Questions

[Maximus]

Perhaps you should give it a read, instead of going on "hunches" and second hand opinions.

[KevinDW78]

Another point I didn't spot anyone making - the nonexistent cannot possess rights. Meaning - the people of the future do not exist yet - therefore they have no rights to a clean environment or in fact ANY environment at all. So in the context of a global warming debate, often the argument is that we have to protect the planet for "future genereations" whereas the the Objectivist positions is - no we don't, because future generations don't exist, only THIS generation exists - and therefore that is the only context which has value.

[KendallJ]

My hunch is it glorifies the "Atlas" people and acts like the average of the world couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight. If I'm right, Atlas Shrugged makes the mirror image mistake of communism. Communism acts as though all are equal and we don't need the elites to make the world move. This is wrong, we absolutely do. Ayn Rand, I fear, acts as though we don't need the average to make the world move.

No that would be Neitzche. Rand does something totally different.

I hate to leave all the unanswered questions of my previous post behind but this is quick. I think you're absolutely right. If 90% of Americans were against abortion or for slavery, then those things would be borne out.

Hence the reason "democracy" was a dirty word in the founders day.

[KendallJ]

I hate to leave all the unanswered questions of my previous post behind but this is quick. I think you're absolutely right. If 90% of Americans were against abortion or for slavery, then those things would be borne out.

...I think that is possible. I think it is possible to have an adaptive view of politics.

Possible? How? Based upon what ideas? Based upon a govt that runs on what principles? You see, you assert that something is backward, but stop right there. Because if you had to actually say why it's backward, you'd have to use a principle (which your pragmatist self is obviously very resistant to) So your belief that it can happen is necessarily like faith. How? Somehow?

X view is "backward". But you cant' say why without using a principle. It's simply an assertion.

Is a law a good law or a bad law? Why? How is it so? Is a govt a good govt or a bad one?

Your faith is not very convincing.

[JohnS]

Do you guys agree with Kevin? 'Cause...woah. I mean this in the most non-arrogant way I possibly can: You all realize that with statements like that, for better or worse, you will be forever politically irrelevant? You're fighting the biological and cultural pull of leaving a decent living place for our descendants. Talk about Up-hill battle.

To Maximus: I admitted I should. If you don't want me here, just say so.

Nick: I think you're close. I don't think the relationship is largely equal between the producer and the average (nonproducer?). However, I'm not saying that you guys have 'enslaved' the proletariat. I think you kinda want to but that's a debateable issue. I think they have enslaved the producers . I don't see Objectivists actually living "Give me liberty or give me death". How many Objectivists actually have quit producing becuase they were so sick of giving to the government? The proletariat government have bought off the elites by letting them keep whatever percentage of their own production. That's what I see with my "Objectivist Glasses" on anyway. I think the elites and the proles are constantly vying for supremacy, despite the fact that they both need each other. A labor and production yin and yang if you will. I see the communists as destructively for the proles, and I see the Objectivists as destructively for the elites.

EDIT: I've just seen Kendall's response.

Damn you may have me. I'll give it a shot. I go on a case-by-case basis. When I see something like abortion I hammer it out: What would I want to happen to me. I put myself in all positions and try to judge fairly. A woman's body and her reproduction are vested in her. To take that away would be too much. Technically, principally, it is unfair for someone to be born a citizen to a country they have had no input in. I turned 18 and didn't vote on anything that ruled me. Yet what else can I do? I might be an ardent pacifist but I must pay taxes to promote a military. I find principal ruling all decisions too restrictive. I think there should be general principles (Liberty, truth, justice, equality) that we try to average out as best as possible. Throughout history the rigid principaled have fallen as they failed to adapt.

Edited October 3, 2008 by JohnS

[KendallJ]

Nick: I think you're close. I don't think the relationship is largely equal between the producer and the average (nonproducer?). However, I'm not saying that you guys have 'enslaved' the proletariat. I think you kinda want to but that's a debateable issue. I think they have enslaved the producers . I don't see Objectivists actually living "Give me liberty or give me death". How many Objectivists actually have quit producing becuase they were so sick of giving to the government? The proletariat government have bought off the elites by letting them keep whatever percentage of their own production. That's what I see with my "Objectivist Glasses" on anyway. I think the elites and the proles are constantly vying for supremacy, despite the fact that they both need each other. A labor and production yin and yang if you will. I see the communists as destructively for the proles, and I see the Objectivists as destructively for the elites.

These ideas are a mixture of Neitzche and Machiavelli. Not Rand. Someone sold you some bum glasses.

[KevinDW78]

Do you guys agree with Kevin?

Do You believe that non-existents have rights? How about the "rights" of flying pink elephants? Should flying pink elephants have rights? Why or why not? You get back to the principles that Kendall is talking about. Because if you believe that a flying pink elephant cannot have rights, then for the same principle, someone who might exist 100 years from now cannot either.

you will be forever politically irrelevant?

