There’s an interesting implicit premise here that I’d like to make explicit. You seem to think that there’s an either-or decision to be made in argument – either you argue from moral principles, or you argue from economic/political principles. But it’s possible to do both, and doing both makes the argument more powerful. Look at the approach that FIRM takes in opposing the spread of socialized medicine. It’s a seamless blend of moral and political argument, and the moral framework is fundamentally Objectivist. (Lin Zinser is an Objectivist.) Their combined deployment of moral and political opposition to socialized medicine has already substantially reframed that debate in Colorado, and (for the moment) stopped a movement towards exactly the kind of ridiculous legislation you seem to oppose.
I think a significant part of the cause is precisely that a lot of people don’t feel morally secure in their views, and as a result are unwilling to stand up proudly and defend them. They are morally disarmed. To say “your need does not entitle you to the fruits of my labor”, you need some understanding of why that view of entitlement is wrong, i.e. you need a moral defense of the individual’s right to keep what he earns. The solution to the problems caused by a morally disarmed population is to provide them with moral armament – and that’s exactly what Libertarianism cannot do, and that’s why I don’t support the Libertarians.
From my personal experience, most of the people I end up arguing with are not only emotionally passionate about what they believe, they also maintain the authority of their respective “morality” (as misguided as it might be). I understand your point about morality strengthening an argument, but a lot of people can take it the wrong way and you end up souring them because they feel as if they are being attacked personally. Dealing with irrational people takes some finesse… you don’t assault the values and ethics that an environmentalist holds dear in order to get him to listen to you. If you do that, he’ll consider you a crazy oil-industry stooge who hates the Earth (yes, I’ve been called an oil industry stooge before even though I’ve never worked for any oil company). Rather, I’ve had more success bringing data to the table and showing how emotional pandering and poor decision making can lead to terrible consequences.
It’s not that I don’t think that bringing morality into the fray of an argument is a bad idea, or that morality based arguments and economic based arguments are mutually exclusive. I’ve just had bad luck in the area- people get too emotional and insulted easily. Facts and data tend to not leave people as upset.
I think that’s a bit sad. There are people, both in history and in the contemporary world, who have achieved great things – often in the face of great opposition. Admiring such people for their achievements is an act of justice. (I don’t think any of the people you listed qualify for such admiration, however.) Heroism is inspirational, and provides much-needed spiritual fuel in a world that too often seems (as you put it) to be spiraling down the toilet bowl.
I recognize the success of individuals, but admire is a strong word. I respect Marvin Minsky, the co-founder of the Artificial Intelligence institute at MIT, but I’m not going to go to great lengths to meet him, if that makes sense. I feel the same way about other people. I respect Alan Turing and think his work in the field of computer science was monumental. But I’m not going to go visit his grave- I have better, more practical things to do with my time, like developing algorithms… or you know… cleaning my house. :lol: That’s just a matter of personal opinion though.
