RoR: Forum

Outstanding Joe, and Amen! A wonderful and clear vision.

I'd imagine your co-worker went away with their head spinning. I hope they didn't say, but who would manage the roads?!

Post 1

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 4:49am

Sam, for my part, I'm glad you asked...

This young fellow seems a likely candidate, with dynamic ideas and an electric personality:

If poo-flinging doesn't qualify one to manage road systems, I don't know what does.

Great article, Joe. I'm going to have the whole scha-bang tattoed on my forehead in small-print, so I don't have to say things like that every time someone asks "Who the hell is Ayn Rand?!"

Good job.

Post 2

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 9:08am

Great article, Joe. My mind boggles at why there can be counter arguments to this. But I suppose your co-worker, if he had anything at all to say about it, would argue:

what would happen to those who couldn't or wouldn't care for themselves,
we are our brother's keepers,
that it's too complicated for people to have to make all those decisions for themselves
that in order for people to feel safe they have to have some superior authority to tell them what to do
ordinary people don't have the discipline to provide for their retirement so they have to be "encouraged" to contribute to pension plans by tax deferrals
that if everyone went his own way how would a sense of community be engendered
that it is only fair that those who have prospered in society should have a large part of their wealth expropriated because, "after all, society provided them with the framework to acquire their wealth and that society includes the less fortunate."

As an aside, I attended a debate at the University of Toronto in the early eighties between Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath, an economist at York University, for objectivism and Jill Vickers, a professor of sociology at Carleton University in Ottawa, and Gerald Caplan, a spokesman for the New Democratic Party, for socialism. I've forgotton the exact question that was being debated but it had to do, of course, with altruism. At one point Jill Vicker's argument for why we should devote ourselves to others was, "Well, your mother changed your diapers, didn't she?"

To the credit of the audience, they gasped, scratched their collective heads and laughed. There is no limit to the stupidity of some seemingly intelligent people.

Post 3

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 9:58am

I've forgotton the exact question that was being debated but it had to do, of course, with altruism. At one point Jill Vicker's argument for why we should devote ourselves to others was, "Well, your mother changed your diapers, didn't she?"

I saw the videotape of that debate, called "Debates 1984: Capitalism vs Socialism -- Which Is the Moral Social System?"

The question did indeed center on why we should take care of others. Vickers said, in effect, "Your mother washed your underwear, didn't she?" The audience laughter followed this absurdity.

A student during Q&A introduced himself by saying, "My name is ________ and I wash my own underwear." The audience roared!

I loved how Ridpath consistently brought to the attention of the audience that the socialists in the debate never actually answered the question about why socialism was good. Instead, they kept using sophistry to attack events that had nothing to do with capitalism.

Post 4

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 10:11am

Luther: Thanks for filling in and refining some details that I had forgotten after some 20 years! But the ludicrous nature of her argument still rings in my ears.

Paul

Post 5

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 12:21pm

Joe:

>>I dream of a world where each person is dedicated to his own personal happiness. People would concentrate on the things that made their life better. They would find careers that excited them and compensated them well. They would eat food they liked, pick up hobbies they enjoyed, and alter their surroundings to make themselves more at ease. They would have meaningful relationships with others. They would seek to grow and improve themselves, and expand their opportunities and choices. They would focus on the things in life that gave them satisfaction.<<

That is indeed the good life, and I ask you in all seriousness how do politics stop you or me from having and doing all these things?

Sure, it would be nice if everyone dedicated himself to own happiness. That would make the pursuit of my own happiness all the easier. But mankind will never be rid of its malefactors, so just how much angst, if any, should I rationally generate over the failure of others to make themselves happy?

How rational is it to wish for world that will never be? Especially when the good life is available to me if I take the world as it is, understand the obstacles as they are, and then change what I can actually change for the better? Isn't every moment spent in the pursuit of happiness in the here and now instead of pining for utopia the rational choice? Indeed, isn't it in fact much more interesting to work on making what is real better than to ponder what would be best in the absence of what is real?

