JeffS

Isn't that pragmatic? Aren't we supposed to live moral lives? If we're going to argue living a moral life isn't possible because the world isn't moral then what's the point? If we're not striving for the ideal, if we're not trying to live moral lives, then what's the purpose of morality? What's the purpose of having an ideal if we're not willing to gain it; either because we'd fail or "suffer heavy penalties?" I'm sorry, but I missed that point. Would you mind restating it? No. Providing such a service is something the private sector can do. In fact, it's something the private sector does quite well right now.

I think the "oops, did I say 'one'?" is telling. It really isn't just "one," is it? Yes, we are relatively free compared to the rest of the world. But the history of our country (perhaps all countries?) has been to move from greater freedom to less and less. At what point do we say, "Enough is enough. My principles state that I am an end in myself, not the means to some other's, or others', ends. It's time I abide by that principle." I agree with Mr. Odden (if I'm indeed paraphrasing him correctly) in that it's not pragmatism to fight at some level - letters to the editor, educating others, speaking out against initiative government force, etc. - and still hold fast to principles. I just wonder what threat to those principles requires action of a more confrontational sort. Moreover, I realize I'm the pragmatist in that I don't do all that I could to uphold my principles while remaining on the right side of a cage. I look to the heroes Rand provided. Roark: wouldn't sanction his accusers in any sort. He would not recognize he was being tried; wouldn't recognize the court's authority in any way. The threat of force was there, as it is with taxes, but he would rather stand by his principles and suffer the punishment than abandon them. Galt: preferred his own suicide to abandoning his principles. Ragnar: became an outlaw to live by his own principles. In fact, all the great producers became outlaws to live their principles. Now, things had to get pretty bad for most of them, but the instigators, like Galt, Ragnar, and Francisco all worked actively to live their principles to their fullest. A few have argued, "Well, that was fiction, this is real." Or, "We don't have a hidden valley to escape to." These strike me as pragmatic arguments - we'd rather live our principles, that would be ideal, but it would be hard to do it, so we'll settle for something less ideal. I don't think that's true. I want to pay taxes, as long as those taxes are used to protect my rights. But do our principles end where a gun begins? I live for my life, and my love of it - Mr. Odden brought that to the fore. However, when that becomes hindered due to the actions of an oppressive, well-armed collective, don't I have a moral obligation to protect myself? I think this is a dangerous question in this context. The roads are owned by the government. We obey speed limits because those are the rules for using that property. Your question, in this context, seems to imply that we pay taxes because the government owns the country and that is the price for using that property. A proper government provides services - protection from foreign and domestic abuse of our rights, and law courts to adjudicate differences among citizens. We should rightly pay for those services. But to argue we should pay for the right to live here, which is how I interpret your question, is improper.

I think I'm missing something here, because it sounds like you are suggesting the government has some role in regulating the internet rather than simply responding to threats on the internet.

What was off about it? I teach martial arts and found a great deal of what Gladwell wrote to be highly effective and applicable to self-defense. There really is only one way to become a good fighter: get in a lot of fights (and survive). However, the learning curve can be greatly flattened by consciously recognizing what hours of sparring will eventually hone: your adversary's stance, where their weight is distributed, what they do with their hands, where they're positioned, what they do with their feet and where those are positioned, where they're looking, how they're breathing all give clues to what your opponent is going to do. Trained fighters capture these elements, and many more, litterally in the blink of an eye. Many of them, if not most, would not be able to tell you how they knew their opponent was going to jab, or cross, or duck, but their actions appear as if they've read their opponent's mind. Of course, they have not. They've merely acted upon the nearly limitless messages sent to their brain, and their brain, through hours of practice, put the patterns together. As a teacher, I teach others to conceptually recognize these patterns. This frees up their brains to concentrate on the limited world of probability rather than the much larger world of possibility. Knowing that certain patterns exist, that certain effects have only limited causes, and that certain causes lead to certain effects, they're much better prepared to be proactive in the sense that what they're reacting to was the only option available to their opponent. They're at least a move ahead of their opponent. The brain is presented with a stupefying amount of information - and I mean that in every sense of the word. If we had to focus on every data point our perceptions presented to our brains we simply wouldn't be able to function. Thankfully, our brains are pattern seeking computers. They don't bring to the fore that which fits whatever pattern we're experiencing, they only bring to the fore that which does not fit the pattern - that which seems out of place or not-usual. The point Gladwell was trying to make was people with a great deal of experience with certain patterns can spot when those patterns aren't right. They might not be able to conceptualize or articulate why those patterns are wrong, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Granted, but if one chooses his life qua Man as his highest value wouldn't it be morally required of him, if he is to follow his moral principles, to engage in whatever resistance necessary to achieve that goal; whether it be protesting, or throwing bombs?

