Wayne
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wayne
-
-
I must apologize. I did not mean to denigrate Objectivists. I follow some people who call themselves Objectivists, for example on Twitter, who I think have an unreasonable or excessive -- even obsessive -- dislike of Trump. There is much to criticize but he has some good qualities.
But I agree with Objectivism and what Objectivists say. I have some minor disagreements with some issues but I believe Objectivism as a philosophy is sound.
Concerning open borders and immigration and Sowell's concerns -- as is usually the case, the conversation is not about the same thing. No one is against immigration -- even opening up more immigration. Of course, many immigrants understand American political philosophy but many do not. America of course cannot have a political litmus test of who is allowed to immigrate. I don't know what the answer is. But I continue to have concerns about a completely open border. Binswanger, et. al. say that new immigrants should not get entitlements or be allowed to vote. But this ignores practical realities.
-
I have come to the conclusion that Objectivists are nutty. I have been following Objectivists for a long time. I have tried to make sense of some of their positions and have concluded that there IS no sense to them.
To wit:
Open borders even if that would destroy America.
Elect Democrats. They would destroy America and out of the ashes Capitalism would be reborn like in Atlas Shrugged. It would not happen that way.
Donald Trump is a racist because of Charlottesville and everything else. Wrong.
Trump is an evil dictatorial Nationalist. This is partly true (only partly) in my opinion.
Everyone should be selfish. The dictionary is wrong and people’s conception of what selfishness means is wrong. If someone selfishly takes action that harms other people then it is their problem because they, themselves, are not selfish or rational.
There is much to agree with in Objectivism itself. But Objectivists are another story.
-
The application of a principle involves a context. This is a difference between rationalism and objectivism. If you have a principle of “there should be open borders” then the existential context should be part of what that actually means in practice -- should there be any specific policies enforced by the government concerning border control.
I agree that “open borders” is a valid principle. If the predominant political principle of individual rights is respected world-wide, then borders would be largely irrelevant.
But, there are some contextual details that should be considered relevant to US border policy.
-
There are diseases that have been eradicated in the US that exist in other countries.
-
There are gangs, criminals and terrorists that have reason to come into the US.
-
The US provides programs including health-care, education and welfare that immigrants take advantage of -- paid for by taxpayers.
-
Political philosophy shifts.
Number 4 -- there are historical (to get some empirical context), instances of cultures being overrun by other cultures -- by war or other demographic movement. The change in culture could include a change in political philosophy.
America’s political system is still greatly influenced by its founding principles of individual rights. But this is eroding because of its philosophic base being abandoned by the elites -- educators, politicians, etc. But the other factor is the immigration of many people who do not know or care about what America’s founding principles are. Of course, most of them want to work and that is good. But they will vote for people who promise entitlements. It takes education, particularly in principles, to know that entitlement programs are not right and will ultimately do harm. Yes, it is true that many immigrants embrace American’s political principles; but more do not.
An Objectivist might counter that new immigrants should not be allowed to vote or receive entitlements. But, this is the whole issue. Currently, they WILL get entitlements and it is easy enough for them to eventually vote. Again, this is rationalism and not objectivism.
Look at California as an example. It used to be reliably Republican; Republicans could get elected as governors and federal offices. Now, things are completely changed. It is probably now impossible to have a Republican governor or senator. It is because of changes in political views of the people. And the fact is that most immigrants will vote Democrat.
Many American people are legitimately concerned about these issues. They understand, at least implicitly, that we are in danger of losing the America that we have known. It is not racism.
Does immigration really affect demographics significantly? If there are 330 million people and 1 million immigrants per year, does it really affect America politics significantly? Well, we need to think long term. If the border was open, what would happen? Immigration and border policy needs to consider such questions.
Limiting immigration to preserve culture (meaning the dominant political philosophy) is anathema to the principle of individual rights. Or is it? We need to think in terms of principles. A citizen expects to live in a free country. A large contingent of voters voting away his rights is infringing on his rights.
-
-
What many people ascribe to racial difference are really cultural. One culture may have different values concerning education or life ambitions, such as working hard early in life to create long term values. This would also include attitudes towards working. If people in a culture generally believe that working necessarily involves employer exploitation, that would greatly influence to the attainment of long term goals. Thus different cultures have different levels of prosperity in the same geographical region.
