compete individually anyway, and accept their results as this is the only moral option? This question is hard to pose (hence all the time typing it) and it is very intersting to me. I find it quite disconcerting that I rarely meet an average Objectivist. Most people it seems who are Objectivists are those that would succeed under an Objectivist system. Are the lefties of the world, the collectivists, simply acting in their own rational self interest the same way the Objectivists are?

I see some great responses here and they are heterogenous. First you aren't going to scare me off. I love debate and it takes a great deal to get to me. I'm an atheist who was the 2nd highest poster on an apologetics board. I think that some of the responses simply make me sure I chose the right philosophy. The only board to 'scare' me off was Protest Warriors; anarcho-capitalists do not like liberals (or to them, communists who intend to destroy the last hope of freedom on the planet). I think that the choice of island life or smoggy civilization is a false dillema which can be broken by Big Bro..er...proper government action. ;)As a liberal I'm the first to admit that there is a definite tradeoff between liberty and collectivization. A lot of liberals want to act as if this trade off doesn't exist and it most certainly does. In spite of this, I still endorse a liberal position. I call this the "Stalin Got Shit Done" argument. Obviously a flippant and provocative title but its a fun argument to spring on a libertarian. Its really fun to sell it to the "spectators" of the debate (i.e. the other college roomates) and watch the liberatarian's eyes widen in horror as it goes over; but I digress. Would I be correct in saying that government regulation of pollution, the artificial 'ceiling' imposed heavy-handedly from above, is something you oppose of in principle only? Do you also think it simply wouldn't work? I would guess it offends you in a princpled 'moral' way, but I'm not sure if you maintain it would be ineffective or if its effectiveness mattered in your position.

I chose Global Warming specifically because I didn't view it as a doomsday scenario. It takes a while compared to something where in a few hours the world will be changed unalterably (i.e. the old "a terrorist has knowledge of a bomb, do we torture him to find out where it is" example in a torture debate). Now Kendall you said that markets would react. Why would they? Even if everyone realized that it was happening and had negative worldwide consequences, all it takes is one person who doesn't care to have a higher profit margin and undercut competitors who did care. That is how I (still) see it anyway. You say the free market changes; why? Why would you as a business owner want to help the environment? Lastly I felt your comment on L.A. was a bit callous. Not everyone can just move from a city because of smog levels. I'll stop there as I feel my hand reaching for my debating scabbard Now to address EC: My argument isn't in anyway dependent on global warming itself. It is dependent only on ideas similar in impacts to global warming. Should residents of L.A. be able to sue air polluting companies for the pollution of the air that they are aware takes place? I honestly don't know how you feel on that one, it wasn't rhetorical. If you do feel this way I have no idea how any heavy industry could exist as some air pollution is unavoidable and there will always be someone ready to sue said business for polluting their air. I can also see people suing over speculation (both correct and incorrect). I think I can agree on your view of value and its relation to the environment. I think the crux of my question is not whether or not global warming exists, but if it (or any other problem that by nature impacts everyone) how does the Objectivist deal with it. Oh yah, totally unrelated quick question: Why in the forum rules do you distance yourself from libertarians as having a point of view opposed to your own? I thought many libertarians were really into Ayn Rand - they sure reference the literature when I debate them.

First I recognize that forums are many times a refuge of people of that philosophy to hang out with each other and not necessarily deal with 'outsiders'. I don't want to start a debate. Ok I do, but I won't without an explicit invitation. Instead, I just wanted to know what your point of view was on certain types of issues. I was a lightweight Objectivist at one time as a result of reading Terry Goodkind's fantasy books (couched in Ayn Rand philosophy) and later on reading "We the Living". Basically, I know the basic overarching idea but not arrogant enough to act as though I knew everything; if I did, I wouldn't be asking you. Without further ado: How would an Objectivist view an issue such as global warming. Now this isn't to debate if global warming exists or not, that is immaterial. I think we can all agree that the idea of global warming isn't itself outlandish. I just don't understand how a free market can react. It is most profitable for a money making enterprise to make money without regard to environmental factors. Anyone who does take into environmental impact will be potentially less profitable and therefore less able to survive in a Darwinian business climate. Objectivist may view us as all independent, yet, we all breathe interconnected air and use an interconnected ozone layer. How does anything but direct government intervention from the top down deal with this issue? Lastly, I hope I chose the right forum area for this. Thank you for your time, JohnS