At what point is acceptance of government force no longer tolerable? Is there a point at which one must morally choose to rebel? My first reaction is to assume it's different for everyone, but as I began writing this reply I became less sure. If our rational ultimate value is our lives as humans, doesn't that preclude choosing life as something else? Someone brought up slavery earlier. Clearly, men are not meant to live as slaves, so wouldn't accepting slavery simply because there are threats to your corporeal being be living not as a Man? In that case, wouldn't it be a surrender of your principles to not try and escape? If your highest value is to live as Man qua Man, shouldn't you fight for that value, even if it meant your death as Man qua Slave?

It can also mean "a principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal."

I can't imagine what led you to this conclusion. Pragmatism - "In ordinary usage, pragmatism refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside one ideal to pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal." If the ideal is for everyone to be an end in themselves, to not use some as the means to others' ends, then allowing the government to subvert that through welfare taxation represents a setting aside of that ideal so we can pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal. You can certainly debate whether I have the ideal right, and you can argue there's a higher ideal we're pursuing, but your hasty conclusion that I don't know what the terms mean is unfounded. Now, honestly, where would this conclusion come from? I never argued it would be easy to leave, nor did I even imply I would like to. In fact, my argument has been, from the beginning, that the fact that it is hard to leave is not a valid justification for accepting the status quo; I have argued that is pragmatism - accepting a more achievable goal rather than one which conforms to principle. And if the trends don't reverse? If no one listens to you? At what point do you say, "That's enough." On what basis would you make that claim? That some line has been crossed? What delineates that line? How much limitation to your freedoms will you accept before you assert your right to be free? Are principles graduated? While I'm quite aware we live in the real world, do you not suppose Ms. Rand meant to use John Galt as a mouthpiece for her philosophy - a philosophy she asserted was the right philosophy for the real world?

I think I understand your argument now. You're arguing that simply because some use you for their own benefit does not mean you're living for their sake; that consciously choosing to give up your values for them constitutes surrendering your principles, but you can go on living for your own sake even though others may latch onto you. Do I have that right? I would fill in the blank with, "protect yourself." The principle is, "Never live for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine." I interpreted the quote to mean something like, "I will never allow others to use me, nor will I use others." Now, that seems unreasonable since we all use each other even as free traders. I was applying only the negative connotation of the word "use." Would someone who receives welfare be considered to be asking others to live for their sake, or must they support such programs? It seems to me acceptance of the productive efforts of others with no value offered in return represents at least a tacit support of such a program. In that case, the latter part of the quote would apply - those who receive welfare would be asking others to live for their sake. It seems the former part of the quote should also apply for those who are forced to give up their productive efforts - they are living for the sake of others. If I understand your argument above, however, those who are forced to give up their productive efforts aren't necessarily living for the sake of others; it just so happens that, in pursuing their own lives (possibly for the sake of their own lives) they have the resources with which to accede to the demands of others.