But don’t confuse that with race. Of course, when we are talking about culture, most of the time there is a racial component. But that does not imply intellectual differences by race. Speaking of Thomas Sowell, he wrote a book on this subject. He notes differences in IQ levels over time in the same culture. A hundred years ago a particular racial group had different attitudes, income levels, IQ scores than they do now.
Of course there are many differences between races and not just skin color. Some races may be taller or have different musculature. This of course has no moral significance. But I do not believe there is any evidence or reason to believe any inherent difference in intelligence among different races.
-
I am not sure that Ayn Rand ever stressed "The right to the pursuit happiness" given that the right to life is the fundamental right. The rights to liberty and property as you say are necessary for the right to life. Jefferson revised Locke's right to property to the right to the pursuit of happiness. I don't know if he or anyone elucidated on his rationale for this. I would say that the right to the pursuit of happiness is a wider concept from the right to property in that it includes the such things as the right to free associations, free speech, pursuit of leisure activities, etc. that are not specifically property.
Notice that the Declaration of Independence says the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness. No one can declare that they have a right to certain things because they are necessary for their happiness. It begs the question of what defines happiness. I would say that happiness is a consequence of confidently being able to pursue one's life and rationally defined values. I think Peikoff discusses this in his book.
-
Thanks JASKN. I completely agree with you. I am going to think about this some more.
-
On 7/25/2017 at 9:22 AM, Szalapski said:
In TVoS 10, in response to the question, "In a Objectivist society, what will happen to the poor?", Rand cites Barbara Branden approvingly saying, "If *you* want to help them, you will not be stopped."
I have always been uncomfortable with the statement 'If *you* want to help *them*, *you* will not be stopped.' To put the statement another way: 'We would want to stop you but we would not.' Isn't this a rather rude, dismissive and mean-spirited attitude?
When talking about the poor, it is a floating abstraction with platitudes such as 'We have do do something about the poor'. Or, 'We must evaluate a society by how it treats its poor'.
It is important to break down what is meant by the poor. There are many reasons or categories of poor. What people really mean by the poor is one way or another 'victims of society'. As Objectivism correctly holds, there are very view actual victims other than victims of specific actions by other people such as robbery or bodily harm. But anyone caught in a social cycle of poverty is in principle capable of overcoming their situation and thus are morally responsible for their own well-being. For example, welfare mothers caught in bureaucratic poverty. Or, inner city youths caught in poor schools and lack of employment opportunities.
But there are also people who are not morally culpable for their poverty through illness or accident. There are also people who willingly choose destitution as a way of life.
So, taking such a blanket dismissive attitude towards the *poor* reflects a lack of judgment and context which in my opinion is not objective.
Would we not encourage those caught in a vicious cycle of poverty to work their way out of it? Not out of altruism but in the name of benevolence and respect for human life. Many people are caught in a trap from which is admittedly very difficult to overcome. It takes education, time, patience and encouragement.
But this leads to the question of the meaning of *selfishness*. People have sincerely asked why Objectivists use the word selfish when it is clear (to the asker) that it has a negative connotation, that is, acting without regard for the values of other people. The Objectivist would answer that that is exactly what we mean. For truly selfish people, their are no inherent conflicts and that acting *selfishly* is a virtue. I personally think this an over-simplification and can lead to personal disaster -- even for 'rational' people.
I once loaned my copy of TVoS to an acquaintance who seemed interested in Objectivism after reading Atlas Shrugged. After returning the book, he seemed to have no more interest. I daresay this scenario has been repeated many times. There are many very informative and reasoned essays in that book. But, a well meaning good hearted person learning that selfishness in Objectivism really does mean the conventional definition could quickly lose interest.
Someone can sincerely question the tenets of Objectivism and find what they think are flaws. I agree that there is much the *official* Objectivist literature that could benefit from reasoned criticism and response from those interested. (Perhaps this process has been gaining momentum.) I believe Ayn Rand is an historical figure along with seminal figures such as Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Locke, etc. But we need to carefully distinguish between objectivism as an approach to philosophy versus Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand.
