Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Libertarianism vs Objectivism

Rate this topic


Dániel Boros

Recommended Posts

I'm not generalizing.

A sentence such as "The owners and members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and behavior." employs the phrase "The owners and members of OL" as the subject of the sentence instead of providing a list enumerating individuals. That makes it a generalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only took one reply for the straw men to appear.

I see no straw. Fact is on OL you’ll find all types. There’s a fairly new guy who uses a chimp’s face as his avatar, he posts loony conspiratorial crap and most people ignore him. I’ve even told him a couple times that he doesn’t belong, and ought to find somewhere where the bananas are more plentiful. But he’s still around, however much of an outlier he is. Then there’s a long time poster who starts a new thread to report every time Ron Paul has a bowel movement. Tedious. And there was a post-modern nutcase who got banned, which really takes some doing. How to generalize? Looking to the site’s owner, who is also the most frequent poster, is good evidence gathering, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no straw. Fact is on OL you’ll find all types. There’s a fairly new guy who uses a chimp’s face as his avatar, he posts loony conspiratorial crap and most people ignore him. I’ve even told him a couple times that he doesn’t belong, and ought to find somewhere where the bananas are more plentiful. But he’s still around, however much of an outlier he is. Then there’s a long time poster who starts a new thread to report every time Ron Paul has a bowel movement. Tedious. And there was a post-modern nutcase who got banned, which really takes some doing. How to generalize? Looking to the site’s owner, who is also the most frequent poster, is good evidence gathering, IMO.

My point was not that he's wrong to use MSK to generalize, but simply that a forum's content is its posts, and thus it is the posters who contribute the content. MSK contributes the most content by virtue of the fact that he posts the most, not by virtue of the fact that he owns it (ownership certainly increases the incentive to post, but does not directly contribute to the sites content, other than through posting). It's a simple statement about the nature of an online forum vs. (for example) an organization's website.

The straw man is that because I'm saying that one can separately identify MSK's contributions as a poster and his contributions as an owner, that I believe in some sort of magical separation. My experience is that whenever someone uses "magically" in summing up another's argument, there's probably some misrepresentation going on.

EDIT: It's not a particularly interesting or mind-blowing topic, and I wouldn't normally have stepped into it at all, but saying that owners rather than posters contribute content, and supporting that by citing someone's number of posts... just had to point out the flaw in that.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Aren’t you familiar with how she came to be called Comrade Sonia? It’s been quite a few years now, so it probably bears reviewing. I have a feeling that if I explain it here my post will be deleted, but you won’t post on OL, right? Maybe I’ll get up the yen to do it soon and then link it.

I have an account there and have posted once or twice under the name Grames. If there is a thread that already covers the subject then you can pm me a link over there or here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I generalize from my experience reading at OL, I'd say there were more anti Peikoff folks there than other forums I've frequented as an observer. Particularly when it comes to modern science and Peikoff and Harriman's conception of it. That very few counter posts(almost none that I've read) to the anti-Peikoff bent comments take place, I'd say it probably means that most posters agree. I have taken this simply as an undesirable place to post as I disagree with most that Ive read there. Now, I see objective criticism as healthy and am NOT simply saying that if you disagree with so and so, I don't like you. The spirit which one has when disagreeing is essential.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarians represent such a wide spectrum of beliefs that I have no problem with Objectivists separating themselves from the Libertarian movement. Apart from emphasizing the word "liberty", the Libertarian movement has done little to define liberty, and never really found any cohesion.

Which Libertarian thinkers' works have you read?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I generalize from my experience reading at OL, I'd say there were more anti Peikoff folks there than other forums I've frequented as an observer. Particularly when it comes to modern science and Peikoff and Harriman's conception of it.

Several of the members at OL have very advanced knowledge of the sciences. A few of them are probably much more knowledgeable on the subject than Peikoff and Harriman are. I suspect that the other sites that you're visiting don't have members who are informed enough to critically examine the truth or falsehood of Peikoff and Harriman's views. In any forum where there are experts and professionals in a given field, they're likely to be much more vocal about opinions expressed about their area of expertise.

I've often run into an interesting phenomenon in Objectivist forums in regard to the subject of art and aesthetics (my primary area of interest): At certain sites I've seen Objectivists praise the assertions of other Objectivists who have written about aesthetics and the history of art, despite the fact that the readers don't know enough about the subject to realize that the writers' views are false. When people don't have knowledge of a subject, they sometimes trust people whom they see as being ideologically like-minded to be scholarly and honest enough to accurately report and analyze the subject. Unfortunately, a person's philosophical similarities to oneself, and his past of accurately reporting other subjects, is no guaranty that he will do so with any or all subjects.

That very few counter posts (almost none that I've read) to the anti-Peikoff bent comments take place, I'd say it probably means that most posters agree.