Political relevance is irrelevant to principle. That goes back to the why Objectivists are not Libertrarians issue. One should not sacrifice principle for political power.

Edited October 3, 2008 by KevinDW78

[EC]

Lastly, another question. Let us assume a man named Bob. Bob Bobberson. Bob is not all that smart, but he recognzies this. Bob knows that he doesn't have the Darwinian fitness to achieve the quality of life he would desire. Eureka! Bob realizes that there are many more people like him, than there are with said Darwinian fitness. Isn't it in rational self interest of Bob (and all the Bobs) to team up and subjugate the elites. The Bobs don't want to destroy the elites as they produce really great stuff. They decide to let the elites (let's humanize them to; the Tom's) keep the majority of the fruits of their production, but take through force enough for themselves. In return, the Bobs are available as the people who make the grand designs of the Toms come to fruition. An "analogy of this analogy" is hyenas vs. lions. A lion is better at hunting than a hyena. Hyenas, however, team up. Or....should the Bobs, despite knowing their probably failure to achieve their desires, attempt to compete individually anyway, and accept their results as this is the only moral option?

Yes! Anything else is theft. You're saying that if "Bob" and his cohorts can't produce something (for whatever reason) then it is okay for them to steal it from "Tom" or whoever can produce it. Why should the number of the unable have any effect on the morality of theft. You are essentially saying that since only certain people have the needed ability (or more likely choose to use it) then it is somehow okay to steal some portion of their hard-earned property to give it to people who haven't earned it because they haven't earned it. That is pure evil.

This question is hard to pose (hence all the time typing it) and it is very intersting to me. I find it quite disconcerting that I rarely meet an average Objectivist. Most people it seems who are Objectivists are those that would succeed under an Objectivist system. Are the lefties of the world, the collectivists, simply acting in their own rational self interest the same way the Objectivists are?

No, rational self interest implies context and adherence to moral principles that reflect reality. It is in no ones rational self interest to be a violator of another man's rights.

[brian0918]

Is a law a good law or a bad law? Why?

Depends on how convenient the law is. The more people that it helps for the next 2 weeks, the more likely it is to pass. Two weeks later, we'll find a new law, new regulations to change the market again and help more people for a few more weeks, etc. It's perfect!

Edited October 3, 2008 by brian0918

[JohnS]

I'll admit to having a Machiavellian strain, Kendall. I've loved every word of The Prince so far. (I might get lynched for that one...)

Kevin: Pink elephants are far less likely, statistically, to be produced as opposed to future generations. If we somehow generated consciouss pink elepehants or I had some reason to think they were imminent then I would take it seriously. Wasn't I warned against using "silly" scenarios

As far as the prole-theft being evil...ok. I think you left out the fact they also do stuff (make the dreams of the elites a reality) but I can dig what you're saying. Again, my Machiavellian strain is a bit more concerned with what you can get away with than what is moral but I have my moral side too. For some reason the discussion just hasn't hit those notes with me yet. I genuinely hope I can showcase something different from a worldview that seems only composed of Marx and Machiavelli.

Lastly back to Kevin: I have to say this...but I don't "get" that...I really don't. It is not in my self interest to steal (and not get caught)? Maybe you mean the destruction of the 'soul' through the guilt involved...flew right over my head. :\

EDIT:

To Brian: You realize to the adaptive pragmatist like me, that's all part of the system right? I don't believe in the 'perfect' government. It must be constantly amended, and fixed, and adapting. If it isn't adapting, it's dying. Even if that does cause a bit of nausea in the principled.

Edited October 3, 2008 by JohnS

[avgleandt]

I c, JohnS, you seem to be arguing, and correct me if I am wrong. That some regulation works better then no regulation at all. You are looking for the golden medium. And your suggesting that since some regulation works better, we should sacrifice our principles in order to reach these ends. In effect you are saying that the ends justify the means. Objectivists don't believe that. Objectivists believe that no good can be achieved by evil means. In a compromise between good and evil only evil can benefit. Tom is saying that slavery is bad, and should not exsist. Bob is saying that if Tom was a slave only 10% of the time then this would work better. If Tom compromises on being a slave 10%, in effect what he is saying is that slavery can be used for good. Now Eva comes in and says. Well since now we have decided that slavery can be used for good, lets find out which percentage works the best. The the percentage begins to grow as more and more pressure groups fight for the piece of the pie. At the same time, the benefits of having 0% slavery never transpire. As percentage grows, things get worse. Mabye at one point the public decides that the percentage got to high and cuts it down. However this percentage is an abritary number that will not float in the middle for ever, eventually everyone will become a slave to everyone, or everyone will become free.