I think that most people who only have a passing understanding of Objectivism only know it as advocating 'selfishness' and 'unbridled' capitalism. I don't mean to imply to 'soften' Objectivism but to stress its advocacy for life, rationality, benevolence and prosperity. I personally wish there were more heroic fiction along such lines. Fiction can have a greater cultural impact than non-fiction.
-
Many objectivists say that they would vote for Obama over a candidate like Santorum. If I remember correctly, many or most Objectivists stated that they would rather vote for John Kerry or Al Gore over George Bush. The common thread is that Santorum and Bush are acknowledged Christians.
Ayn Rand characterized the left as "mystics of muscle" and the right as "mystics of spirit." I agree that both the left and the right do not consistently advocate for freedom and that each wants to control those aspects of life that they believe are metaphysically important.
But here we are with the left driving us to economic ruin and the right wanting to outlaw gay marriage and throw people in jail for so-called victimless crimes. It seems like Objectivists care more about gay marriage than the dismal economy. I believe that everyone suffering because of the economy represents the greatest danger. If the economy is in ruins and there is little hope of being corrected in any meaningful way, then life as we know it will not be the same for a long time.
I believe that Objectivists have stated that socialism as a political philosophy is dead and we have more to fear from theocratic philosophy. This is true about Islamism but this is not much of a political concern in America. But here we are with socialism on the ascendency in America and all over the world.
Some people think that Christians in the White House is the first step towards some sort of autocratic theocracy. I just do not see any reason to believe that. The American people still have the Enlightenment view of freedom (at least in general terms) and I do not know of any Christian who thinks or advocates anything remotely like theocracy. Sure they want "social issues" laws passed but that does not imply theocracy.
To the contrary, socialists always encroach upon all freedoms as they gain more power. The fastest road to losing all freedom is socialism and not Christianity.
I do not like many positions of the "social conservatives" but it is better to have people in government who advocate for freedom even if not consistently than socialists. The road to a philosophic revolution towards reason and individualism will take time but will never happen unless people like Obama lose in the elections.
-
Human life is not guaranteed. A successful life requires using one's reason to identify
those things in reality that will nourish one's life and taking those actions necessary
to gain them. These things are values. Basic values of life are food, clothing and
shelter. Other values including family, religious beliefs and recreation satisfy
spiritual needs.
Virtues are values of character. Character reflects a person's commitment to rationality
in relation to reality, other people and his or her own thinking processes. For example,
honesty is the policy of being true to the facts of reality to others and to oneself.
Virtues, like all values, are self-created.
Pride and honor are respect for and acknowledgment of the achievement of one's own
or other people's values. Pride is the recognition of one's own achievement of values.
Honor is the commitment to preserve the mutuality of values in relationships and
organizations. It is never to betray a mutual value and it is not expecting to be
betrayed. It is taking responsibility for one's actions, good or bad. One can see
the greatest expression of honor in the American armed forces. Doing one's chosen
duty involves a life and death commitment to oneself, one's fellow soldiers and one's
country. You can see honor in service men and women in their respect and precision
in the execution of their duties.
Maturation is the process of assuming responsibility for one's own success and happiness
in life. It is getting an education and learning skills needed for providing values
for oneself and one's family. It is developing a work ethic of punctuality and commitment
to excellence. Character as the commitment to values is self created. Children at
various stages of life are dependent upon their parents. A child's growth includes
assuming greater independence. It also includes learning respect for the independence
and values of other people.
Incomplete maturation causes character flaws which can be categorized in different
ways depending on how the maturation failed. These flaws contrast with the independent
man or woman who deals with other people -- and themselves -- with rationality, honor
and respect.
The egotist mentality is a failure of honesty and independence. The egotist attempts
to enhance his or her self worth by trying to create the appearance of intelligence,
education or moral superiority. He or she has a chronic need to impress other people
with exaggerated or invented tales of their background and accomplishments.
Narcissism is a more extreme version of egotism in which the person is militantly
only aware of or concerned with his or her own values.
The cynical mentality is a variant of the egotist or narcissist. The cynic believes
that "Everybody is out for themselves; I have to get what I can." Such concepts as
values and other people's values have no explicit meaning. Such a person may not
overtly harm another, unless they can get away with it without detection or penalty.