Silence should never be taken for either agreement or disagreement. My guess would be that those who are silent are smart enough to recognize that taking a position on a subject about which they know very little will probably just end in their being embarrassed for saying something that is uninformed. They'll come across as having trusted someone's opinions, and as passionately defending a position which they themselves are ill-equipped to defend.

...Now, I see objective criticism as healthy and am NOT simply saying that if you disagree with so and so, I don't like you. The spirit which one has when disagreeing is essential.

I agree. In Objectivist forums, I generally try to limit myself to behaving no worse than Rand ever did. I try to be no more judgmental, blunt or uncivil than I think she would have been.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, how come you're not responding to Grames' little observation at the top of the page?

Because I hadn't seen it until now.

Grames wrote:

"A sentence such as "The owners and members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and behavior." employs the phrase "The owners and members of OL" as the subject of the sentence instead of providing a list enumerating individuals. That makes it a generalization. "

It is not logical to conclude that the act of identifying a group as a group -- rather than listing all of its members -- is a generalization.

If I say:

"The people who live on my side of my block are not Democrats"

...and if I say:

"The people who live on my side of my block -- Jim, Cindy, Bill, Jan, Tammy, George, Larry, Rick, Liz, Bruce, Ken, Ted, Mike, Steve, Steve, Tom, Jamie, Tony, Lance, Barbara, Molly, Melanie and Josh -- are not Democrats"

...both sentences mean the same thing, and neither is a generalization.

None of the members of OL is "anti-Hsieh." I need not list all of the members in order to communicate what the term "none" means.

As I said in post # 53 on this thread,

"The term "anti-Hsieh" implies an inappropriate judgment of a person, and doesn't address the essentials of what is actually being opposed. If you or I or anyone else behaved in the way that Hsieh has, people at OL would be just as critical of us as they are of Hsieh. So therefore Hsieh's "Hsiehness" is not the characteristic that is being opposed, and to label a group of people's attitude as "anti-Hsieh" is to misidentify the essential characteristic of the issue."

The members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and anti bad behavior.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I hadn't seen it until now.

Grames wrote:

"A sentence such as "The owners and members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and behavior." employs the phrase "The owners and members of OL" as the subject of the sentence instead of providing a list enumerating individuals. That makes it a generalization. "

It is not logical to conclude that the act of identifying a group as a group -- rather than listing all of its members -- is a generalization.

A universal affirmative proposition in the form of "All S is P" is a corner of the Aristotelian square of opposition, which is the foundation of all logic. It is a generalization from the specific posters of which you have knowledge enough to judge.

If you didn't mean "all" in referencing "owners and members of OL", then one can hardly disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A universal affirmative proposition in the form of "All S is P" is a corner of the Aristotelian square of opposition, which is the foundation of all logic. It is a generalization from the specific posters of which you have knowledge enough to judge.

If you didn't mean "all" in referencing "owners and members of OL", then one can hardly disagree with you.

How are you still not understanding?

Here, I'll repeat what I wrote in my last post:

None of the members of OL is "anti-Hsieh." I need not list all of the members in order to communicate what the term "none" means.

Understand? I'm not generalizing. None of the members of OL is "anti-Hsieh."

Again: None of the members of OL is "anti-Hsieh."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you still not understanding?

Here, I'll repeat what I wrote in my last post:

None of the members of OL is "anti-Hsieh." I need not list all of the members in order to communicate what the term "none" means.

Understand? I'm not generalizing. None of the members of OL is "anti-Hsieh."

Again: None of the members of OL is "anti-Hsieh."

J

Oh I see. You are in the other corner of the square of opposition with a statement of the form "No S are P". That is a universal negative.

I stand corrected. Or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see. You are in the other corner of the square of opposition with a statement of the form "No S are P". That is a universal negative.

I stand corrected. Or not.

I think that Jonathan is saying, not that he has studied a sample of OL members and drawn an inference as to the general population, but that he knows every instance and is commenting on all of them.

ETA: Er... is that what you're saying, Jonathan?

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I hadn't seen it until now.

Grames wrote:

"A sentence such as "The owners and members of OL are not "anti-Hsieh" but anti bad ideas and behavior." employs the phrase "The owners and members of OL" as the subject of the sentence instead of providing a list enumerating individuals. That makes it a generalization. "

It is not logical to conclude that the act of identifying a group as a group -- rather than listing all of its members -- is a generalization.

Your dislike for generalizations is a generalization. And the computer you used to write all this nonsense on about how much generalizations suck only exists because some guy named Faraday decided to generalize instead of looking at every single positively and negatively charged particle before deciding that they attract each other.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your dislike for generalizations is a generalization. And the computer you used to write all this nonsense on about how much generalizations suck only exists because some guy named Faraday decided to generalize instead of looking at every single positively and negatively charged particle before deciding that they attract each other.

I've said nothing about disliking generalizations, and I haven't written any nonsense about how much they suck.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I just read this whole thread. :angry:

Daniel, without a proper understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy you can warp capitalism into a bunch of bad directions. Libertarians, as a movement, due to their different fundemental beliefs can not achieve capitalism because they do not know what it is.