[brian0918]

EDIT:

To Brian: You realize to the adaptive pragmatist like me, that's all part of the system right? I don't believe in the 'perfect' government. It must be constantly amended, and fixed, and adapting. If it isn't adapting, it's dying. Even if that does cause a bit of nausea in the principled.

But a government that only upholds and protects the rights of its citizens is possible, and that would be the perfect government for Objectivists, so how can you say that it's inconceivable?

[JMeganSnow]

I would recommend to JohnS (and anyone else involved in this discussion who has not already done so) that you go to the ARI website (aynrand.org), register, and listen to Leonard Peikoff's lecture "Why Should One Act On Principle?"

That lecture explains very well *why* Objectivists hold most of the stands that we do by explaining why we uphold the use of principles. Once you grasp why we find it necessary to relate *everything* back to particular principles, it becomes much easier to understand why we hold the stands that we do.

Personally, I agree with Kevin about the "descendents" issue. Not only do these hypothetical future human beings not exist, but *I* don't plan to have any descendents *at all*, so none of them would be "our" descendents in any case.

[KevinDW78]

Pink elephants are far less likely, statistically, to be produced as opposed to future generations.

You're avoiding the principle - as I think you'll begin to see is what everything keeps coming back to. A pink elephant does not exist. Some little boy named Jimmy born in the year 2147 does not exist - only your concept of him. Should we really pass laws based on things that don't even exist? To illustrate another example maybe a little less absurd: Let's say it's possible that Earth will be visited by aliens within the next few hundred years. Can you construct a valid argument that there needs to be government action (create any example of government action you want in this context) that somehow relates to the possibility that these aliens will be coming? Can you see how the difficulty in creating that argument relates to the same argument you are making with regard to future generations and the environment they may or may not have?

Edited October 3, 2008 by KevinDW78

[KendallJ]

You're avoiding the principle

He's a pragmatist. That's what he does.

John, Tara Smith has a great article in the latest Standard called "The Menace of Pragmatism." It's a great read. I think you'd find it interesting.

By the way, while I agree with Kevin, I think it's a weak way to argue the point. The claim of future generations is just one of many claims. There are much more direct ones one could deal with. Frankly I think the claim of my brother on me is a big one.

Edited October 3, 2008 by KendallJ

[Tenure]

I agree with almost everything that has been said here (by the Objectivists), and would like to encourage JohnS in continuing to post. I believe he has been open and honest in what he has said. I disagree with his stand, but I respect him for being far more open in just stating what he believes and why he believes, rather than speaking with an aggressive tone and evading around the issue of his disagreement like certain other people we've had come in here recently.

I would second what JMeganSnow said: it's all about principles. To all your talk of why we need certain regulations and why we need to tax this guy to help that guy, I kept thinking, 'Yes, but on what principle?' and then you answered that, 'I judge things on a case-by-case basis'. What you need to do, if you want to understand us, is to understand the distinction between Pragmatism ('All that matters is how we deal with each thing as it comes, disconnected from everything else') and the principled approach we take with Objectivism ('The deciding matter in each case should be what is true or false in principle').

[KevinDW78]

I think it's a weak way to argue the point.

Oh, I agree. It's not a main argument - but all the good ones were already taken

I agree with almost everything that has been said here (by the Objectivists), and would like to encourage JohnS in continuing to post.

Ditto. JohnS, you are cleary very intelligent, and I am enjoying this debate. You just need to check your premises, or even first - establish some

Edited October 3, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Maximus]

To Maximus: I admitted I should. If you don't want me here, just say so.

I wasn't implying that you shouldn't be here. I would encourage you to stick around; you are attempting to use your noodle, and that is an encouraging sign.

[JohnS]

Hot damn Avgleandt now we are talking. I obviously disagree that the whole system would devolve into repression. I don't think it would become "everyone for everyone" and if it did then people would have done so with their own permission. I do reject the idea that evil cannot lead to good. You can't build civilization without breaking a few eggs and by eggs I mean tribals societies that didn't want to be in Rome and do as the Romans do (or did). I think that the Golden Middle can be maintained and that, pragmatically, immoral actions can have results that are both moral and immorals. You don't get the USA without Native Americans being killed off. I honestly don't know how to morally handle these events. Obviously I find the conquering of the New World as bad, but I like that the U.S. exists. Contradictory, no? Contrary to principle, no? Yet I know not what else to do. While pragmatism seems to make "all possible", I truly feel that principle is just too rigid and a non-starter as the only contributor to political action.

