About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, April 4, 2004 - 8:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great letter; I am sure it will spark much thought. Is it certain to appear?

Post 1

Sunday, April 4, 2004 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I followed your advice. Good idea! If Objectivism could start influencing other groups around the country, we might start making it known that our ideas are a force to be reckoned with.

The idea of Utilitarianism, or 'the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number', which I see as a branch of Altruism, has a huge following, and may be the largest underlying ethical code behind American Liberalism, but it is completely grounded in dogma and faith. Most of the atheists of the western world have replaced the worship of God with the worship of the Tribe. It's an idea that has to be shot down. Egoism can be built upon the requirements for Life. Altruism has nothing to support it.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie (Houston)


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Sunday, April 4, 2004 - 11:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We shall see if my letter gets published.  I hope to overwhelm the publisher with Objectivist responses, hence my article here on SOLO and elsewhere encouraging Objectivists to write their own letters to the AIO Editor.

Post 3

Sunday, April 4, 2004 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great article, something that needs to be published in all atheist, freethought, and humanist publications.  After all, (paraphrasing Jesus Christ) "What profitith a man who giveth up the superstitions of religion but adopteth the superstitions of statism".  In a previous issue of "Free Inquiry", a secular humanist publication, Glade Ross wrote an excellent op-ed entitled "Humanism and Compulsion"  in which he argues against socialism and the compulsion against people which is used to enforce it.  Quite pertinently, Ross states, "The religious politicos believe in the moral probity of initiating government violence(or threat thereof) to achieve their own vision of a better world.  So does (atheist, humanist) Dunphy.  The only difference is in the particular end each camp believes compulsion should be directed toward." Further, Ross says, "In specific regards to Dunphy's topic, both camps believe in having the government forcibly extract the ruits of my labor from me-at the point of a gun if need be-for use in funding a system of public education...". Then, in the following issue of "Free Inquiry", Marvin Edwards denounces Ross's opinions as "an extreme right-wing myth".  I must admit, that for the most part, I am a secular humanist, but some of the points of the Humanist Manifestos literally could make me vomit.  Specifically, for example, point 5 under section IX  of the Humanist Manifesto 2000 says, "We recommend an international system of taxation in order to assist the underdeveloped sectors of the human family...This would not be a voluntary contribution, but an actual tax".   This is gross hypocricy, because earlier, that same Manifesto states, "...the dignity and autonomy of the individual is the central value.  Humanist ethics is committed to maximizing freedom of choice; liberty of thought and conscience, the free mind and free inquiry, and the right of individuals to pursue their own lifestyles as they see fit so long as they do not harm others". Fortunately, a good number of humanists are Objectivists and libertarians rather than socialists.  Back in the Fall, 1989 issue of "Free Inquiry" the magazine featured debates between socialist and libertarian humanists.  One of the debaters on the libertarian side was none other than Edward Hudgins, one of the big guns at TOC. Fellow  libertarian humanist Robert Scheafer  fires out, "...we cannot escape the conclusion that humanistic values are best realized in societies that allow individuals to buy and sell goods freely, and that they fare worst under socialism.  Indeed, the realities of socialism, with or without a "human face" are utterly incompatible with the professed goals of humanism".  R.W. Bradford, publisher of "Liberty" claimed that the God of traditional religion was loosing popularity, but was rapidly being replaced by another Deity, namely, "The State"  Bradford then argues that just as atheism and secular humanism argued against the gods of traditional religions, there must be a new atheism/secular humanism to oppose this new God and his worshippers.  "The Libertarian ideal", says Bradford, "is profoundly secular and profoundly humanistic: secular in its insistence on the rational and scientific; humanist in the value it places on human life.  Liberty is valued because it is a system under which individual humn beings can optimize their potential, maximizing their happiness and prosperity according to their own values.  The power of the state is opposed because it leads to human misery and poverty". 

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 3
Post 4

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luther:

Chagrined, you stated in your article:
Sadly, the last few decades have seen a dramatic increase in the number of “conservative” writers who ardently employ religious precepts to justify capitalism--and not even authentic capitalism at that, but a heavily regulated market called “compassionate capitalism”. 
First of all, let's separate the likes of Amway crook Rich DeVos and his self-serving "compassionate capitalism" from Christian apologists such as Michael Novak who are making the religious case free markets and limited government.

