Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


2046 last won the day on February 13

2046 had the most liked content!

About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8149 profile views
  1. Could also be "The Fascist New Frontier," originally planned as a standalone book, but rejected by the publisher, later delivered as a talk and published in the Ayn Rand Column: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-fascist-new-frontier/ Also see p. 359ff in the Wiley-Blackwell Companion for analysis from Lewis and Salmieri.
  2. Have you talked to a "muh IQ and culture" conservative?
  3. Well yeah, we'd all love to read a scholarly essay from Rand on a lot of things, but that is not going to be available to you. Compatibilism could look something like Rand's position in the following way: what most people mean by "determinism" (in the ordinarily held belief set "determinism is true") is just that "things have causes." They don't happen randomly, or magically. They "obey laws" or act orderly. In that sense, free will is something compatible with "determinism construed as things having causes." Generally, at the level this concern is presented, it is when the person has reached a certain level of reflection about nature and causality and it's relation to choice. But you're right that compatibilist views have, historically, rested on shifting the meaning of "free" to modal notions about our power or ability to bring things about, and the absence of restraints on those powers. Additionally the classical compatibilists tended to conceptualize "determinism" in a stricter way than I just did above, but in the sense of "necessary due to things that are not up to us." In that sense, Rand's position has nothing in common with compatibilism. Rand's position seems to entail not merely that we faced no constraints on our power or ability to do otherwise if we desired, but that we have an agent-causal power to direct our consciousness that is ontologically irreducible to event-causation alone (her "focus theory.") But if you're looking for some in depth informational resource: there isn't any. Rand's philosophy is underdeveloped on this point.
  4. But there is an important incongruence between the model of reason as calculation (as in, say, Hobbes) and other theories of mental activity. Nobody actually thinks like that. We don't go "I value this person n¹ units, and that thing n² units, therefore I will do x." That attributes a kind of incommensurable quantification of persons, things, actions (what unit would even be measured here?), and attributes to people a kind of calculative reasoning people don't normally perform in day to day activities. Sometimes we do calculate things, but part of what makes being a sociopath deficient in some way is that they are unable to see things in non-binary terms.
  5. But like, what "discovery of true principles" is Hazony responsible for? Is it "there should not be one world government"? Well that's hardly a new discovery or even well-argued for here. Liberal philosophers who argued that states should be rationally created and answerable to tthe people argued for the kind of civic nationalism Eiuol is talking about. Conservative nationalists often historically have been responsible for centralizing power and decreasing the number of states. Liberals in Germany argued against the creation of a pan-German state and for the hundreds of free states and princely states before they were crushed violently by the conservative nationalist Bismarck, who believed there should be one single German state owing precisely to "unchosen obligations" of "clan and tribe." You know, those things that Hazony likes. And so on with American colonists. Ludwig von Mises argued in 1919 (Nation, State, and Econony) against imperialism and for "national self-determination." He applied his argument to the peaceful break up of Austria-Hungary "by freely conducted plebiscite." He replicated this same argument for national self-determination in 1929's Liberalism. Yet Hazony is the first one to discover "we shouldn't have one works government"? Ok boomer. Hazony says Mises supports one world government and is an imperialist. Is that honest, to you? Is that okay, too? Also that's not even how the concept of rights developed. Aristotle gave a completely secular argument for private property in the Politics. The Stoics developed rights out of applying Roman law to the law of foreigners and slaves. Aquinas developed the right of private property and secular government as the human law, while being a subset of divine law, pertains to earthly matters and is discoverable by reason alone. Pufendorf and Grotius developed secular natural rights out of applying international law and the merchant law to individuals. Locke uses divine voluntarism largely as a deus ex machina to provide punishment for his ethical hedonism, but that is not necessary in politics since there is civil punishment. The US founders developed rights out of applying British rights to colonists, and developing Locke and Thomas Reid. In short, no you're wrong on nearly everything.