Criminality includes a great amount of such cynicism.
The elitist mentality is another variant of the egotist mentality. The elitist believes
himself or herself to be member of the intelligentsia, those people who believe they
are entitled to define and control the ideas and values of a culture. Contrast the
elitist with an authentic intellectual leader who, respecting the mind and values
of the people, uses reason and persuasion rather than arcane language or emotional
appeals.
The demagogic mentality is a more extreme case of the elitist who craves political
power. The demagogue achieves power through intelligence, cleverness and charisma.
The demagogue has elements of the cynic in that he or she does not care about other
people except as pawns in their self-aggrandizement. Having achieved their power,
they will waste no time casting out putative friends and crushing potential rivals.
Perhaps all elitists are potential demagogues but lack the popular appeal to ever
achieve any direct political power. Elitists without such power find themselves to
be the propaganda ministers of the demagogue.
The serf mentality is the opposite of the elitist mentality but is also a failure
of independence. The serf does not feel self-confidence to create his or her values.
Serfdom has two contrasting elements: dependence on others and resentment for that
dependence. In a political context, others are society or the government. A slave
is a serf without actual choice or rights, but the serf is self-entrapped by his
or her own dependence.
The victim mentality is a corollary of the serf mentality with a greater emphasis
on placing blame for one's own weaknesses or failures on other people or society.
The entitlement mentality contrasts with the victim mentality. He or she does not blame others
yet feels entitled to whatever they want from other people.
The serf mentality does not include those people who are truly in need or dependent
through sickness or accident. However, there are people who make many bad decisions
in their lives which make it very difficult for them to sustain themselves. They
then become serfs or victims.
A variant of the serf mentality is the true believer who is morally dependent on
a cause or organization. It is the cause and his or her efforts in service to that
cause that gives the true believer a sense of self worth. Anyone who challenges the
true believer's faith with logic and facts is met with indifference or hostility.
A member of a cult is a more extreme true believer. He or she devotes his or her
entire life to the cause.
The true believer might be motivated by naive idealism, which is the belief in some
doctrine without knowing its full context. This is common in young people, who naively
believe that all personal or social problems can be solved by the one true cause.
The true believer's cause may or may not be just. The cause might be to correct
government policies or social mores that infringe on people's rights. But the problem
with the true believer is subverting their own or other people's values for the sake
of the cause. That is not to say that it is not proper to risk one's values when
fighting for something that is right. Judging the true believer depends on the context.
Is it right or wrong, true or false and does it interfere or promote other people's
rights and values?
The childish mentality forever believes in Santa Claus. He or she believes that the
government can forever bestow bounties on all good citizens. As such, eternal and
universal riches and happiness are possible. The child does not know the adult world
and adult responsibilities. He or she does not know that if one wants something one
has to work for it. Work is not fun and the rewards of work are not always immediate.
The child only knows now, he or she does not know the future.
A variant of the childish mentality is the negative thinker. This is usually more
naïve or innocent. Lacking in their own self confidence and knowledge of the world,
they believe in the power of external forces and constantly believe disasters are
coming. They will grab onto every "chicken little" fad such as imminent global warming
or global famines. Their lives may be boring or they do not believe they are being
"moral enough" so they join their cousins the true believers in fighting for the
latest cause. The negative thinker will bristle at any refutations of their cherished
beliefs. They will use any kind of rationalization to discount any challenges to
their ideas. Good news can even be met with disappointment.
A less innocent version of the negative thinker is the envier with a component of
resentment or hatred of the "good for being the good" (Ayn Rand). Feeling a failure,
such a person will not reconsider their own negative thinking and will feel hatred
towards other successful people. A person who politicizes such attitudes will grow
to hate successful countries or societies. They will want to tear them down.
The rebel mentality is the child who one day realizes that there is no Santa Claus
and he or she hates the fact that he or she has to take responsibility for his or
her life. The rebel rejects conventional standards of right and wrong. As a child,
he or she hated parental limits and requirements and as an adult hates limits and
requirements of a civilized society. Some rebels are true believers and direct
their frustrations toward political causes. They hate authority, the military or
the government (at least the aspects of the government that do not conform to their
ideals). They derive their sense of self value by posturing as David fighting Goliath.