That's a pragmatic argument, isn't it? You're basically arguing, "It's not that easy for us to follow our principles, therefore it's okay to surrender them." This seems to contradict what she wrote about giving a burglar "a single teaspoon of one’s silverware..." Why is giving a burglar part of your property a surrender of principle, but giving the government part of your property not? Pokarrin and softwareNerd - As to the mugger example, I disagree with the analogy. Taxation is more like knowing the mugger has a gun, never actually seeing the mugger, but sending him your money anyway. As collectivists like to point out, we have a choice - we can leave. The moral question we're presented with is: Is it better to live under the threat of force if you don't reliquish your property, or not? Justifying the former by arguing the latter is unpalatable, or difficult, strikes me as pragmatic. My example was an allusion to Dagny Taggart. She continues to fight to keep the trains running, and it's only when she's fully ready to accept the principle of not living for the sake of others that Galt agrees to let her live in Galt's Gulch. All of the striking producers have to pass this test. They continue to bear the slings and arrows of a collectivist society presumably because they have neither accepted this principle, nor have an alternative. Galt provides the alternative when they're ready to accept the principle. Is this any different from our situation? We've presumably accepted the principle, yet we have no viable alternative. Isn't this simply a pragmatic excuse and a surrender of the principle? Is this not pragmatic; i.e. it works, there's no alternative, therefore it's a justified surrender?

But we're still compromising our principles. Actually, I think we're surrendering our principles. Jill, that would be a denial of reality - further compromising my principles.

Great responses, everyone! Thanks for replying. Many of you answered the questions/points of others the same way I would've, so I'll just add a little. Jill had a good answer: Because there's not a lot of stories about people living their lives right. If there's a lot of rational fictional characters out there, I haven't read about them. I would like to. Well, that's a good point. But a character fighting only external battles, never questioning himself, his beliefs, his motivations, or who lacks some psychological baggage would tend to be a bit one-dimensional, I would think. However, I suppose there's no reason why he/she couldn't have these questions - as long as he/she addressed them. That opens things up a bit. Yes, everytime I flesh this character out, he/she either starts looking like Roark, a robot, or a never-conflicted Spock. However, I do want him/her to be a compelling Objectivist character. I only use the term "Objectivist" to describe the character's philosophy as we understand the term; I don't mean to write Objectivist literature. But I do want to show that an Objectivist can be heroic. I like Heinlein, but his characters are conflicted. I don't necessarily want to tackle deep philosophical issues, I just want to follow a rational man through his exciting life. "He woke at six and ate a balanced breakfast. Went to work at a rewarding and fulfilling job. Came home to the woman he loved and the family he valued. Ate a sensible dinner, and went to bed at eight." Doesn't make for good reading. Yea, I think this is like TheEgoist's point. I wonder what Galt's life was like while he was working on the railroad. I wonder what Ragnar's life is like on the high seas. We get to see a lot of Francisco's life, but only because he appeared to be acting irrationally and seemed to have deep psychological issues. When we see him as he really is, he's sitting on the floor of his hotel suite studying engineering plans. I wonder what everyone's life was like once they reached Galt's Gulch. You certainly couldn't have a story about that! Ruthlessly rational individuals trading voluntarily with each other?!

But part of your life, part of your production, is forcibly taken from you for the benefit of others. This isn't any different from nearly killing yourself in order to keep the railroads running, is it? As to alternatives, I imagine the only proposal which wouldn't be self-sacrificial would be a voluntary tax system. Other than trying to get the government to spend more on our particular projects, don't we simply accept taxes - even while trying to get people to put the gun down while not getting ourselves locked up? I mean, we know they're morally wrong, yet we pay them anyway. We compromise: I'll pay the taxes, just don't lock me up.

I think I understand your point, softwareNerd, but morality didn't end for Galt then. He maintained his moral principles by establishing Galt's Gulch and gettin' outta' Dodge. His denial to compromise was a driving point of the last part of the book.

As a wannabe writer I've been kicking around the idea of a rational, and rationally moral, main character. I'm not sure such a character would be very interesting. Yes, John Galt was interesting, but he wasn't really a main character. We didn't get to see his day-to-day life, and he only really showed up when things needed explaining. Howard Roark was a main character, but he also wasn't really driving the story. Rand used the pathos and irrationality of the other characters to explicate Roark; we never really got to see inside Roark. The main characters we find interesting are the ones who have some sort of problem they need to sort out, and the more interesting problems are problems of the psyche. I'm under the impression that a rational, and rationally moral character wouldn't have any psychological problems. They'd have already been through their issues, would've come to rational conclusions, and would be certainly self-assured enough to handle any problem quite easily. It's the inner turmoil that's interesting, but this character, by definition, would seem to lack any inner turmoil. The most interesting characters are flawed, but what flaws would you give a rational one?

