Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Brownshirts Are Here

Rate this topic


softwareNerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have already answered these points. See Post #66 regarding the nature of responsibility. See Post #65 regarding the "quote out of context" calumny.
In addition to quoting Miss Rand out of context, you apparently think her statements are axioms, i.e. they are self-evident and require no additional support or proof. You quote her, and then, in response to any objections that are raised, you simply repeat the quote -- as if no other support is required. However, they are not axioms, and repeating them does not constitute support for your assertions. Posts 65 and 66 are not “answers”, they are simply more of these unsupported assertions. For instance:

We're going round and round over previously tread territory. I've already pointed out that not being "responsible for the immoral state of the world" is not the same as bearing responsibility for the government one has.
Why is it different? Because you say so?

The fact that you took no actions that led specifically to the establishment of a welfare state, does not make you any less responsible for securing your own liberty by means of establishing a proper Objectivist government.
Why does my working against the welfare state not make me any less responsible for it? Because you say so?

No, people didn't deserve to be in Soviet concentration camps for disagreeing with their rulers -- nor in American jails for viewing the wrong sort of web sites. But if people do not change their government, whether they can help it or not, they are still responsible for their own lives and liberty.
Why are they still responsible? Because you say so?

To some extent all governments rely on the support or acquiescence or negligence of the citizenry. Therefore, you, I and everyone else bear responsibility for it.
Why does "everyone", including those who Miss Rand called "innocent victims", "bear responsibility"? Because you say so?

She made it perfectly clear that not only were the inmates of slave states responsible for their political system, but the citizens of mixed economies as well. ("as all of us are paying for the sins of ours," "we bear the responsibility for it.") And, yes, that would necessarily include "citizens using Internet terminals in a library in a welfare-state that is still semi-free."
Why does it necessarily include them? Because you say so"?

Miss Rand’s statements, in this case, are not axioms and merely repeating them does not support your assertions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to quoting Miss Rand out of context,

Unproven assertion.

you apparently think her statements are axioms, i.e. they are self-evident and require no additional support or proof.

Unproven assertion #2.

You quote her, and then, in response to any objections that are raised, you simply repeat the quote -- as if no other support is required.
False. I've offered many arguments separate from Ayn Rand's statements.

However, they are not axioms, and repeating them does not constitute support for your assertions.

Strawman.

Posts 65 and 66 are not “answers”, they are simply more of these unsupported assertions.

For instance:

Why is it different? Because you say so?

No, because by definition "the immoral state of the world" and one's own government are not one and the same thing.

Why does my working against the welfare state not make me any less responsible for it? Because you say so?

Never claimed that everyone is equally to blame for bad government, only that everyone bears a responsibility for making sure he has good government.

Why are they still responsible? Because you say so?
The right to life is the right to take those actions necessary to support one’s life, but each individual is responsible for taking those actions.

Why does "everyone", including those who Miss Rand called "innocent victims", "bear responsibility"? Because you say so?

Because it is self-evident that government would collapse if it did not enjoy the acquiescence if not outright support of its people.

Why does it necessarily include them? Because you say so"?
Because they are citizens too.

Miss Rand’s statements, in this case, are not axioms and merely repeating them does not support your assertions.

Strawman again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

False. I've offered many arguments separate from Ayn Rand's statements.
Really? Please give us some examples, because I don't see them. In my last post I gave you four examples of assertions you made completely without support.

For instance, what is your argument in support of the claim that those who work against the welfare state also "bear responsibility" for the welfare state? What is your argument for the claim that I "bear responsibility" for anything other than my own actions? If you don't consider these claims to be axioms, provide some proof, evidence or support -- something other than a restatement.

No, because by definition "the immoral state of the world" and one's own government are not one and the same thing.
But you have offered nothing to explain why "innocent victims" who are "not responsible for the immoral state of the world" are nonetheless responsible for the political results created by that immorality. How can I be responsible for the effect -- which is politics -- when I am not responsible for the cause -- which is morality? Can you answer these questions -- or are you merely going to restate that we "bear responsibility for making sure we get good government"?

Never claimed that everyone is equally to blame for bad government, only that everyone bears a responsibility for making sure he has good government.
Why? Because you say so? Where are the "many arguments seperate from Ayn Rand's statements" that support this? What is your support for this assertion?

What does it mean to say that I "bear responsibility" for "making sure" of something? How, short of initiating the use of force, can I "make sure" of what others will or will not agree to? What is your answer to these questions? Do you have anything besides repeating an Ayn Rand quote? Can you offer any reasoning, evidence or proof -- or will you continue to just repeat the statement, "Everyone bears responsibility for making sure they have good government"? More unsupported assertions?

The right to life is the right to take those actions necessary to support one’s life, but each individual is responsible for taking those actions.
I agree, but how do you get from the notion that I am responsible for "taking those actions" to the notion that I am responsible for the actions taken by others?