Of course, Joe, being the irrational, feeble-minded God-fearing soul that I am, I've been taught that Earth is no place for Heaven. So it just might be those blinkers that keep me fixated on working with the grubby stuff of reality and blind to the bright lights of the next new idea. ;)

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 7/08, 2:14pm)

Post 6

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 1:37pm

Citizen Rat:

That is indeed the good life, and I ask you in all seriousness how do politics stop you or me from having and doing all these things?

I don't believe for one minute that you can't answer this for yourself. The amount of taxes you pay are a direct measure of how much control you have over your life. If your income is eaten away by taxes you may not have enough to start a new business, send your children to college (or even afford to have children), or enjoy a vacation from the drudgery of supporting others.

Any political progress that has ever happened was initiated by people who dreamed of better things. Before action can occur there must be a vision. That's sure better than rolling over and playing dead.

Really!!!!

Paul Hibbert

Post 7

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 1:55pm

Hi, Sam.

>>I don't believe for one minute that you can't answer this for yourself. The amount of taxes you pay are a direct measure of how much control you have over your life. If your income is eaten away by taxes you may not have enough to start a new business, send your children to college (or even afford to have children), or enjoy a vacation from the drudgery of supporting others.<<

Sorry, Sam, but you can't get me to blame my problems on the unsatiable appetite of the welfare state. Obstacles, unjust or otherwise, will always be in the way of success. So I have a choice: I can sit on my ass and whine how unjust it is that They (whoever the bogeyman are) have stopped me from being me, or I can figure out how to get around Them.

It's only by letting Them be an excuse for stopping me do They exercise any control over my life.

>>Any political progress that has ever happened was initiated by people who dreamed of better things. Before action can occur there must be a vision. That's sure better than rolling over and playing dead.<<

Yes, you can spend a lot of time dreaming about political changes to improve the lot of your fellow citizens (who at this point in history aren't inclined to wean themselves from the welfare state), or you can have a vision of how to improve your own lot with the opportunities that are actually available and then act. Doing the former rather than the latter sounds a lot more like rolling over and playing dead to me.

I can't imagine we truly disagree on this.

Regards,
Bill

P.S. As a successful manufacturer I can assure you that my attitude towards an overbearing government does work.

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 7/08, 1:58pm)

Post 8

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 3:00pm

Citizen Rat: How does your argument differ from that of a slave? He can accept his lot, as you suggest, and try to find ways of doing the best he can under the oppression that he's under, or he can attempt to disengage himself from his master.

You bet we disagree!!!

Paul Hibbert

Where's the challenge in living life with a safety net?

Post 9

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 10:45pm

Thanks, General Pierson. He didn't ask about public roads, but he did ask about cellphones on airplanes.

Jeremy, when you finish the tatoo, send us a picture!

Thanks Paul. And thanks for replying to Rat. You were right on. That fact that people can survive even with a large government burden does not justify that burden, or invalidate the complaints against it.

Post 10

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 12:12am

Great post, Joe! And here's a riddle for those posting to this thread:

Is there any difference between 100% taxation and chattel slavery?

If not, then doesn't my 30% income tax make me almost one-third "slave?"

With curious anticipation for any of your responses,

Ed

Post 11

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 10:12am

100% slave to the IRS

Post 12

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 1:08pm

Sam,

Any political progress that has ever happened was initiated by people who dreamed of better things.

And every political disaster that has ever happened was initiated by people who dreamed the same things.

Regi

Post 13

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 1:16pm

Regi:

I can't argue with that.

Sam

Post 14

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 4:53pm

Sam:

>>How does your argument differ from that of a slave? He can accept his lot, as you suggest, and try to find ways of doing the best he can under the oppression that he's under, or he can attempt to disengage himself from his master.<<

If that's what you call a "slave", the word is meaningless. I have a better question: Whose the fool? The one who limits his opportunities to that which he can hide from the taxman or the one who does as he pleases because he doesn't give a damn what the taxman wants? This is a serious question that deserves more than silly rhetoric equating taxation to slavery.

