Obama and Why The Peikoff Argument Does Not Apply

[adrock3215]

Justin's concern that there are so many Objectivists who truly believe that the right somehow helps our cause is founded.

Those who make this mistake tend to be the more "orthodox" Objectivists who, incidentally, like to play Warcraft. I've noticed that they implicitly think Objectivism is some rationalistic philosophy created to justify the supreme deity: Capitalism.

Edited September 2, 2008 by adrock3215

[softwareNerd]

Piekoff's argument (like most of his recent arguments, of say the last ten years) is wrong.

That parenthetical portion is a smear rather than an argument. If the post did not have replies, I'd delete it, since the forum rules don't let me edit out that clause.

[EC]

That parenthetical portion is a smear rather than an argument. If the post did not have replies, I'd delete it, since the forum rules don't let me edit out that clause.

A smear? I don't think so. A person can agree with another in general and when they are making logical arguments (like Dr. Peikoff in his younger days) and disagree with his present arguments without contradiction and definitely without it being a "smear".

[Pianoman83]

A smear? I don't think so. A person can agree with another in general and when they are making logical arguments (like Dr. Peikoff in his younger days) and disagree with his present arguments without contradiction and definitely without it being a "smear".

Then why don't you show which of his arguments are wrong and your evidence that he is wrong. Without that, all you have is an unsubstantiated attack against one of Objectivism's greatest thinkers. The fact that you are willing to state without any proof that his arguments over the last ten years are wrong implies that his ideas not worth consideration. That you wish to have the reader accept this at face value as if it's obviously true shows such blatant disrespect that I cannot simply dismiss this as mere disagreement. If it was merely disagreement you should have left out your parenthetical remarks as it does nothing to support your argument against Peikoff in this specific issue. What makes your remark an attack is the implications it has for Peikoff's intellectual honesty.

Piekoff's argument (like most of his recent arguments, of say the last ten years) is wrong.

To state that a man with Peikoff's intellectual track record has been wrong for the past ten years is tantamount to saying that he is dishonest. There is no possible way that a person with his knowledge of Objectivism and its application to the facts of reality can be consistently wrong in just about every issue for a whole decade without evasion. I believe it may be possible for such a person with Peikoff's knowledge to be wrong or inaccurate from time to time and still maintain honesty provided he corrects any errors he makes when the knowledge becomes available to him. Given that Peikoff had studied for over 30 years with Ayn Rand, if he has been consistently wrong for the last ten years, how could he be anything but dishonest?

Edited September 2, 2008 by Pianoman83

[softwareNerd]

A smear? I don't think so. A person can agree with another in general and when they are making logical arguments (like Dr. Peikoff in his younger days) and disagree with his present arguments without contradiction and definitely without it being a "smear".

It is a smear because you hint at something objectionable, while staying vague about it. The fact that it is slipped in as a parenthetical aside, makes it even more of a smear. Whether it is true of false is not the point. The point is the slimy presentation. Read the forum rules.

[~Sophia~]

This article has been suggested by other people in the past during political threads. But it's still worth reading now.

The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism by C. Bradley Thompson

Seriously read it, read the entire thing.

Speaking from a biological perspective, compassion is very much desired for our species. We don’t produce a lot of off spring in our lifetime (so each individual is of great specie-wide value) and our off spring takes a long time to mature – time during which it can’t survive on its own. It needs to be cared for – for a long time. It is natural for us to feel compassion for the weaker. It is a humane quality to feel sympathy for another’s suffering and wanting to do something about it. It is the right reesponse in a specific context. However, in order to identify (or even look for) what that specific context is a person needs to have a conceptual mentality which is not the default. People fall into perceptual level mentality much easier. It is easier because feelings, often strong feelings happen first and because we are not born with an understanding that feelings are not proper tools of cognition. Perceptual-level mentality requires less effort. Most people make decisions based on emotion and then they rationalize their choices. When the context is not accounted for that leads to all kinds of wrong ideas - such as altruism.