Because it is self-evident that government would collapse if it did not enjoy the acquiescence if not outright support of its people.
Thank you for demonstrating that you do, in fact, consider Miss Rand's statements to be axiomatic. You offer no support except the claim that it is "self-evident". Well, it is not. And it is not self-evident that everyone "bears responsibility" for any government that does not collapse.

Because they are citizens too.
So what? Why do all citizens "bear responsibility" for whatever government comes about, whether they have worked for or against the particular form of government that results? What is your support for that assertion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daedalus, I agree that you offer arguments of your own. However, you also often treat Ayn Rand's statements as irreducible primaries, when they are not.

For instance (from the "Reporting a Crime" thread):

Supporting compulsory financing of government or a slave army would automatically disqualify one as an Objectivist.
How is this of any relevance to the argument? Surely nobody here wants to "be an Objectivist" in the sense of accepting an Objectivist position even when they cannot explain it; or at least, cannot integrate it with the rest of their knowledge. In fact, to do so would itself go against Ayn Rand's advice, which puts one in a real catch-22!

When presented with the example of draft being similar to forced witness, you refuse to examine the principle behind being against a draft. Instead, you treat it as a primary. The right approach is to explain why the draft example is different, not just in minor concretes but in some way that illuminates a guiding principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Really? Please give us some examples, because I don't see them.

2. In my last post I gave you four examples of assertions you made completely without support.

1. See Post #s 35, 46, 49 and others.

2. Answered in Post #78.

3. For instance, what is your argument in support of the claim that those who work against the welfare state also "bear responsibility" for the welfare state?

4. What is your argument for the claim that I "bear responsibility" for anything other than my own actions? (just as he must endure the consequences if he won’t or can’t feed himself). If you don't consider these claims to be axioms, provide some proof, evidence or support -- something other than a restatement

3. If an individual is the owner of his own life and liberty, then the responsibility for removing any threat thereto rests on himself. If he requires help to remove the threat, it is his responsibility to get the help he needs.

4. When government becomes a menace to an individual's liberty, it is his responsibility to secure or recover his liberty. One way is to change government. Another way is to leave the country. If he fails or makes no attempt, he simply has to endure the consequences as best he can. This is no different from bearing the responsibility of feeding oneself. Alternatively, who or what would be responsible for feeding or freeing you? God? Mom? Big Brother? Hegel's World-Soul?

5.But you have offered nothing to explain why "innocent victims" who are "not responsible for the immoral state of the world" are nonetheless responsible for the political results created by that immorality.

6. How can I be responsible for the effect -- which is politics -- when I am not responsible for the cause -- which is morality? Can you answer these questions -- or are you merely going to restate that we "bear responsibility for making sure we get good government"

5. Blame and responsibility are separate issues. If the population as a whole is responsible for getting good government, then by extension each individual is responsible as well.

6. If a gang of vandals destroys a farmer's crops, he is not suddenly absolved of the necessity of feeding himself. Do we blame Farmer John for the drought? No. Do we still hold him responsible for his own survival? Yes.

7.Why? Because you say so? Where are the "many arguments seperate from Ayn Rand's statements" that support this? What is your support for this assertion?

8. What does it mean to say that I "bear responsibility" for "making sure" of something? How, short of initiating the use of force, can I "make sure" of what others will or will not agree to?

7. Refer to point 1 in this post.

8. You do the best you can and then accept the consequences. If your "best" was not good enough, then you still have to suffer.

9. What is your answer to these questions?

10. Do you have anything besides repeating an Ayn Rand quote?

9. See above.

10. See above and see what Ayn Rand had to say.

11. Can you offer any reasoning, evidence or proof

12. or will you continue to just repeat the statement, "Everyone bears responsibility for making sure they have good government"?

11. See all of above.

12. Refute it if you can.

13. More unsupported assertions?

14. I agree, but how do you get from the notion that I am responsible for "taking those actions" to the notion that I am responsible for the actions taken by others?

13. In your previous posts?

14. Remember the distinction between "blame" and "responsibility."

15. Thank you for demonstrating that you do, in fact, consider Miss Rand's statements to be axiomatic.

16. You offer no support except the claim that it is "self-evident".

15. And thank you for a delightful series of unsupported assertions.

16. But precisely how could a government remain stable or in power for any length of time unless the majority of the population actively sought to undermine it?

17. So what? Why do all citizens "bear responsibility" for whatever government comes about, whether they have worked for or against the particular form of government that results? What is your support for that assertion?

17. See point 3 above. Who should be responsible for freeing you from tyranny? The Tooth Fairy? The Angel Gabriel? Superman? The Care Bears?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daedalus, I agree that you offer arguments of your own. However, you also often treat Ayn Rand's statements as irreducible primaries, when they are not.