You seem to think that Libertarians share a singular vision for a capitalist world that is somewhat compatable with Objectivism's vision. if most libertarians followed the works of Mises,. However I think there are some major issue libertarians differ from Objectivists and from one another in very important ways.

Total war is the first major issue. One of the most startling conclusions of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that war should be waged for victory, without much other consideraton. Most libertarians do not agree with this at all.

Property rights and contracts are not understood by Libertarians. I remember a debate on a forum (Mises.org I think) where people were considering the idea of indentured servitude (voluntary slavery is what they called it). Some were for it and others were against it. I was suprised. Objectivism has a very clear view of this issue but they seemed to have no idea how to think when the NAP stopped informing their world view.

Intellectual Property, immigration,,criminal punishment, ,abortion, children,, existence of the federal government, the existence of government, are all issies where there is major disagreement with one another and with Objectivism.

Maybe it would be more helpful is you suggested a specific group of libertarians who we could achieve common political goals with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky you are so negative :)

I can't believe I just read this whole thread. :angry:

Daniel, without a proper understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy you can warp capitalism into a bunch of bad directions. Libertarians, as a movement, due to their different fundemental beliefs can not achieve capitalism because they do not know what it is.

You seem to think that Libertarians share a singular vision for a capitalist world that is somewhat compatable with Objectivism's vision. if most libertarians followed the works of Mises,. However I think there are some major issue libertarians differ from Objectivists and from one another in very important ways.

I wouldn't say they share a singular vision. I would say most of them share the right vision, which is why they nominate people like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, but that is only my opinion. Btw. Gary Johnson is Polling at 10%.

I agree that objectivists and libertarians differ from one another in very important ways. I would also say that man and woman differ from each other in very important ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't work together.

Total war is the first major issue. One of the most startling conclusions of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that war should be waged for victory, without much other consideraton. Most libertarians do not agree with this at all.

"A: The most important promise we keep is the oath to obey the Constitution. We just shouldn’t be going to all these wars. We shouldn’t have so many injured and in our hospitals because we shouldn’t go to war unless it’s declared. If it’s declared, we should go win it and get it over with. We went in under false pretense. There were no weapons of mass destruction There are still people who believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, yet 15 of the people were from Saudi Arabia. We need to live up to our principles so there are less injured veterans, but when they come home we better jolly well take care of them, and we’re not doing a very good job right now, because all the money’s going overseas. We’re broke. We got to do something about it. And we can’t perpetuate a welfare state AND police an empire without going bankrupt." Ron Paul

To me that doesn't seem so bad, but who knows maybe he is the exception.

Property rights and contracts are not understood by Libertarians. I remember a debate on a forum (Mises.org I think) where people were considering the idea of indentured servitude (voluntary slavery is what they called it). Some were for it and others were against it. I was suprised. Objectivism has a very clear view of this issue but they seemed to have no idea how to think when the NAP stopped informing their world view.

Intellectual Property, immigration,,criminal punishment, ,abortion, children,, existence of the federal government, the existence of government, are all issies where there is major disagreement with one another and with Objectivism.

Maybe it would be more helpful is you suggested a specific group of libertarians who we could achieve common political goals with?

The libertarian party seemed okay to me. I wouldn't say they are perfect. I think pointing out that there are some libertarians on forums and elsewhere who do not agree on some issues is a bit of a straw man.

I never said or implied to work for anarchy with anarcho-capitalists. Also libertarain used to be a term that meant social anarchist. So there's a potential straw men as well.

It's not like everyone who claims to be an objectivist agrees with every other objectivist. If the things you said are in some libertarian party document, than I shall gladly accept my defeat.

Maybe I should refer to them as enlightened classical liberal libertarians from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is used to avoid refuting the reasons Diana Hsieh gives to count certain people as false friends of Objectivism. As a response it goes something like this: "She is reading people out of the movement just like Comrade Sonia would maneuver people out of the communist party, therefore shut up."

Grames,

Dr. Hsieh has sometimes provided bad reasons for denouncing various persons as "false friends of Objectivism."

Other times she has provided no reasons at all.

I am among those who have likened her to Comrade Sonia.

I have also gone into considerable detail—by way of describing the means she employed to get into the good graces of persons in leadership positions at the Ayn Rand Institute, and by way of refuting her purported reasons.

I doubt that that the moderators 'round these parts will want me to post such details here, but they are available at ObjectivistLiving, particularly in this item:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=482&st=140#entry53863

Of course, if my post ends up being deleted on account of including the aforelinked, I will know better than to post here in the future.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now now, someone with one post should not be so prejudiced.

I don't think it's prejudice. The fact that Robert is a new poster here doesn't mean that he has no knowledge of certain moderators' behavior. Robert is a regular reader and contributor at OL, so it's quite likely that he's read some of my detailed accounts, including a lot of evidence, of moderators' actions here.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...