Of course there are legitimate motivations for rebelliousness. Parents or governments
can have unreasonable restrictions and limitations on liberty. The justification
of the rebel's cause must be judged upon what is right and true.
A final character flaw is manifested by the evil mentality which believes in his
or her entitlement to destroy other people's values. This can be a criminal, tyrannical
dictator or terrorist. It can be members of a religion or any ism that believes it
is justifiable to kill people in service to itself.
Examples of evil mentality include the street rioter and angry demonstrator who churlishly
and childishly demand that other people accommodate themselves to their demands.
It also includes the blogger who spews hatred and obscene insults. He or she is one
step away from doing in action what he or she says in words. An evil politician will
engage in evil activities including using his or her power to intimidate or deny
the rights of anyone who has the potential of threatening their power.
The serf and its variants all have a component of feelings of personal helplessness which is a lack of self-confidence
in one's ability to understand the world and thus knowing how to create values and prosperity in life.
An educational system derives from the dominant philosophy of the time. If altruism and service to society are the dominant ethic, then students are not taught independent
thinking skills that create intellectual self-confidence.
In the elitist and demagogue, there is always a component of power lust -- the insatiable
desire to have influence and power over other people. Independent people approach
other people with mutuality and respect. The elitist demagogue needs to feel superior
and have power and control.
The elitist comes to expect their status from parents, teachers or merely the station
of their birth. This is obvious in a feudal or a caste society. In a society with
an educational system that stresses subservience to society, there are the individuals
who rise to the top and become the college educated intelligentsia class who are
taught that it is their station in life to be the ruling elite.
Another source of elitism arises from a person's lack of feeling for one's own personal
power, control and self-respect. A natural part of the human experience is to feel
that one has the power to create one's values and that other people or forces cannot
restrict their achievement. This includes not just physical needs but also needs
such as love and parental respect and honor. A child of an alcoholic father may feel
powerless and a lack of security for having his or her needs met. The child may grow
up feeling that if they cannot control their own destiny, they will psychologically
substitute it with the need for power over other people. Some such people succeed
at this through charm, intelligence and charisma.
The elitist and the serf exist in a symbiotic relationship. Each needs the other.
As the serf needs the elitist for guidance and sustenance, the elitist needs the
serf for justification and power. The elitist actually believes that the serf is
powerless and incapable of creating their values in life and must be taken care of.
The serf agrees. The elitist has no respect for the serf but must pretend that they
do. The elitist endlessly proclaims how much they care about the "little people,"
but continually prove that it is a lie by never actually doing anything that will
actually help individual human beings unless it serves their own purposes. The serf
endlessly believes the sincerity of the elite not knowing they are merely pawns in
elitist power struggles.
The serf believes the elites will someday create universal wealth and prosperity
from which they will eventually benefit. If they see their elites with power and
influence and wealth they will rationalize it to themselves that the elites are doing
"good" work and deserve the perks of power. The serf actually admires the trappings
of the elite, believing that their power and wealth prove the elites effectiveness
at achieving success. Some cynically approve of and envy the elites who trample on
other peoples rights in their quests for power.
The serf/elite symbiosis follows the altruism/socialism paradigm. If society is the
benefactor of individual action then the serf believes he or she is a member of that
society and thus is entitled to its benefits. The elite capitalize on being the administrator
of those entitlements while justifying it on altruistic grounds. Caught in the middle
is the productive independent individual who has to pay for the entitlements and
suffer the bureaucratic elite.
The elitist/serf symbiosis represents an attack on the American idea of individualism. The fact that America was built and prospered with individual Americans working together in common enterprises is a reality that the elites want to ignore. They do so because they have a vision of a communal society that deprecates the life and values of the individual. The elites encourage class warfare rhetoric. It is true that some people will have more monetary success than other people and the elites want to encourage envy and resentment towards wealthy people. The left is always crying for increasing taxes on the "rich." Not only is this legalized theft, it encourages hatred and blame for economic problems on them. In fact, it those people with money that invest and create jobs. Their innovations lead to ever higher standards of living for everyone.
