hernan

http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/broader-relevance-ayn-rand-society-710110757

http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/full-blown-capitalism-shrugged-socialist-hybrids-1687446122 http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/seven-pillars-saxo-banks-strength-714136861 http://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/broader-relevance-ayn-rand-society-710110757

I don't claim that it is a complete picture but I think it is a good place to start. You can think of it this way: the sacrificers are funding the looters not only to loot the sacrificers but also those who withdraw sanction. In fact, as you probably realize, the sacrificers will be only too happy to sic the looters on those who would withdraw sanction, even if only verbally. One problem I have with Spiral Architect's plan, other than it's conventionality, is that relying as it does upon a mass movement there is no way for individuals to experience individual gain by withdrawing ttheir sanction. Essentially, his model is the classic tragedy of the commons and with the predictable result. Yes, your points are all well taken and perhaps we can do no better than to educate our fellow man. Now obviously Atlas Shruggeed is fiction. But I think Rand was onto something that merits further consideration and thought.

I read recently that Marx was not the actual inventor of Communism, that he got the idea from the French communes; it was an era of socialistic thought. And my praise of Marx' brilliance was intended very narrowly. We could spend all day picking apart Communism and it's various ideological cousins. Instead, let's focus on that single idea: that one's private property depends on the sanction of one's neighbors. Or, more simply, people are vulnerable. Because people are vulnerable they can be bullied. Remember Galt's Gulch. It was a fictional construction with a particular character: it was a sanctuary, immune to the bullying of the looters. I read now and then of simlarly fanciful ideas such as seasteading. If only we could wall out the evil ones. But we can't. But is it really so asymetric? Is it really the case that makers are at the mercy of the looters? Atlas Shrugged suggested not. Yes, in the end, Jim goes nuts. But is that really life or just the easy justice of romantic fiction? I ran across this interesting article about a study: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-23/how-to-be-happy.html In essence, it suggests that up to a certain point, people only care about surviving. But beyond some point their happiness depends upon earning what they have. But there are three probelms with this: 1) There doesn't seem to be any evidence of satiation of taking in modern society. I cited previously another article that quoted Touqville which suggested that the more egalitarian a soceity, the more intolerant it becomes of inequality. Relatedly, 2) society has amply furnished the levelers with an entitlement philosophy that seems sufficient to their needs. People feel genuinely entitled to what they take. And finally, 3) this entitlement philosophy is aided by the mechanism of the state which seperates the taking from the giving. People might feel squimish about mugging their neighbor but feeding at the public trough is santized of blood.

I can appreciate that there are some who live a miserable existene because they have sacrificed their minds to others, they believe what they are told to believe, do what they are told to do, value themselves in proportio to their conformance to the expectations of others. And there are those who live upon others in a predatory (as opposed to constructive) way. It is, however, unclear to me that these are the same people. In fact, I would argue that the two exist in a symbiotic relationship, the later feeding on the former. This is one reason why I thought Rand was onto something with her "sanction of the victim" theory. Good things happen to bad people who manaage to convince others to sacrifice for them. In some very loose sense at least, the sacrificers are sanctioning their oppressors. But I don't think it's that simple for reasons I have cited previously. It's not enough to choose not to be among the sacrificers nor is it reasonable to use the term "sanction of the victim" to include circumstances beyond the control of the victim.

I'm not sure what situation you are referring to but what I found brilliant from Marx was his observation that factory owners relied on respect for their property. In a loose sense, he told workers to withdraw their sanction of ownership of property. I imagine Rand to be the anti-Marx but it doesn't seem her concept of the sanction of the victim is as practical.

So tell me how skateboarders stop the motor of the world. I think the most reasonable inference is that "sanction of the victim" is not a guiding principle or a grand theme but simply part of the fictional setting. Pity.

Right, but where property rights claims and the ability to defend property rights diverge theft becomes normal, even profitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Let's set aside the fortuitous circumstances (your girlfriend, that people listen to you, etc.) and focus simply on this: what does the term "withdrawal of sanction of the victim" add to the above? If you had simply outlined the above plan as a method for freeing yourself (and others) from the IRS it is at lease plausible. But what did the "sanction of the victim" contribute to the explanation? (And, note, we could as easliy invent a story that liberates a slave population (see e.g. Exodus) or a population from Communism (see e.g. the fall of the Berlin Wall).) I noted before that a story that rests on populism is not very interesting. That's old-school politics. What made Rand's story so interesting was that it entailed so few people going on strike. People were not persuaded by Galt's speech. Any plan which rests on perduading a significant number of people that the IRS is evil and that they should, in some coordinated fashion, obstruct it, is just not realistic. Is that too pessimistic?

