Sciabarra's Latest

[argive99]

If you can stomach it, here is the latest from Sciabarra:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/nota...ves/000373.html

Here is the money quote:

"If we abstract from this discussion any consideration of Rand's or Churchill's or even Bin Laden's philosophical or political positions, if we abstract from this discussion any consideration of the lives and/or broader ideological commitments of these individuals, I find no way of avoiding the implication of comparability."

Is it me, or is this man completely clueless?

[Gabriel_S]

If you can stomach it, here is the latest from Sciabarra:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/nota...ves/000373.html

Here is the money quote:

"If we abstract from this discussion any consideration of Rand's or Churchill's or even Bin Laden's philosophical or political positions, if we abstract from this discussion any consideration of the lives and/or broader ideological commitments of these individuals, I find no way of avoiding the implication of comparability."

Is it me, or is this man completely clueless?

Hell, if we abstract enough away, we're all just "matter in motion."

[argive99]

Hell, if we abstract enough away, we're all just "matter in motion."

[Nxixcxk]

I don't see anything wrong with what he wrote. What ar eyou guys complaining about?

[Nxixcxk]

The author says that Rand said this: "This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government—as all of us are paying for the sins of ours."

I'm curious as to how others interpret Rand's statement when she says, "pay the price."

For instance, if, for some odd reason, the USA decides to nuclear bomb Europe tomorrow, and Europe retaliates and I somehow get nailed with European machine gun fire, would that example be subsumed under "paying the price"?

On another note:

I sat in on a lecture given about the "Just War Theory" by Yaron Brook (an eminent Objectivist), and agreed entirely with his position. He basically stated that even if the enemy were to encircle himself in innocent children, the solider would be justified in killing the children so long as his objective was to kill the enemy.

However, after reading Rand's statement above, I am having some trouble either interpreting what she's saying, or I am in disagreement with her.

Miss Rand says (according to that author from the link in the original post), "If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government."

I'm wondering what, under her usage, constitutes a "bad government."

For instance, a dictatorship would be unanimously considered a bad government. But would the US (a country that recognizes rights) be considered a bad government if they one day, for no good reason, decided to nuke Europe? Would I then, as an American citizen, fall under the "ignorant," "neglectful," or "helpless" as Miss Rand used the terms, and thus be subjected to European retaliation? (sorry I know this is basically what I asked above, but hopeflly it clears any confusion)

Ok I'm done...sorry if it's confusing to read, my thoughts are jumbled in abstractions...abstractions which probably lack context, but hopefully someone can help .

[Nxixcxk]

Oh, and one more thing, "Sciabarra" who is s/he? You gave no explanation of who that person is, as if he's to be known, so if you wouldn't mind explaining

[dondigitalia]

Oh, and one more thing, "Sciabarra" who is s/he?  You gave no explanation of who that person is, as if he's to be known, so if you wouldn't mind explaining

He is a well-known "Objectvist" of the TOC variety.

[argive99]

I don't see anything wrong with what he wrote.  What ar eyou guys complaining about?

Then you need to study Objectivism more. He reiterates the standard Libertarian tripe:

1) It was American "Intervention" which is responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism.

2) It is the "welfare/warfare" axis which perpetuates American warmongering in "innocent" foreign lands.

3) Because America is herself flawed by free market standards, she is no better than her enemies.

4) There is a moral equivalency between the dead America has suffered and the dead that Iraq or Afghanistan has suffered because they both came as the consequences of "government action".

He merely distinguishes himself by clothing these things with some quotes by Rand and a ton of academic jargon.

I could go on. Sciabarra is a Libertarian who likes to parade as an Objectivist or as he would call it a "Randian." To calalog his errors would take pages. All those who are familiar with the Objectivist movement, as you apparently are not, know who he is. This post was intended to show how opposed to and completely ignorant of Ayn Rand's ideas he truly is. In his essay, he makes a meaningless comparison between Ward Churchill, Bin Laden, and Rand in that they all considered a citizenry responsible for the actions taken by their respective governments but he omits the crucial distinction of what those individuals actually stood for!!! So what that they all shared that one point. There is a whole universe that they didn't share! And it is that universe which Sciabarra doesn't know from a hole in the wall; namely Objectivist philosophy.