First, some quotes: Source If you pay taxes in the US (and, I imagine, anywhere else), then you live for the sake of other men. A significant portion of your taxes support those who do not produce. Why? If you don't, you'll quite probably be put in jail. Is this not a compromise of our principles? By choosing to continue paying taxes simply because we wish to avoid jail constitute a pragmatic argument rather than a rational, moral choice? Or, can we justify this continued use of our productive minds and bodies as a rational and moral choice in that no rational person would choose jail over even limited freedom?

His methodology doesn't justify his conclusions. He takes a very small sample size, then projects that onto everyone. Consider the Bill Gates example. If I recall the book correctly, there were something like eight other people in his club who could use the computer - what happened to them? He also looks at people who've been successful in computer technology and notes they were all born within certain years ('54-'57, I think). His premise being that these people had an advantage because they were just the right age to take advantage of the new technology. Well, what about the millions of others born between '54 and '57? His opening argument (hocky players get good because they're born late in the year) has some merit, but as in all the other cases he ignores the very simple fact that these were still individuals, taking individual action, making their own individual choices, and deciding on their own to pursue opportunities. Opportunities surround everyone, all the time, and it is only the individual who takes advantage of them. I enjoyed "Blink," but I wasn't at all impressed with this.

Based on what standard? I think you did a pretty good job.

Damn! So it was. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I shouldn't have drank that whole bottle of cough syrup! Sorry, Jake! Good post.

Thanks for the detailed post (above), Rachel.

Jake - I'm not sure if it's just me, or if you treat everyone like they're retarded infants. Whatever it is, your insolent manner of writing drains any desire I have to reply to you. I've tried to maintain my composure through your repeated implied and explicit insults because I wanted to understand your position, but you can't teach it, so you have nothing to teach, so I have nothing to learn. This will be my final reply to you. No, Jake, the same definition I've been using from the beginning. And this definition is not materially different from y Feldblum's definition. Now, who's changing definitions. Have you, at any other time, explained that the name "stooge" is collectively owned? No, you haven't. Regardless, why would you be upset with Larry printing them off? He owns the name too, right? Are you going to deny Larry the right to use his intellectual property? We're not all merchants, are we? In fact, very few of us are merchants. Yes, we could barter for everything. If trade were impossible without money, then we never would've begun trading in the first place. Trade came before money. It's interesting you consider barter impossible here, yet in post #108 you seem ready to jump on the barter bandwagon with both feet. And in post #117 you explicitly state you can get "most goods and services" for a bottle of wine "with relative ease." I suppose that's not barter, eh? I have no idea what this rant is about, nor how it applies to what I wrote. Yea, it's magic, Jake. We can drop the "should" part? Really? Tell ya' what, do a little experiment, go out and ask 10 random people on the street how fractional reserve banking works. Let me know how many reply with more than a blank stare. Guess HD is SOL, eh? The idiots should've known that there was no way they were going to get paid. Oh, wait, I've got that wrong. They know, but they do it anyway. Got it.

I think I see where Jake is coming from then. Two things come to mind: 1) We're not forced to use dollars, though merchants are forced to accept dollars. As CF's example demonstrates, we could barter for everything. It makes trade a lot more complicated, but it can be done. I suppose the question then becomes, "If no one is using dollars because they choose not to, is it still money?" The answer would have to be, "No." Therefore, printing off more dollar bills wouldn't inflate the money supply. But would people really stop using dollars? I'm not convinced they would. Having a standard money makes trade easier, and I think people would opt for the most efficient method of trading. So then I suppose the question is, "Well, if they choose to keep using dollars as money, and they know the government is just printing off dollars, inflating the money supply, and devaluing their dollars, then it can't be fraud, it can't be theft." True, if they know, but how many people actually understand what happens when the government continually prints off money? "Well, they should know. Ignorance is no excuse for a rational life." Well, true again, but.... [blank out]. Seriously, I can't come up with an answer. I suppose the only thing a rational person could do is stop using dollars. Why don't we? Why do we allow the government to devalue our wealth? 2) I'm still stuck on the fact that the same dollar can be loaned out and simultaneously used to buy goods and services. I'll go back to a previous example: If I deposit $100 in the bank, the bank could loan 90 of those dollars out and I can go write checks representing all of those dollars. If the money is loaned to Jim, and Jim and I both spend our money at Home Depot, what happens when Home Depot goes to collect? It has sales of $190, but can only collect 100 of those dollars. Has Home Depot not been defrauded? Yes, it chose to accept the check from me, but only because I (in effect) attested that that money existed in the bank. For all intents and purposes, I do believe that money is in the bank. Am I defrauding HD if I know my bank loans out 90% of its deposits? Is my bank defrauding me into believing I can write checks on that money? Are none of us defrauded because we should all know how fractional banking works, and that HD might not get the whole $190?