  6. That argument is ambiguous. It's not at least, as you post it, a straightforward syllogism. 1. Because volition (free will) exists 2. Therefore it is immoral to X The best you could say about that is that there are suppressed premises contained in there that need to be fleshed out. If the argument is something like 1. Volition (free will) means I am not externally forced to choose specific choices. 2. Choosing one's political system is a choice. 3. Since people have volition, 5. it is immoral to impose an alien political system by force. That just doesn't follow, because it commits the fallacy of equivocation between metaphysical freedom and political freedom. Of course you can forcibly impose individual rights on anyone. That just straightforwardly deductively follows from concept of rights itself. If it means they won't voluntarily support the political system because it's being forced on them, well so what? Whether or not someone voluntarily chooses to support something is just different from whether or not I may impose it on them. If it means you can't force someone to be a part of a political association they don't consent to, well that's going to be problematic with your rejection of consent.
  7. Onkar and GSal take on the "dishonest huckster" Hazony on the Enlightenment and political philosophy
  8. Indeed. The premise seems to be predicated on the idea that the people who are being irrational are somehow rivals to the people who are being rational in some unmentioned way over some unmentioned thing, rather than just being ballast. I'm not here making an argument for either view, but just pointing out that no one in this thread has even made an argument for the former over the latter, which was one of the main points of Atlas Shrugged.
  9. Umm what? You do realize that Sowell passage is affirming the same point Rand is making about political philosophers premises leading to certain conclusions?
  10. Well let's hope they don't "behave like Objectivists" because most people running calling themselves that are dumb as hell. But it's not really clear what the question is. There's like 5 or 6 different questions in there. One thing is, it doesn't really follow from "the world is nothing like X, and never has been" to "mankind can never achieve X." That's just bad reasoning. It's not really clear what we're supposed to be inferring here. It's also not really valid to use a premise about how many people are rational or irrational from the armchair. Unless you're just speaking anecdotally, you're going to need some social science research. Industrial societies haven't been around that long. Individualism is still pretty widespread. More people are being lifted out of poverty and ignorance than ever. There was once a time when all "great" countries were monarchies. There was once a time when slavery was widespread in every country. The Soviet Union used to control half of Europe. What got these things to change was, partially, people changing their ideas and seeing what worked and didn't work. I mean if we're going to say everyone is just in principle irrational and can do no other, then no political philosophy is going to be acceptable. Another approach would be to figure out why people believe what they believe, and do the things they do, and try to then account for that, and that's part of what we do in political philosophy and poli sci, economics, etc.: Finding workable solutions to political problems that takes into account what human beings are actually like and what motivates them. But overall, I mean, modern democratic liberalism is pretty good as a political system, if you ask "compared to what" in human history. Markets and peaceful cooperation brought about by liberalism didn't happen by an absolute monistic conception of politics that the Western world overnight suddenly read a single book and then decided to adopt. Liberal institutional arrangements are themselves spontaneous order mechanism that facilitate discovery processes to the things that make human flourishing possible. And things change on the margin, little by little, for the most part. You're not going to beat people over the head with Atlas Shrugged, silly.
  11. Whether it's a defense or a brand-association, what you're saying literally isn't coherent. Adam Smith's "brand" of capitalism has as one of its main planks the principle of free trade. That's literally one of the main points of his book. So it's not clear how name dropping Smith is supposed to to function as a brand-association with Trump, rather than a brand-disassociation. As far as Smith's moral arguments, which specific ones? My guess is you haven't ever read him and don't know what you're talking about. As far as not knowing how Smith would react to hostile tariffs from other nations, we don't have to wonder because he specifically addresses that in 4.II that the principle of revenge or retaliation can be employed to justify tariffs against a foreign country that has employed them against Britain. So again, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about and haven't cracked the first Adam Smith book, and should probably not try to name drop stuff you haven't read.
  12. Oh Eiuol I'm sure they're fine with all illegal immigrants that don't try to fraudulently get welfare, then, and totally won't all of a sudden manifest some new goalpost to shift to.
  13. Not to mention that one of the main points of Smith's economic work is in free trade and against what he called mercantilism, so it's not exactly clear how name dropping Smith is supposed to work in order to be a defense of Trump.
  • Create New...