Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Corruption drives history

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

My comment was directed at Crow. 

 

I do not believe for example, a man who undermines a morally wrong state (say a theocracy or fascist dictatorship), even by dishonesty and "hypocrisy" is corrupt, especially if his goals and reasons are virtuous.  An immoral man is an irrational man, that generally stems from bad philosophy and manifests itself with immoral behaviors which include what one normally associates with corruption.

 

 

Essentially actions one associates with corruption are actions which are immoral, but immorality is caused by bad philosophy.

 

Maybe I just don't get it...

 

I think we are in agreement.  If I lived in a fascist state it would be moral  to do what would allow me to survive as a man.  The moral is what allows you to thrive as a man and achieve happiness.  Turning my brain off and blindly going along with it would be irrational and certainly not involve anything involving thriving or happiness.   Morality is like any other discussion of values and has to be judged within a context.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So some brute who just wants money/power/sex is doing it... for philosophical reasons? Because he's carefully considered his moral code, and it's come out in favor of... debauchery?

 

Visit a skid row police station some time and hang out there for a few hours. Tell me what you see. Ask the compelled visitors there about their philosophy of life. Let me know what they say. :-)

 

"Even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" - Rush from Freewill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow:

 

What about the "corruption" which IS the nanny state - redistribution of wealth - altruistic democracy (RULE by the mob) - immoral and tyrannical system we live in?  Does not any one social worker who follows or flaunts the corrupt laws of that behemoth count for nothing?

 

The "corruption" is not the action of individuals in the system, it is the entire system, ideas, laws, politics, ethics, society itself...  where does all that crap come from?  I'll concede not a "corrupt philosophy" (which could be called a contradiction in terms) but the LACK of any valid philosophy... i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow:

 

What about the "corruption" which IS the nanny state - redistribution of wealth - altruistic democracy (RULE by the mob) - immoral and tyrannical system we live in?  Does not any one social worker who follows or flaunts the corrupt laws of that behemoth count for nothing?

 

The "corruption" is not the action of individuals in the system, it is the entire system, ideas, laws, politics, ethics, society itself...  where does all that crap come from?  I'll concede not a "corrupt philosophy" (which could be called a contradiction in terms) but the LACK of any valid philosophy... i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics.

 

I would submit that corruption within that system is most of the problem. It's not that we tax in some reasonable and rational way, its that we tax and spend in capricious ways established by petty corrupt influences e.g. lobbyists and so forth.

 

Of course laws themselves can be corrupt, and there can even be a dictatorship, etc. taken to its logical (and historically common) extreme. The point of the OP's link was exactly that: that petty corruption leads to dictatorships.

 

Now I'm offering Objectivism as a cure for corruption, or at least a primary tool to fight it. Here's to hoping that will happen in the future, and the future of history is different than its present and past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would submit that corruption within that system is most of the problem. It's not that we tax in some reasonable and rational way, its that we tax and spend in capricious ways established by petty corrupt influences e.g. lobbyists and so forth.

 

Of course laws themselves can be corrupt, and there can even be a dictatorship, etc. taken to its logical (and historically common) extreme. The point of the OP's link was exactly that: that petty corruption leads to dictatorships.

 

Now I'm offering Objectivism as a cure for corruption, or at least a primary tool to fight it. Here's to hoping that will happen in the future, and the future of history is different than its present and past.

 

A good example of your point, the Federal Highway System is an example of a system that was actually set up well and the funding was reasonable (i.e. a use based system) which was smart call for the era it was created (tolls were more popular bu they disregarded conventional wisdom).  It was petty corruption that slowly managed to screw it up, locally and nationally.  

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that we tax in some reasonable and rational way, its that we tax and spend in capricious ways established by petty corrupt influences e.g. lobbyists and so forth.

This is the common refrain among libertarians and "Occupiers" who think that big-business and their lobbyists are the primary drivers of our system. It is also false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. It's everybody and their lobbyists who are the primary drivers of our system...

Everybody? Okay, fair enough. So, not -- as you actually said --  "lobbyists and so forth". Nor, as someone else might claim "Mormons and so forth" or "atheists and so forth".

 

Secondly, the other two notions are:

a. that these (whether "everybody" or "lobbyists") are acting "capriciously"

b. that these (whether "everybody" or "lobbyists") are not acting primarily from some philosophic motivation

These are contradictory. Anyhow, both are false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the common refrain among libertarians and "Occupiers" who think that big-business and their lobbyists are the primary drivers of our system. It is also false.

There are generally two types of libertarian attitudes in regards this topic. Right wing libertarians tend to see the current system as a primarily defined by a free market background, that has a bunch of regulations and taxes, and various burdens to businesses imposed on it. Left-libertarians tend to view the system as primarily corporatist in nature, set up to specifically provide privileges and benefits for big business and the well connected elite, and insulate them from market forces. Right libertarians tend to view a freed market as resembling basically the current system, just minus all the fluff, while left libertarians tend to view a freed market as resulting in smaller flatter firms and cooperatives.

One does not have to be a non-Objectivist libertarian to follow the left wing view, it is fully compatible with an abstractionist view in epistemology and eudaimonist view in ethics, and so forth.

Moreover, Rand herself seemed to contain both left and right wing strains in her thought. In her nonfiction, she wrote that big business was a "persecuted minority," but in her article "The Roots of War," for example, she condemns “men with political pull” who seek “special advantages by government action in their own countries” and “special markets by government action abroad,” and so “acquire fortunes by government favor… which they could not have acquired on a free market.”

Elsewhere Rand had identified U.S. domestic policy as the "New Fascism," the result of pragmatic expediency and of ad hoc, incremental policies that had enriched some groups at the expense of others. A business-government "partnership" was its "economic essence" ("The New Fascism: Rule By Consensus").

In her fiction, the contrast is even more towards the left wing strain. Her heroes struggle against evil bureaucrats who want to give her company special favors and privileges at its competitors’ expense, and the vast majority of businessmen are villains who are inefficient and exploitative.

In any event, like the leftist strain of Rand, I think there is much evidence to lend towards that strain being the correct one, and that the system is primarily corporatist in nature. So if this is what the OP means by "corruption" driving things, then I think there is a strong case that is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody? Okay, fair enough. So, not -- as you actually said --  "lobbyists and so forth". Nor, as someone else might claim "Mormons and so forth" or "atheists and so forth".

 

Secondly, the other two notions are:

a. that these (whether "everybody" or "lobbyists") are acting "capriciously"

b. that these (whether "everybody" or "lobbyists") are not acting primarily from some philosophic motivation

These are contradictory. Anyhow, both are false.

 

You've totally lost me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose any sequence of words could be construed as, "treading into philosophical waters" since everything we think or do falls under its analysis.

:thumbsup:

Meaning is contextual. In the context of history, to say that every human action- ever- can be traced back to the philosophical notions of its actors, is meaningful. It implies a particular model of the human mind, offers an unlimited range of insights into it (and into history and into everything that anyone could ever do) and necessitates a radical way of introspectively evaluating ourselves (contrast "reason" with the primary virtue to the majority of people alive today, which is "faith"); an evaluation which further demands certain specific actions be taken whenever we find ourselves in any of a wide variety of situations.

Really, to say that identification (of philosophy as the driving force behind history) isn't meaningful, is meaningful; it means that you should check your philosophical premises.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
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...