Ideas based on feelings/reactions which people are prone to having, ideas which demand less effort, gain acceptance much more easily (because it feels (again feels …) more “natural”) than ideas which require thought, knowledge, self analysis, self monitoring. Compassionate conservatism, neo-conservatism, religion, socialism are all tapping into/are based on that intrinsic approach to compassion. Democrats are just more explicit about it. In terms of where things are going - it is not a question of where but how fast. I am not convinced that going for the worse faster is better. Once a public health care system is established, for example, it will be close to impossible to eliminate it (it is like taking a heroine away from an addict). You won't see it in your life time. Wouldn't that make things harder in terms of creating change in terms of actual change in conditions you live in (not just ideologically)?

Edited September 2, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[Grames]

C. Bradley Thompson's analysis is correct but it considers only the conservatives. It does not follow from the weaknesses and contradictions of the so-called 'right' that the liberals and the 'left' are worthy of support. Ayn Rand gave a more integrated analysis which shows how the right and left work together to erode freedom. The quote below is from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 25 September 10, 1973 "Censorship: Local And Express--Part III"

Both camps hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.

The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man's spirit, i.e., man's consciousness; they advocate the State's right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom"). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.

The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the "mystics of spirit." And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the "mystics of muscle."

This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. "Control," to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man's consciousness; the liberals, his body.

On that premise, neither camp has permitted itself to observe that force is a killer in both realms. The conservatives, frozen in their mystic dogmas, are paralyzed, terrified and impotent in the realm of ideas. The liberals, waiting for the unearned, are paralyzed, terrified and, frequently, incompetent in or hostile to the realm of material production (observe the ecology crusade).

Why do both camps cling to blind faith in the power of physical force? I quote from Atlas Shrugged: "Do you observe what human faculty that doctrine [the mind-body dichotomy] was designed to destroy? It was man's mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart." Both camps, conservatives and liberals alike, are united in their hatred of man's mind—i.e., of reason. The conservatives reject reason in favor of faith; the liberals, in favor of emotions. The conservatives are either lethargically indifferent to intellectual issues, or actively anti-intellectual. The liberals are smarter in this respect: they use intellectual weapons to destroy and negate the intellect (they call it "to redefine"). When men reject reason, they have no means left for dealing with one another—except brute, physical force.

I quote from Atlas Shrugged: "...the men you call materialists and spiritualists are only two halves of the same dissected human, forever seeking completion, but seeking it by swinging from the destruction of the flesh to the destruction of the soul and vice versa...seeking any refuge against reality, any form of escape from the mind." Since the two camps are only two sides of the same coin—the same counterfeit coin—they are now moving closer and closer together. Observe the fundamental similarity of their philosophical views: in metaphysics—the mind-body dichotomy; in epistemology—irrationalism; in ethics—altruism; in politics—statism.

The conservatives used to claim that they were loyal to tradition—while the liberals boasted of being "progressive." But observe that it is Chief Justice Burger, a conservative, who propounds a militant collectivism, and formulates general principles that stretch the power of the State way beyond the issue of pornography—and it is Justice Douglas, a liberal, who invokes "the traditions of a free society" and pleads for "our constitutional heritage."

If someone had said in 1890 that antitrust laws for the businessmen would, sooner or later, lead to censorship for the intellectuals, no one would have believed it. You can see it today. When Chief Justice Burger declares to the liberals that they cannot explain why rights "should be severely restrained in the marketplace of goods and money, but not in the marketplace of pornography," I am tempted to feel that it serves them right—except that all of us are the victims.

If this censorship ruling is not revoked, the next step will be more explicit: it will replace the words "marketplace of pornography" with the words "marketplace of ideas." This will serve as a precedent for the liberals, enabling them to determine which ideas they wish to suppress—in the name of the "social interest"—when their turn comes. No one can win a contest of this kind—except the State.

I want to stop the liberals from getting "their turn".