Second, isn't it -- to be blunt -- a little childish to begrudge religious conservatives their belief in and support of the morality of capitalism?  It is utterly absurd to think that one must be an atheist to recognize the decency, justice, and beauty of a capitalist society.  If a Christian recognizes this in terms of his religious beliefs, how does that diminish you?  Indeed, you should welcome it, because you will not disabuse him of his faith in God, therefore you should recognize that your self-interest is served when he finds that his faith supports what you desire.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 5

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 4:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, your mistake is to think what Objectivists are after is capitalism. That is not the goal. It would be a consequence, to be sure.

Post 6

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 5:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney:

You wrote: 
Bill, your mistake is to think what Objectivists are after is capitalism. That is not the goal. It would be a consequence, to be sure.
I understand that Objectivist perspective.  But Objectivists surely understand that the rest of us do not share their goals; therefore, it is in the Objectivists' interest to have as open a society as needed to allow them to freely pursue their goals.  Such a society is a capitalist one, and so it is in the self-interest of Objectivists to have non-Objectivists agree with them that such a society is a desirable.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 7

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But we hold that capitalism can only be defended, achieved, and upheld by defending, achieving, and upholding the ideas on which it rests. We have any number of conservatives trying to reestablish economic freedom, and we have had them for over a century. They have failed. Why? The short answer is: the world is in dire need of Objectivism.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/07, 1:39pm)


Post 8

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney:

You wrote: 
But we hold that capitalism can only be defended, achieved, and upheld by defending, achieving, and upholding the ideas on which it rests. We have any number of conservatives trying to reestablish economic freedom, and we have had them for decades. They have failed. Why? The short answer is: the world is in dire need of Objectivism.
I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  We (that is all of us) have not failed.  We do live in a capitalist society with a robust free market.  Indeed, a measure of its health is its ability carry the weight of regulation and taxation that it does.  Should we unshackle it from these restraints?  Yes!  But do these restraints make our society something other than capitalist?  No.  We need to see our way of life for what it is:  An imperfect realization of the capitalist ideal.

Furthermore, the capitalist creed, however imperfectly, is spreading around the world.  The collapse of Communism was no small thing.  As an old cold warrior in Air Force intelligence during the 'Eighties, I can tell you that the collapse of the Red Menace was not a matter of certainty.  Indeed, its containment was the best most hoped for, though some, following Reagan's lead, demanded (and finally achieved) more.  As someone born the year the Berlin Wall went up, its fall was an event of a lifetime.

This defeat of the greatest enemy the capitalist world ever faced was a major victory.  And it was accomplished without Objectivism.  Indeed, it was the ascendancy of conservatism in the late 'Seventies and early 'Eighties that made such a victory possible.  So no, Objectivism is not the only defense capitalism has.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 9

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Objectivism is the only defense capitalism has.

Besides, what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?

 


Post 10

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 4:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney:

You asserted: 

Objectivism is the only defense capitalism has.

As I pointed out, Soviet Communism was the greatest menace that we, the capitalist societies of the West, ever faced.  There was the more than the negligible prospect of our total material annihilation, from which there would have been no recovery.  We defeated that menace, and Objectivism played no role in that victory.

Conservatives did, such as Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II.  They invigorated our cause by popularizing the moral foundations of capitalist society, which was sorely needed for eventual victory over the Soviets.  I grant that Rand was an early voice in propounding the essential morality of capitalism, but when it came to promoting the necessary politics to defend that morality against the Red Menace, she and Objectivism weren't very effective.  Indeed, Rand backed Ford, the country-club "Poland is free" Republican, over Reagan, the clear-eyed cold warrior.

So, Rodney, I look at the facts of history and find your assertion wanting.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 11

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Rodney.

Touched by grace, perhaps, you observed:
Besides, what does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?
Indeed, a profound Christian truth that was well-expressed in a mid-twentieth century novel in which a man inherited a railroad and so gained political favor and power at the price of surrendering the virtues that made that railroad possible to the vices that would destroy it.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 12

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was raised as a Roman Catholic. After growing up a little, I became an agnostic. Finally, I became a proponent of the science known as philosophy. Ethics is a branch of that science. Ethics is fundamental to politics. Think it over in relation to everything I've said.

How you read history depends on your ideas. Please don't refer to "our cause."

Maybe I'll go see The Passion of the Christ for the pleasure of seeing him get what he deserved.