On the contary, I regard all of Ayn Rand's principles as provable according to the nature of reality and man's ability to reason. Do you suppose they are not?

For instance (from the "Reporting a Crime" thread):How is this of any relevance to the argument? Surely nobody here wants to "be an Objectivist" in the sense of accepting an Objectivist position even when they cannot explain it; or at least, cannot integrate it with the rest of their knowledge. In fact, to do so would itself go against Ayn Rand's advice, which puts one in a real catch-22!
I fail to see what you are driving at. I have fully explained and justified all of my Objectivist positions. Would you like me to justify any of yours?

When presented with the example of draft being similar to forced witness, you refuse to examine the principle behind being against a draft. Instead, you treat it as a primary. The right approach is to explain why the draft example is different, not just in minor concretes but in some way that illuminates a guiding principle.

I have already explained that Ayn Rand's opposition to the draft is consistent with her support of killing innocents who are in the way of immediate self-defense. Would you like me to call on someone from ARI to explain it further?

Okay, I'll bite. Tell me, softwareNerd, why the draft is different from compulsory testimony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea. However, if I cannot resolve a contradiction, I'd rather hold on to it than deny it, evade it, or select an arbitrary resolution.

I've addressed this issue forthrightly on another thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...41entry110441

If you can come up with a better resolution you're welcome to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've addressed this issue forthrightly on another thread:
I missed that part of the post and apologize for implying that you did not address it at all.

I think the way it's addressed is problematic, but any reply I might make belongs in the original thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, what is your argument in support of the claim that those who work against the welfare state also "bear responsibility" for the welfare state?

If an individual is the owner of his own life and liberty, then the responsibility for removing any threat thereto rests on himself. If he requires help to remove the threat, it is his responsibility to get the help he needs.

I don't see how you can consider this an answer. You have offered nothing here to explain in what sense I “bear responsibility” for the welfare state that I have worked to prevent.

According to your position, when Objectivism triumphs, and we transition to laissez-faire capitalism, all of capitalism’s enemies -- including all of the leftist/socialist/communist intellectuals in the universities and in the main stream media who are relentlessly working to bring about the destruction of capitalism – will “bear responsibility” for the existence of capitalism. Used in this fashion, I do not see that "bear responsibility" has any meaning at all.

When government becomes a menace to an individual's liberty, it is his responsibility to secure or recover his liberty. One way is to change government. Another way is to leave the country. If he fails or makes no attempt, he simply has to endure the consequences as best he can. This is no different from bearing the responsibility of feeding oneself. Alternatively, who or what would be responsible for feeding or freeing you? God? Mom? Big Brother? Hegel's World-Soul?
I am responsible for feeding and freeing myself. The question is who "bears responsibility" if you make that impossible by enslaving me or stealing my crops and I die as a result? What I do not understand is your desire, under those conditions, to place the burden of "bearing responsibility" on the victim instead of placing it on those who initiated the use of force.

If a gang of vandals destroys a farmer's crops, he is not suddenly absolved of the necessity of feeding himself.
Granted, he is not absolved of the necessity of feeding himself; the issue is your claim that he “bears responsibility” if he dies as a result of the actions of the vandals. I’ve yet to see any sort of argument that supports the idea that one “bears responsibility” for the consequences of the actions of others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how you can consider this an answer. You have offered nothing here to explain in what sense I “bear responsibility” for the welfare state that I have worked to prevent.

You bear responsibility for your own life and liberty. If you are unwilling or unable to remove those who violate your rights, then you must suffer the consequences.

According to your position, when Objectivism triumphs, and we transition to laissez-faire capitalism, all of capitalism’s enemies -- including all of the leftist/socialist/communist intellectuals in the universities and in the main stream media who are relentlessly working to bring about the destruction of capitalism – will “bear responsibility” for the existence of capitalism. Used in this fashion, I do not see that "bear responsibility" has any meaning at all.

Leftists, like Objectivists and everyone else, bear responsibility for their own lives. If leftists want to force their beliefs on America but are unable to do so, they must put up with the system imposed by their enemies.

I am responsible for feeding and freeing myself. The question is who "bears responsibility" if you make that impossible by enslaving me or stealing my crops and I die as a result? What I do not understand is your desire, under those conditions, to place the burden of "bearing responsibility" on the victim instead of placing it on those who initiated the use of force.
If you wish to rely on the statists to free you, good luck. I'd rather rely on myself and those I can trust.

Granted, he is not absolved of the necessity of feeding himself; the issue is your claim that he “bears responsibility” if he dies as a result of the actions of the vandals. I’ve yet to see any sort of argument that supports the idea that one “bears responsibility” for the consequences of the actions of others.

You are conflating "blame" and "responsibility."

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...