In the long run only the philosophical framework of Objectivism can halt the erosion of freedom caused by the back and forth struggles of the liberals and conservatives. In order to give time for that philosophy to spread sufficiently I advocate tactics of obstruction and preservation of the status quo. These comprise: voting for divided government where different parties control congress and the presidency, voting against the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine (the liberals want this), voting to preserve the physical safety of the U.S. and its citizens and allies (the conservatives), voting in favor of as much economic freedom as is on offer (because economic strength and growth staves off the ever looming disaster enabled by paper money and inflation).

In this election, the victory of Obama would give control of congress and the presidency to the same party, and indeed the same radical faction of that party. They would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, they would not defend U.S. interests, they would institute anti-growth economic policies. It is too soon to precipitate a crisis, Objectivists are not ready to pick up the pieces.

[softwareNerd]

Once a public health care system is established, for example, it will be close to impossible to eliminate it ...

I think this is true, and -- if it were to happen -- I think it would be the single biggest (objective) negative of having Obama as president. In practice, I do not think we'll see UK/Canada style in the next 4 years. Instead, we're likely to see extra health-related taxes and mandatory insurance schemes. Definitely rotten, for sure, and a step toward universal care, but still reversible. On health-care itself, McCain's proposal is the best thing offered; but, I think it has no chance of becoming law...so, I discount it as just talk. When the pressure is on, I expect that McCain will opt for some more government involvement in health care, just as Bush expanded Medicare to cover drugs.

[gags]

Once a public health care system is established, for example, it will be close to impossible to eliminate it (it is like taking a heroine away from an addict). You won't see it in your life time. Wouldn't that make things harder in terms of creating change in terms of actual change in conditions you live in (not just ideologically)?

I'm afraid that this will be the lasting legacy of a Democrat president coupled with a Democrat controlled House and Senate. I agree that once a system of socialized healthcare is installed, eliminating it will be next to impossible. The best we can hope for in this election is mixed control of the executive and legislative branches, resulting in gridlock.

[KendallJ]

I'm afraid that this will be the lasting legacy of a Democrat president coupled with a Democrat controlled House and Senate. I agree that once a system of socialized healthcare is installed, eliminating it will be next to impossible. The best we can hope for in this election is mixed control of the executive and legislative branches, resulting in gridlock.

I agree. I think that this is the only way one could suggest a Republican vote. The spending binge that will result with a complete Democratic sweep will be stunning.

[dadmonson]

I agree. I think that this is the only way one could suggest a Republican vote. The spending binge that will result with a complete Democratic sweep will be stunning.

True....

[IchorFigure]

I agree. I think that this is the only way one could suggest a Republican vote. The spending binge that will result with a complete Democratic sweep will be stunning.

I'd agree and just FYI I'm not saying my mind is completely made up yet. My brother just had a baby, and to think she might grow up inheriting some kind of Socialized health care in her lifetime makes me sick. Especially if I shared at least some responsibility voting for Obama.

[Mammon]

I'd agree and just FYI I'm not saying my mind is completely made up yet. My brother just had a baby, and to think she might grow up inheriting some kind of Socialized health care in her lifetime makes me sick. Especially if I shared at least some responsibility voting for Obama.

What if the Iraq War still still going when she grows up?

[fletch]

The threat of religion is a huge threat (it's the primary reason she chose not to vote for Reagan

Reagan took office 28 years ago. 20 of those 28 years have seen Republican presidents and more than half have seen Republican control of one or both houses of Congress. So that leads me to a couple of questions. First, in what way is the current rise in religious fundamentalism different or worse than at any other time in US history? Second, what tangible inroads into my liberty has the religious right made in those 28 years and how does it compare to the inroads made by the left-wing environmental movement during that same period? I am old enough to remember the talk of Global Cooling that was gaining favor after a few bitter winters in the late 70's. Global warming is the rage today, and it has gained world-wide acceptance in roughly the same time span as the rise in religious fundamentalism. Bush, the last remnant of the religious right, is in tatters. Environmentalism is not. Finally, with the advantage of hindsight, can anyone really say that a Reagan defeat in 1980 would have been a better outcome for the US? Could we really have survived another 4 years of Carter? Yikes.