Post 13

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney:

You appear to be upset by my posts.  You wrote:  >>How you read history depends on your ideas. Please don't refer to "our cause."<<

I don't quite understand this.  What do you mean by "our cause", Objectivism or capitalism?  If you mean Objectivism, then do I have the reciprocal right to demand that you do not speak of Catholicism.  If you mean capitalism, since when is that sole property of Objectivism?

You then concluded:  >>Maybe I'll go see The Passion of the Christ for the pleasure of seeing him get what he deserved.<<

May I sincerely suggest, Rodney, that you are being a bit irrational here?  Would you really take pleasure from the murder of a man because he advocated ideas contrary to the power elite?  I doubt it.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 14

Thursday, April 8, 2004 - 2:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was merely quoting you and indicating that your phrase, "our cause," assumes a common goal between religion and Objectivism. There is none, so it is wrong of you to refer to it as though it is real. Your cause and that of Ayn Rand's philosophy are fundamentally opposed.

Oh, not for that reason. For reasons of my own that relate to that fundamental opposition.


Post 15

Friday, April 9, 2004 - 6:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hello, Rodney.

I am not here to push your buttons.  However, I'm not going to mince words either.  It is plainly silly to assert that no one other than an Objectivist can defend the morality of capitalism as a political system.  I supported that point by citing recent history which no reasonable person will disagree with.  All you have said in response, other than some pointless anti-Christian rhetoric, is that I am wrong.

That's fine, Rodney.  Just don't expect me to be persuaded.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Post 16

Friday, April 9, 2004 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When you brought Christ into it, I booted him out.

I disagree with your citation of recent history. 

Your mistake is to think what Objectivists are after is capitalism. That is not the goal. It would be a consequence, to be sure.

I would urge more investigation of Objectivist epistemology, and then our ethics.


Post 17

Friday, April 9, 2004 - 3:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You have raised some very good and pertinent questions in another thread, so I will try to address them there as soon as I get time.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/10, 5:04pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 3
Post 18

Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 4:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Rodney.

You:  >>When you brought Christ into it, I booted him out.<<

By all means.  I agree that one does not need to be a Christian to comprehend the superior morality of a capitalist society over all other options.

You:  >>I disagree with your citation of recent history.<<

That's interesting.  What do you disagree with? 

You:  >>Your mistake is to think what Objectivists are after is capitalism. That is not the goal. It would be a consequence, to be sure.<<

I do understand that Objectivists are not eschatological in terms of creating the perfect capitalist society, pace Atlas Shrugged.  My point was that anyone who understands that justice requires that we respect each other's conscience in the formation of beliefs will value a capitalist society as the one society in which that justice is most secure.  From that perspective, all men of good will are a capable of defending the morality of capitalism -- not just Objectivists.

You: >>I would urge more investigation of Objectivist epistemology, and then our ethics.<<

I have read ITOE and OPAR, though not recently.  The epistemology eludes me, though I basically agree that we obtain knowledge through experience.  The ethics I understand.  While I respect the Objectivist ethical impulse to live and let live, I believe that its foundation upon self-interest is not solid enough to secure the good things Objectivists desire in society.  I have explained this at some length in an article I submitted to this site titled "The Psychopath's Creed".  With luck, the proprietors of SOLO will publish it in the near future.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I also think capitalism has to be supported by Objectivism.  When religious people defend it, they're defense is as sturdy as their beliefs (that is, not at all).

The way I see it is that religion has always been used to rationalize what people wanted to believe in.  History is filled with people rationalizing whatever they want out of the Bible.  Those who claim to accept the literal truth of the bible are the worst of the lot.  But the reason is universal.  When faith is elevated above reason, anything goes.  Whatever "feels right" to them is accepted as the truth.  The religion is just used to justify or excuse their actions and beliefs.

A move towards capitalism based on religion is just a move towards theocracy.  If you justify it through a belief in god, then god is notorious for changing his mind whenever the leaders feel like it.  And worse, everything is justified in the name of god.  If god wants to bring back slavery, how can any mortal stand in his way?  If god wants to kill and maim, isn't it your duty to kill and maim?

And that's the real problem with faith.  Faith in something today (like individual rights) means nothing tomorrow.  Faith is just believing what you want to believe.  Once accepted as a principle of decision making, anything goes.  And that's why religious people, even those who support individual rights, think it's perfectly acceptable to force people to be "virtuous".  Which is just another way to say that they want to rule other people.

Any kind of freedom we gain on religious grounds is an empty victory.  And those who mix a little faith with their reason invalidate their arguments completely.  Faith and force are corollaries.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.