It's really just Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, but with a few digressions and the addition of ontology. I'm curious whether the digressions he makes are valid, as well as his ontology. For example, he argues against the Objectivist view of perception in this article. Near as I can tell, he makes no logical errors, but he's the first to claim what he's written isn't Objectivism.

As long as those Stooges aren't easily and readily accepted for most goods and services, I don't have a problem with them. Now, let me ask you a question: It's just you, Larry, and Moe using these Stooges, would you have a problem with Larry printing off a bunch of them and giving them to you and Moe in exchange for your goods and services? I don't thing so. Are you arguing that if the government didn't force us to use dollar bills, then printing more dollar bills wouldn't inflate the money supply? I'm afraid I don't see the similarity. Can you be more clear? I agree. I thought I made that clear.

Jake - y Feldblum answered what I would've answered, but I'd like to clarify. I don't decide what money is, those who use money decide what money is. Money is anything which can easily and reliably be exchanged for most other goods and services. I doubt Capitalism_Forever would be able to exchange bottles of wine for much of anything else, much less most other goods and services. Wine, since it is not accepted reliably for most other goods and services, is not money in our society. Does that mean wine cannot be money? No, it doesn't. If most everyone starts desiring wine, for whatever reason, then wine might become money and easily and reliably exchanged for other goods and services. As I stated some time ago, cows and sheep have even been money. At one time in our relatively recent history, tobacco was money. Capitalism Forever - I understand you didn't argue barter was money, and I understand your point that it would decrease the demand for money. However, my argument is not that the inflation of the money supply causes an increase in prices and is therefore immoral. My argument is that increasing the money supply without productivity causes an increase in prices, and is therefore immoral. If you exchange wine for courier services you are exchanging productivity for productivity - someone produced the wine, someone produces (performs) the service. There's no reason to believe prices in terms of wealth will increase simply because there is a lower demand for money. Prices might increase in relation to whatever is being used as money, but there's no reason to believe prices will increase in relation to wealth. For example: suppose you have 100 dollar bills and 6 bottles of wine. Let's further assume the total value of your wine is also 100 dollars. With your 100 dollars, you can buy 2 books. With your wine, you can buy nothing. Now, let's assume everyone starts accepting wine as money, what will happen? Well, demand for dollars goes down, because everyone wants wine. You go to your local bookstore to buy those 2 books, but now the price is 100 dollar bills for each book, or 6 bottles of wine for both. Has your wealth gone down? No. If anything, your wealth has gone up. Where you could only buy 2 books with your 100 dollar bills before, you can now buy 4 books using both your 100 dollar bills and your 6 bottles of wine. I didn't mean to sound dismissive in my reply to you, but your question doesn't really speak to my argument. I have a problem with increasing the money supply without increasing the productivity, the wealth, of the economy. When the government prints off bills it's not adding anything to the economy's wealth. Yes, there's some productivity because special paper and inks need to be produced, and people are employed to print them, but these increases to productivity are dwarfed by the quantity of money added to the system - there's virtually no difference in added productivity when the government prints $1 bills versus $100 bills, so the larger the bills the more disproportionate the relation between added productivity and increased money supply. The result of printing all this money, without increasing the productivity of the economy, is to destroy the wealth of those who hold dollar bills. That is theft. That is immoral.