[Grames]

What if the Iraq War still still going when she grows up?

If you haven't noticed, the Iraq War is over. As a result, it looks like the Iraqi Occupation will be over within the next 4 years as well, regardless of who wins the election.

[JMartins]

I recently read through "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", where Rand writes the following:

At present, even so dismal a figure as President Nixon is a hopeful sign – presisely because he is so dismal. If any other country were in as desperately precarious a state of confusion as ours, a dozen flamboyant Führers would have sprung up overnight to take it over.

If we draw parallels between what she wrote and our current situation, we can probably agree that while John McCain is a "dismal figure" such as Richard Nixon was, Barack Obama might be the first in a long line of "flamboyant Führers". The more I learn about him, the more appropriate that exact title sounds.

The next President in power will most likely get to appoint three-four young Supreme Court Justices however, meaning that if McCain and Palin wins, they will put an end to both abortion and stem-cell research for a very long time to come.

[Grames]

That's a good quote JMartins. Hopefully Palin and McCain will still be in favor of a life-of-the-mother exception as they have in the past. Adult stem cell research will plow on unhindered, and will likely turn out to be the more fruitful path as far as resulting in practical therapies because of the limited number of available embryos. Embryos would always be limited in number even if their use were totally unrestricted because the number of early stage abortions, egg donations and in-vitro fertilization attempts is limited compared to the potential number of medical applications.

Just looking for the silver lining.

[KevinDW78]

Does anyone else have the suspicion that McCain only took up the staunch pro-life stance to get the nomination? If he were elected, I don't believe he would necesarrily extend that to Supreme Court appointees. I think he might just be pretending to be pro-life for the purpose of the election. Remember two weeks ago when he suggested he would be ok with a pro-choice VP?

[DavidOdden]

Does anyone else have the suspicion that McCain only took up the staunch pro-life stance to get the nomination? If he were elected, I don't believe he would necesarrily extend that to Supreme Court appointees. I think he might just be pretending to be pro-life for the purpose of the election. Remember two weeks ago when he suggested he would be ok with a pro-choice VP?

That was then and this is now: we see who he actually picked -- definitely the antithesis of pro-choice. A VP befitting Mike Huckabee. I'm willing to allow the possibility that his anti-choice position is political expediency, and that his SCOTUS nomination of an anti-choice judge might also be political expediency rather than deep-felt belief. I personally don't care what his motivation is, I'm concerned about his actions. The one mitigating factor is that his nomination to the court will have to be confirmed by the Senate.

[Rearden_Steel]

Does anyone else have the suspicion that McCain only took up the staunch pro-life stance to get the nomination? If he were elected, I don't believe he would necesarrily extend that to Supreme Court appointees. I think he might just be pretending to be pro-life for the purpose of the election. Remember two weeks ago when he suggested he would be ok with a pro-choice VP?

I had the same thought.

[KevinDW78]

I personally don't care what his motivation is, I'm concerned about his actions.

I'm working on completing the Flux Capacitor. Once I'm done, I'll let ya know how it all turns out.

[dadmonson]

I'm working on completing the Flux Capacitor. Once I'm done, I'll let ya know how it all turns out.

Yeah, Bush was saying pretty much the same things before he first got elected.

[IchorFigure]

Yeah, Bush was saying pretty much the same things before he first got elected.

Privatize social security!

[utabintarbo]

...

As an aside, what is the proper word to define a person like Obama? Socialist? Marxist? Welfare statist? Leftist? None of those seem right. Any suggestions?

"Post Turtle"

[INOV8TN]

Just happened to visit this thread newly and wonder now that we have had the benefit of some actual experience with Obama if the enthusiasm for the original thesis remains unchanged.