Note on principle: I will look into this. I think that when I was 'into' the Objectivist ideas this principle thing is what turned me off without me realing knowing it. It was quite a step for me to consciously accept the pragmatic point of view. I finally decided to hell with principle as I found it too rigid and too easy to contradict. I'd spend so much time trying to find that perfect principle and I just couldn't make it work. At the end of the day I just don't like the reprecussions of objectivism :\ If have to to embrace the all-too-dangerous "the ends justify the means" to avoid a gilded age (and liking it) then I will. When I think of this, I don't neccessarily like it but I truly don't know how else to react. Objectivism may indeed be the perfect philosophy; a pure diamond of thought. Yet it is far too sharp, I feel, to be a philosophy over the vicissitudes of life. I am not for a total rejection of principle. I just think that it must be dilluted by the pragmatic. Maybe pragmatism can be a principle itself?(hmm...thinking cap time) I guess you could say I pragmatically mix pragmatism and principle as needed. In what proportions do I mix them? Well that's arbitrary depending on the situation.

Oh come on that was funny.

While I enjoy the "theoretical" side of this, if someone can tell me why the social programs of Roosevelt that helped salve (if not solve) the Great Depression were bad ideas without relating to principle alone, I would really appreciate it. I can't eat on principle; I can eat by being employed by the CCC. I tend to go to analogies / examples quite often and if someone wants to move on this terrain, by all means engage.

Edit: We did go to debate didn't we. It's ya'lls forum (I'm from Mississippi, I get to use ya'll) and if I cross any lines, please let me know. I ain't (Mississippi) gone (Mississippi again) cross any lines on purpose.

Edited October 3, 2008 by JohnS

[01503]

We did go to debate didn't we. It's ya'lls forum (I'm from Mississippi, I get to use ya'll) and if I cross any lines, please let me know. I ain't (Mississippi) gone (Mississippi again) cross any lines on purpose.

lol that's okay. But I REALLY recommend you read Atlas if you haven't. Quite a long book, but my favorite.

[adrock3215]

John: Do you think that reality is indepedent of you and your observations, or do you believe that if you close your eyes you can "avoid a gilded age" and anything else you don't like? (Usually people "don't like" things on principle by the way.)

Moreover, since man must act for his own survival, how do you propose he do so without principle?

Edited October 3, 2008 by adrock3215

[JohnS]

Closing my eyes won't do anything. I'm not sure what this suggestion is. To avoid a gilded age what do I need to do? I think I have to, politically, beat you. I have to convince people to be more liberal than they are Objectivist without putting so much weight on capitalism that the engine breaks under the pressure. The "Golden Middle" as it was called.

Also, I think that man is not that independant. We are a highly-evolved and social species. I believe in an interconnectedness with a biological foundation. I believe that collectivism is a machine that trades liberty for power, and I want an equal balance of both. Both of us would hate an extreme of power and no liberty (Stalin) but where I think we differ is I'm afraid of the over-abundance of liberty. I see the history of the Gilded Age and Soviet Russia and recoil at both.

[adrock3215]

if someone can tell me why the social programs of Roosevelt that helped salve (if not solve) the Great Depression were bad ideas without relating to principle alone, I would really appreciate it.

Have you studied economics at all? The Austrians and the Chicago School have written extensively on the Great Depression and how FDR's "pragmatic solutions" actually prolonged it. That's right. In practice (your dearest friend), FDR's response to the Great Depression practicably worsened it.

At first this was a radical reinterpretation of Depression-era economics. But it has now been proven and widely accepted among economists (even the most stauch Keynesians) that the federal government's response to the Great Depression made things worse. The only people that haven't come around to this yet are the humanities professors, who cry from the rooftops that the Great Depression was a fault of capitalism.

[Maximus]

What is it about freedom of the individual that frightens you? Are you afraid it would devolve into anarchy? Unlimited freedom without a moral base may do so, but maximum freedom coupled with an O'ist base of morality and virtue would not.

[JohnS]

I'm afraid that the rich will control too much. I'm afraid my boss will fire me because of my atheism. I'm afraid my gay friend will be fired because of that. I'm afraid of the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the Fords, and the Rockefellers. I'm afraid of tyranny; not only governmental tyranny, but tyranny of one person who controls a huge amount of production. What if in WWII Henry Ford decided to just shut down the US war machine by stopping production. This wasn't unheard of; FDR was afraid of it and had a plan to take over the factories. Now I don't want to make this into a WWII referendum, but the power of one industrialist to cold stop a war that was supported by hundreds of millions is simply not acceptable. In a left wing state, yes, the government will screw with you to some extent. At least I have a vote in that.

Note: I read the first part of "The Menace of Pragmatism". The online article isn't full so I don't feel comfortable responding to half an idea :\

To adrock: I'll look into that. I've taken micro and macroeconomics in college; that is my only exposure. I learned about how a monopoly can slightly cheat the laws of supply and demand by controlling a market. :\ In any case, thanks for the info. I'm chagrined to admit I've never even heard of the Austrian / Chicagoan schools of thought on economics. I was an education major who took a lot of history classes (those damned humanities).