Answer a question for me. I am a manufacturer. I love making things. There's nothing like the tang of steel being cut on a lathe. There is no way for me to succeed at what I love without operating a business within the law, however, obnoxious the law may be. (And of all the times or places I could have been born into, 21st century America ain't so bad.) So, I am going to pay taxes if I want to do what I love.

Therefore, how is it in my self-interest to do anything other than what I am doing?

Regards,
Bill

Post 15

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 6:59pm

Joe, Bill, Sam, Ed,

Joe, I would have enjoyed seeing the reaction of you coworker.

I agree "This is the kind of world I envision," too. I envision it as an ideal, however, not an actuality.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where everybody did the kinds of things you described, but even though we do not live in that ideal world, there is not one thing on your list that you or I cannot do in the actual world we live in. It is unlikely that everyone will ever do these things, but those with the ideals we have can each, in their own lives, be those who live the ideal life, each--

"dedicated to his own personal happiness."
"focusing on their own lives and happiness,"
"[not expecting] others to take care of them or make decisions for them."
"[practicing] the virtue of independence, learning to count on themselves and trust in their own abilities."
"[never trying] to live other people's lives for them."
"[living] by the trader principle"
"[thinking] for themselves, and [making] their own judgments."
"[realizing] his life was precious, and he shouldn't waste a minute of it."
"[feeling] strongly that their life belonged to them, and no other."

I also agree with this: "If others claimed even a minute of their lives, they would fight. If others tried to make them live for some other purpose, they would fight. If others attacked them, they would fight."

This is my question. What do you mean by "fight?"

Certainly our liberty is being threatened on every side, and there is no reason to suppose we are becoming more free in this country. Should we be "fighting?" If we should be, how?

The one thing that is certain you are not going to change the minds of 280 million people in the next few years, and right now most of those 280 million think the government is the solution to all problems. If by, "fighting," you mean attempting to change the way things are and the way they are going, I would like to know how you intend to do it. How much of my time and effort, which I would otherwise dedicate to living my own life for my own "selfish" purposes should I "sacrifice" for the sake of some cause which has almost no possibility of success.

Why should someone who is doing all of the things on our list of things people in an ideal world would do, sacrifice some of those things to some other cause. Why should Bill stop living for his own happiness, focusing on his own life, expecting nothing from others or allowing others to make decisions for him; why should he give up his self-reliance and independence, and refusal to change (live for them) other's lives; why should he stop living only as a trader, thinking for himself, not allowing any to waste a minute of his precious life pursuing someone else's idea of a way to save the world? Doesn't his life belong to him? Who the hell is anyone else to tell him he's not living it right?

There are no purposes higher than individual purposes. There is no cause or value that supersedes the causes and values of individuals. Now this may come as a shock to many Objectivists, but the purpose or your life, or anyone else's life, is not to make the world an ideal one. The purpose of your life, and every individual's life is to enjoy it. Every moment any individual wastes pursuing some scheme to make the world, or their country, or their state, or their neighborhood and ideal one, is a moment wasted in the pursuit of the purpose of their own life.

Now here is a secret. If everyone in the world lived their life as Bill lives his, you would have your ideal world.

Regi

Post 16

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 8:52pm

Citizen Rat: I have no problem with you doing what you do. You are free to advocate any political system that you wish but I don't want to participate in it. Every arbitrary regulation and restriction of legitimate choice that you apparently support that is imposed upon me is an assault. I don't choose to be a dependent person but you demand that I be dependent � and you and your ilk have succeeded.

Of course the "slavery" reference was an exaggeration. It was an argument of reductio ad absurdum in order to cut the verbiage out of your argument and get to the essence of it. Ed Thompson says, "Is there any difference between 100% taxation and chattel slavery?"