We all exist through or by other people. That is a fact of life. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. We are literally brought into existence, birthed, by others. Worse, as I noted, our possession of property is quite dependent upon the indulgence of others. You enjoy your house only so long as your neighbors don't burn it down. Marx was brilliant in noticing this. When good things happen to bad people is it merely luck? Is it merely a short-term advantage to be lost in the longer term? That's hardly obvious. Slavery existed throughout the ancient world probably from prehistory for mellinnia. Has there ever been a society without taxes? Now the argument of pride I think has some merit though even there I think you understimate the self satisfaction of looters. It's probably true that those who build have more pride and life satisfaction than those who steal for themselves but it's hard not the escape the impression that those who live by theft are not nearly as distrought as we might imagine and those who gain power by stealing from some to give to others seem to be quite impressed with themselves.

So tell us how you withdraw your sanction of the IRS? I submit that the cases where the withdrawal of sanction is applicable are negligable. If we are going to entertain what it means to withdraw sanction let's begin with what it means to sanction. What does it mean to you if someone sanctions the IRS? How, then, is withdrawing that sanction going to relieve them of being a victim of it?

Let me note the points of agreement and the proceed to the points of disagreement. I agree that context matters. I agree that there exist contexts where a mere withdrawal of sanction is sufficient (I previusly gave the example of Rearden and his wife and family). It is right to ask what is "sanction of the victim". I read that term as meaning some choice that the individual makes. In the example of Rearden and his wife and family, he was choosing to allow himself to be impresoned by them. Once he realized this he was able to choose differently. Their power over him rested on his sanction alone. However, defining sanction of the victim as you have seems absurd for the reason I noted previously. Better, I think, to say, as you seem now to imply, that in some situations a victim can gain his freedom by withdrawing sanction and recognize that this is not the general case. The examples of slavery, then, is not invalid. It is simply an example of a situation where sanction of the victim does not explain and thus withdrawal of sanction is useless. As for being "too late" in some situation, this is also pretty useless. When has society ever been without taxation, for example? When have the makers ever been free of takers? It would be more useful to inquire as to resolution in any actual situation or in the most dire situations (e.g. slavery or full blown statism). Did Rand really have nothing useful to offer to those living under Communism, for example? If you can answer the worst or the general case then you can answer the easier cases. If you can only answer the easy cases then, well, so what? Perhaps I expected too much from Rand's explanation but, if so, I am not alone. See e.g. the second post in this thread.

Well, the "if enough people" agument was addressed in this thead alrady but it's worth revisiting. (Also note that I am aware that Atlas Shruggedis a work of fiction with a particular given set of circumstances, I pointed that out as well earlier. The question here is whether it is merely fiction and, if not, what conclusions we can draw about life from it.) Let's look closely at your last point, which I will repeat with "it" replaced by what I presume it to represent in order to clarify your words: "Sometimes [a victim withdrawing sanction] requires an impeccably-timed orchestration of a single genius who offers his fellow victims a specific way out." This expands the meaning of the phrase to meaninglessness. If my withdrawal of sanction depends on the actions of John Galt and the coordinated activities of dozens of others then it's not very meaningful. I am not, in that case, a victim merely because I am sanctioning my oppressors but because some external chain of events has yet to transpire. Returning to the example of slavery, it's like saying that slaves sanction their enslavement because they have not been liberated yet.

Then the answer to the original question is pretty simple: Good things happen to bad people when good people make property or other rights claims that they are unable (or unwilling) to enforce. Bad people simply take advantage of the unrealisitic claims made by good people. I think Rand addresses the unwilling part of this with her concept of the sanction of the victim but not the unable part.

Obviously I was being loose with terms but I think you get the right idea. One cannot address the question without also addresing the question of desert and power. Let me try to address this with a few examples. Would you say that someone who left their wallet laying on their front porch deserved the money it contained? Or someone who left their doors unlocked deserved the flatscreen tv in their living room? Is not the failure to safeguard one's possessions a form of sanctioning the thief? When, then, is taking by force, or the threat of force, immoral? Clearly there are those who enjoy the fruits of force. We might agree that society is poorer overall for their choice but I think it's not reasonable to say that those who use force to enrich themselves are never the better for it. In the most innocuous example, a starving man who steals a loaf of bread lives another day. The reality is that we are all quite vulnerable to thievery of various forms. That is the human condition. In a crude sense, government represents the most honest thief. To the extent that paying taxes is voluntary (choke, choke) it is because the alternative would be worse. The makers tolerate the theirvery of the takers because they must. One of the most interesting scenes in Atlas Shrugged was when Rearden was confronted by Jim Tagger and his political gang and he realized that they were counting on him to work in spite their openly professed intention to nationalize his enterprise. In his case, it was a pretty easy choice to opt out given the obvious ruin he faced but in real life we are all better off to just grit our teeth and pay our taxes.