To the extent that businessmen accept the ethics of altruism is the extent to which they feel guilt for their success. Such businessmen associate with and encourage politicians who reflect their philosophy. This furthers the growth of a statist government.
-
Good replies. I wasn't aware of other mentions of this issue in Objectivist literature.
Thanks.
-
Ayn Rand emphasized the evils of altruism in much of her writing. It seems to me that she and other Objectivists did not discuss much about the opposite of altruism. I know that she would say that the opposite is rational self-interest or as the book is titled: "The Virtue of Selfishness." I have no quarrel with these terms; they emphasize that life is the standard of value and the ethical standard is for the individual to work for his own life and happiness.
But in another sense, there are ethical principles to be considered concerning relationships with other people. Altruism takes the position that in any ethical situation between two or more people, "other" people are the standard of ethical action. The opposite in this context is benevolence which is mutual respect for the values of the self and of other people.
Post-Enlightenment social philosophers actually believed that society is something that has existential reality. Auguste Comte was the philosopher who coined the term altruism, from the Latin root alter meaning other. The doctrine of altruism holds that the fundamental moral obligation of individuals is to serve others and place their interests above one's own. Altruism is inherently self-contradictory. If everyone is to regard others as the beneficiary of action, then no one individual person is to be the beneficiary of any action. For altruism, "others" means society. In practice, society is vague but has to refer to some actual people. The resolution is that need is the standard of value. Whoever has greater needs is entitled to the values of those with greater assets. This means that people do not have an inherent right to the use of values that they have created.
Benevolence is the opposite of altruism. They are not synonymous as is commonly believed. Benevolence is the recognition of human value and values. It is not a claim on or responsibility for other people. On the contrary, the individual who creates his or her values in life understands and recognizes other people and their own values. Benevolence is an expression of an individualistic ethic based on human life and values.
Benevolence is "I want to." Altruism is "I have to." Benevolence respects and fosters values. If another person is needy or has an unforeseen tragedy or emergency, the person of benevolence understands values and empathizes with their situation. Altruism denigrates the individual's values including their own sense of self-value. It breeds resentment for other people and society. The consistent altruist would view themselves as slaves to other people's needs. Or else they believe that they, themselves, should be the object of other people's altruism and make demands on other people or "society." True altruism -- not benevolence -- breeds indifference to human suffering and needs. Either version of altruist, the giver or the taker, believes that all people have to be bullied or intimidated to be altruistic.
I wish that the general public had a clearer understanding of this issue when learning about Objectivism and its principle of "The Virtue of Selfishness." I know that Objectivists say that selfishness means rational self-interest, but many people on learning about Objectivist ideas do not understand its life, values and benevolence principles.
Trump impeachment commentaries, from Rand's endorsement of Nixon
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted · Edited by dream_weaver
*** Split from Rand endorsed Nixon? ***
During Nixon’s second election, Ayn Rand declared herself to be an anti-Nixonite for Nixon.
In the run-up to the 1972 election, Ayn Rand wrote: "I am not an admirer of President Nixon, as my readers know. But I urge every able-minded voter, of any race, creed, color, age, sex, or political party, to vote for Nixon as a matter of national emergency. This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils. The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies... If there were some campaign organization called 'Anti-Nixonites for Nixon,' it would name my position. ... The worst thing said about Nixon is that he cannot be trusted, which is true: he cannot be trusted to save this country. But one thing is certain: McGovern can destroy it.”
The Ayn Rand Letter July 31, August 14 & 28, 1972
Rand, to my knowledge, was always happy when Republicans won the presidency. To her mind she believed that the American people still believed in America’s founding ideas even though they did not understand them very well — the philosophical foundations of a free society. And Republicans were the better party in this regard.
Rand was objective about political realities. She knew that Nixon would be better for America. She would never imply in any way that the American people were irredeemable for supporting a candidate like Nixon. Nixon despite his flaws was patriotic meaning the he valued this country and wanted to do the best for America.
I cannot agree with commentators that believe Trump to be an “unprincipled pragmatic nationalist” and deserves to be not elected or impeached. I don’t see it. I agree with Rand in her position on Nixon.
Rand appreciated and understood America and the American people. Some people, in my estimation, do not really understand the American people.