Package Deals and Anti-Concepts

[SpiralTheorist]

In a post on the (highly recommended) Harry Binswanger List tonight, HB said that all anti-concepts are package deals.

For some reason, I had always figured package deals were just one kind of anti-concept, though I'd never given it much thought... but I can't think of any instances where the two terms split off.

Would it be accurate to say that the concepts "package deal" and "anti-concept" have the same referents, but that "package deal" integrates them from the perspective of their fundamentally unrelated contents whereas "anti-concept" integrates them from the perspective of their cognitively destructive consequences? Or is there something here I'm missing?

--SpiralTheorist--

[D'kian]

For some reason, I had always figured package deals were just one kind of anti-concept, though I'd never given it much thought... but I can't think of any instances where the two terms split off.

A package deal is an attempt to include something (an action or thing) where it doesn't belong, to package an ilegitimate idea among legitimate ones.

For example, say a politician promises to prosecute vigorously rapists, murderers, child molesters and businessmen. That's an attempt to packahe business alongside the most henious crimes imaginable.

[mrocktor]

HB said that all anti-concepts are package deals.

I can't say that this is clear to me. For instance, what is the package deal in the anti-concept "public property"?

It is an anti-concept by virtue of being internally contradicting. Property means ownership, onership means exclusive control, "public" contradicts this since a group cannot have exclusive control - only individuals can. This anti-concept atacks the concept of property itself. This much is clear.

Where is the package deal though? What am I being asked to accept beyond the idea that people can collectively own something?

A clear example of package dealing is the typical libertarian concept of government. "All government is coercive because government is supported by taxation". The packaging is between government (the organization holding a monopoly on retaliatory force) and theft by taxation - something that is not in the nature of government per se (though all current governments do it).

I can't see such a package in the "public property" example.

Edited March 18, 2008 by mrocktor

[SpiralTheorist]

"Package-dealing" is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or "package," elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept.

Ayn Rand Lexicon

Figured I'd get that in here so we have a reference.

I agree that public property doesn't seem to be a package deal, but I also don't see how public property is an anti-concept. It doesn't seem to attack the concept of property in the way that, for example, the common concept of selfishness attacks and annihilates the notion of rational selfishness.

Here's one way to tell if something is an anti-concept: would your thinking be more difficult if you used it? I see how using selfishness (the package deal) makes for sloppy thinking. I can see how using the concept social justice, or the concept extremism, or the concept duty, would make life more difficult.

Where before discovering Objectivism, I used to call something a duty, I now talk about principles and values. Where I might have called something extremist before, I now either find a more accurate epithet or talk about consistency. So those are all good changes. But if I were to give up the term "public property," how would I describe the police station down the street? How am I confusing myself by calling it public property, and what is my alternative?

--SpiralTheorist--

Edited March 18, 2008 by SpiralTheorist

[mrocktor]

How am I confusing myself by calling it public property, and what is my alternative?

You are confusing yourself into believing that something can be "owned by everyone", your alternative is to say "government property".