Inequality is a perenial subject but it has grown especially hot since Obama's election. Many have tried to connect the misery of the poor and declining middle class to inequality. I don't think we need to waste time rehashing those tired arguments in spite of the fact that they are widely held. Instead, I'd like to raise another related issue: the paradox of Marxism. There was an excellent opinion article in the WSJ that quoted Alexis de Tocqueville against Obama thus: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304591604579290350851300782 What interests me is this: How can the weak lower the powerful? As I noted originally, Rand's theory was the "sanction of the victim." But this explanation is, I believe, inadequate. Yes, there may be some situations where this holds true and it may well be part of the problem in every case but it cannot alone resolve the paradox. Now it is probalby true that the powerful can abdicate to the weak or that the mere focus by the weak on lowering the powerful is, itself, problematic and immoral quite apart from the failure to achieve it's aims. And it's also the case that moral certainty (whether correct or incorrect) is powerful; those who lack moral confidence are more apt to subject themselves to those who are more courageous. But, generally speaking, to talk of the institutions of the state as an exercise of the weak against the powerful is absurd on it's face. Let me put the question in more tangible form: Can you be said to own property if your ownership of said property is subject to the whim of others? Is it your income if it can be taxed away at the will of others? Now it is certainly true that power shifts over time for various reasons. Those who were weak may become strong and vice versa. And relative wealth and power varies over time though never as much as some imagine.

I took a look at that but it doesn't appeal to me. I've noted before the dearth of Atlas Shrugged-type novels by which I mean stories that portray heroic capitalism. One can certainly find some great biographies of industrialists and entrepreneurs and there are certainly many fictional stories that revolve around business almost always portraying the businesman as villian. But for some reason Rand's story stands out uniquely absent a wider genre.

I think Rand is very ambiguous on this point and I've had countless debates on this with other readers. The quote i cited in the OP is one that seemed pretty hard. There are, as you cited, examples of generosity and benevolence. But what I remember is that some of the most awkward and artificial dialog consisted of her justifying these examples. I can't swear she did it every time but it was common. Her definitions are very precise but they don't always fit well with how words are commonly used. I've been in plenty of arguments about whether are genuinely altruistic even when they try to be.

I want to be careful because I do not mean to disagree with what you are saying. Rather, I wish to acknowledge your points and move the conversation elsewhere. So, yes, it is useful to consider extremes. Let us acknowledge the pathology of self-sacrifice and altruism at those extremes. In the common world, though, I doubt you will find any genuine altruists though you'll find many posing as such if only to win brownie points. Trust, too, can obviously be taken to absurd extremes. Commonly over-trusting is probably a bigger problem than over-altruism. Although I comlained above about untrusting paranoids I've also seem my share of overtrusting fools.

This is really want I want to focus on here. The cited passage (and the sign over Galt's power station) seem to express something harder than mere judgement about long term mutual benefit. The fact that Galt felt the need to explain wives and children certainly reflects this. (I think I noted elsewhere in these forums that Objectivists tend to have much smaller families than average, if they marry at all.)

I read Galt's Gulch as Randian Heaven though there were some rules peculiar to the circumstances such as the one month vacation. My reading is that this is a general moral claim, that people ought not have dependents who don't pay their way. Am I misreading it?

Yeah, risk is probably a good way to conceptualize it. So Rand is not condemning risk taking in human relations. But I would go further: in many if not most social situations the upside opportunity is far greater than the downside risk; risk is frequently asymetrical. That part didn't concern me, though it is interesting. I was focusing on the rest, that it would be verboten to "provide unearned sustenance." That sounds pretty hard.

I think you make some good points here but, again, I think we need to avoid fixating on the extreme and missing the most common situations. Surely Rand is not condeming trust. We would not get very far in life without trusting others. But when does trust cross the line to blind obedience to authority? One reason that this interests me is that I do meet people who will not act without certainty of profit and it is my experience that they tend to live impoverished lives.

Good example, thank you, The quoted passage implied a lot more rigidity. There is a big gulf between sacrifice as she defines it and certainty of beneficial trade.