Sciabarra, like Kelly, is claiming intellectual mastery of something he doesn't know the first thing about. And with each essay he writes, his ignorance becomes more manifest.

[Gabriel_S]

This post was intended to show how opposed to and completely ignorant of Ayn Rand's ideas he truly is. In his essay, he makes a meaningless comparison between Ward Churchill, Bin Laden, and Rand in that they all considered a citizenry responsible for the actions taken by their respective governments but he omits the crucial distinction of what those individuals actually stood for!!! So what that they all shared that one point. There is a whole universe that they didn't share! And it is that universe which Sciabarra doesn't know from a hole in the wall; namely Objectivist philosophy.

This stripping away of crucial distinctions ("abstracting" as S. puts it) reminds me of the old liberal bromide (said in order to equate the productive and non-productive, the West and the East, etc.), "We're all people."

[scottkursk]

He is a well-known "Objectvist" of the TOC variety.

Even better, "Her Royal Whoreness"* is a SOLOist. Maybe we could call them "Neo's" for short since they are to Objectivism what neoconservatives are to the Republicans. I apologize in advance for that comment since it is pretty insulting to neconservatives and I have some respect for some neocon's.

*I won't waste a hyperlink to him but he does use the term gladly.

[DavidV]

Is it me, or is this man completely clueless?

I didn't read the whole post, but I think you missed the point he was making, which appears to be valid. (From a quick skim of the post.)

[argive99]

I didn't read the whole post, but I think you missed the point he was making, which appears to be valid.  (From a quick skim of the post.)

His point, taken directly from his comments at his site, is that Rand's view that the citizenry bears responsibility for the actions of their government has a "creeping collectivism" to it which he is "uncomfortable with". This is part of his continuing argument that Ayn Rand (and all "Orthodox" Objectivists) exhibited intrincist tendencies which Peikoff and other "Randroids" have exaserbated. (To be fair, "Randroid" is the term used by SoloHQ and TOC people.)

Of what value is there to comparing Rand to (of all people) Bin laden and Ward Churchill? Who benefits and who loses? And on such superficial grounds! That they all believed that the citizens should suffer for the sins of their government. How many crucial ommissions are in there?

Read the entire essay and tell me if you still think it "appears to be valid". You're a bright guy. I respect your opinion. Maybe I missed something. But after I read it, I felt like vomitting.

[Tom Robinson]

Then you need to study Objectivism more. He reiterates the standard Libertarian tripe:

3) Because America is herself flawed by free market standards, she is no better than her enemies.

Did Sciabarra really take this position? Can you provide a reference?

[rameshkaimal]

Mr. Sciabarra says: "If we abstract from this discussion any consideration of Rand's or Churchill's or even Bin Laden's philosophical or political positions, if we abstract from this discussion any consideration of the lives and/or broader ideological commitments of these individuals, I find no way of avoiding the implication of comparability."

This is like saying that if we abstract the fundamental differences between:

1. an Objectivist, who is against murder because it violates the right to life, and

2. a theist, who is against murder because only "God", and not Man, can take away life, and

3. a leftist, who is against murder because it is an anti-social act against the "Collective" of which the victim and the killer are mere "cogs",

there is absolutely no difference in their common conclusion that it is immoral to commit murder!

When a human mind reaches a conclusion about anything at all, it does so, on the basis of certain ideas or premises without which no such conclusion would even be possible, in the first place.

So, if one is rational, which necessarily means, one is intellectually honest, one will invariably focus on the intellectual context that causes a mind to come to a certain conclusion, instead of blanking out such a context and arbitrarily treating the conclusion as no different from the same conclusion reached by others who hold a diametrically opposite context.

Ramesh Kaimal

[Yes]

Read the entire essay and tell me if you still think it "appears to be valid". You're a bright guy. I respect your opinion. Maybe I missed something. But after I read it, I felt like vomitting.

I was just appalled.

It just seemed to me that Sciabarra was not distinguishing between the philosophical content of Ayn Rand and those of Churchill and Bin Laden. That's what I found appalling.