You have made the assumption that I and perhaps others have made life decisions to avoid paying taxes out of spite. I certainly consider the tax implication when I make investment decisions, as does virtually everyone � even the most liberal people try to avoid paying more than they have to. When the government institutes "incentives" like tax deferred retirements it is against my interests not to participate, but the concept is fundamentally wrong.

I suspect that all of the participants in this board are law abiding citizens. I am, and as long as there is this modicum of freedom in this country I will continue to press for more freedom.

Why do you think that I don't do what I please even though I do care what the taxman wants? I do what I please to the extent that I have the resources to do it. That doesn't mean that I don't want to do more of what I please. We all work within the system as best we can but that doesn't mean that we have to like it.

Paul Hibbert

Where's the challenge in living life with a safety net?

Post 17

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 10:47pm

Paul,

My sentiments exactly. A while ago I used an analogy that captures this sentiment. It was an analogy regarding "Production" vs. "Productivity" (or "production capability"). Those in business for themselves should know that you can transiently increase production AT THE COST of productivity!

The analogy proceeds with 2 men who have a goal of lawn-mowing. One of the men devotes all his time, energy, and ability directly toward mowing his lawn (think of cutting the grass here as pure "production").

The 2nd "lawn-mowing man" devotes some of his energy toward upkeep of the lawn mower (oil changes, sharpening the blades, etc) and it ultimately leads to greater lawn-mowing capabilities.

The moral of the story is that we should act in order to meet our life-term, society-scale self-interests (which, upon reflexion, turn out to be the rational self-interests found in the context of a human lifespan).

Now this involves taking the "Big Picture" perspective into account. The "golden mean" to be aimed at here will involve not becoming overly concerned with what others - including politicians - do. However, it will not involve NOT BEING CONCERNED AT ALL, as Regi and Bill seem to claim.

Now, I am prepared to philosophically "arm-wrestle" both Regi and Bill over this one. I view my position on this matter as superior (at least - to the potential straw-man I've set up for them here) because it recognizes that man is a contractual animal and benefits from the "critical mass" of rationality in society.

(Ed crushes a beer-can against his forehead and grunts - with his elbow on the table and waiting ... staring ... on the whole looking somewhat intimidating ... )

Ed

Post 18

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 5:44pm

Ed, Sam, Bill,

Ed said, "However, it will not involve NOT BEING CONCERNED AT ALL, as Regi and Bill seem to claim."

Not concerned with what? Harebrained schemes for making the world free?

Now, tell me this, are you going to change the government, are you going to change the minds of most of 280 million people, or are you going to bring a revolution in our time? If none of these things, exactly what scheme do you have in mind, and what is it actually going to accomplish?

Ayn Rand was very impressed by the following

"God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, courage to change things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

She said of it:

"This remarkable statement is attributed to a theologian with whose ideas I disagree in every fundamental respect: Reinhold Niebuhr. But�omitting the form of a prayer, i.e., the implication that one's mental-emotional states are a gift from God�that statement is profoundly true, as a summary and a guideline: it names the mental attitude which a rational man must seek to achieve." [My emphasis]

"Most men spend their lives in futile rebellion against things they cannot change, in passive resignation to things they can, and�never attempting to learn the difference�in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts." [The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 12 March 12, 1973 "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made"]

If you are waiting for society to learn Objectivism, for a new political administration, or any Objectivist program to succeed before being free, you will never be free. If you want freedom, you can have it, now, in this world, but no government or movement is going to provide it for you.

Do you really want to be free? Or do you just want to continue complaining and and rebelling against that which you cannot possibly change, resigned to living under growing oppression while patting yourself on the back for "at least being concerned."

(The above written while pulling the cap off my Balantine with my teeth and tossing a shot or two of Wild Turkey. I'm grinning, the back of your hand is so close to the table. Are those sinews I hear poppping?)

Regi

Post 19

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 7:08pm