| | Marc,
I've just read what you said, and here goes... (this one is long, so I had to break it up into two posts)
Point one... You said this:
Orion, I think you have to ask yourself whether it is really the case that you think murder is wrong solely because the murderer has removed a value which could be of great benefit to you and you could be next on his hit list. Who is to say that the victim would ever have benefited you? Perhaps the murderer actually killed an enemy of yours? What if you could be sure that the murderer would never hurt you personally, and was only knocking off your enemies?
Good point you raise... Here's my response:
1) Yes, it really is the case that I think that.
2) And no one is to say for certain that the victim would ever have been of direct or indirect benefit, but I and others are really against murder because we tend to give the benefit of the doubt if we do not know the person to be evil, that they should not be murdered.
3) If the murderer killed an enemy of mine -- since I only regard as "enemies" people who I judge to be truly sadistic, malignant, and utterly incorrigible -- then if such a person is killed, I actually think that's a good thing, because I and those I value as good are free of his potential menace. Yes, I said it.
4) Once again, do not assume that I cast the label "enemy" easily or whimsically. But nonetheless, there are times when you must cast that label upon certain people, or you are violating all that is good and decent in the world to not do so.
Next, you said this:
In order to determine that victims could potentially have been of value to you, you'd have to have performed some pretty complicated calculations. Ethics should not have to rely on such flimsy abstractions. I put it to you that in fact the real reason why you think murder is wrong is because you valued other people's lives quite independently of any possible benefit to yourself. And that of course is altruism.
1) No intricate calculations are necessary, only the benefit of the doubt... until resoundingly proven otherwise.
2) These "abstractions" are not flimsy, for the reasons I've given.
3) I have also explained in my previous post that a second simultaneous reason for not wanting others murdered, has to do with assuming that the other victims could be persons like myself, and thus not deserving of being murdered (unless I somehow become deserving of it, which I have always worked very hard to not be).
4) Once again, none of this has to do with me sacrificing myself, and so is not altruism.
Next, you said this:
After all, the WMD claim was false. So Iraq was no threat. And the actual purpose of the U.S armed forces is self-defense only.
1) Weapons of mass destruction are so named because they achieve the mass murder of human beings. Well, guess what... a "weapon of mass destruction" is anything that efficiently and quickly slaughters lots and lots of people; that means that it does not have to take the form of a missile. The entire Hussein regime was a "weapon of mass destruction". That rat bastard gleefully slaughtered untold thousands -- if not millions -- of his own countrymen, and was enthusiastically participating and applauding the mass murder of Americans.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the weapon of mass destruction. We correctly found it, and took it out. The United States accomplished its mission.
2) True, the actual purpose of the US Armed Forces is self-defense only. And the proactive dismantling of a WMD (The Hussein regime) that has been designed for our destruction, is self-defense. ONLY.
Next, you said this:
Since Iraq was no threat, it was not in the rational self-interest of the U.S to remove Saddam. Over $US 200 billion has been spent so far on the war (all extracted by the IRS from U.S workers remember). It was not in the rational self-interest of the U.S servicemen killed (over 900 so far) to liberate Iraq.
1) Again, for the reasons I've said, Iraq was a threat, and therefore it was in the etc., etc.
Next, you said this:
So why are Onion and Linz for the war? The main argument for the war of course, would be that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and that's why the U.S should sacrifice money and men to liberate Iraq. But this argument is pure altruism. So it would seem that indeed Onion and Linz are both altruists.
1) Orion, Onion; tomayto, tomahto... Nah, nanny boo-boo.
2) The main argument for the war, of course, was that Saddam was doing what he could to aid our attackers (and let's be honest, was sitting on oil fields... and the world underground oil supplies are secretly running out, but sssh, we're not supposed to know that; it's just "coincidence" that suddenly all the major automakers are quickly developing hydrogen prototypes after all this time), and therefore had to be taken out.
3) Because Saddam was 1) a participatory threat to us, 2) was killing off people who could presumably be good and productive citizens like ourselves... and if we allow that, we say it's okay for us to be killed off, too, and, oh yeah, 3) oil underground, that's why we really went to war, and all of those reasons are clearly selfish... not altruistic.
4) So it would seem that indeed "Onion" and Linz are both not altruists. We advocate valiant and comprehensive selfishness, because yes, selfishness does not always have to be short-sighted, cutthroat and miserly.
Next, you said this:
I read the Schwartz piece attacking Libertarianism. I thought it was tripe myself.
I cannot argue in favor or against the judgement that something is an animal by-product. Give me specifics.
Next, you said this:
Rubbish. Libertarianism is a political philosophy justified by many different logical arguments. It was the minority of anarcho-Libertarians that Rand and other Objectivists found so objectionable. But Minarchist-Libertarians (the vast majority) have a politics which is identical to the Objectivist politics. So it makes no sense for Objectivists to attack this.
It makes so much sense, it would choke a hippopotamus to death. Why call it "Libertarianism" then, as opposed to Objectivism, if as the name states, it isn't specifically about just liberty? It only makes sense to name your movement correctly, so if you have to start introducing all these qualifying prefixes and what-not, blame the namers for rushing to press too soon, not those who take "Libertarianism" at face value, for both its name and its original purpose, which is just the freedom to do any damn thing you please.
Next, you said this:
Sorry, but there are numerous competing philosophies claiming to justify Libertarianism through reason. All of these philosophies claim to be 'Rational Libertarianism'. What makes you so sure Objectivism is the right justifcation? ;) If you look at me for instance, I'm a Transhumanist, and I take Transhumanism to the correct justification for Libertarianism, not Objectivism. I also think I'm very bit as "Rational" as you are.
1) They can call themselves whatever they please, and you're right... none of these necessarily has to be "the rational" one. What does determine which is the most objective, is which philosophy actually embraces objective reality and, once employed, actually produces results in our objective reality.
The Libertarian "do as whatever random thing you damn well please" philosophy doesn't tend to produce anything but malignant lunatics... the sorts of caricatures who stock up on canned food and shotguns, and/or advocate sex with children as part of "personal liberty". Mind you, there might be individuals who are the exception to this, but I guarantee you they definitely take serious exception to the whimsical aspects of pure liberty.
On the completely opposite hand, Objectivism has influenced, if not produced, *ahem* Alan Greenspan (though he has no comment nowadays), perhaps one of the most determinatively powerful men in the free world. Objectivism has directly or indirectly influenced people like Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Anthony Robbins. Can Libertarianism make these sorts of claims? I think not.
2) If Libertarianism has decided to become Objectivism, it should call itself that, and advertise itself truthfully. Again, they have only themselves to blame if they call themselves something which they are not. If they are no longer for a-rational liberty yet they still call themselves Libertarians instead of Objectivism, that's their own fault if others "erroneously" judge them, and quite a cowardly form of scapegoating.
3) In light of all this, I'm not going to comment on your last sentence. I don't think I really need to.
(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 8/04, 9:52pm)
|
|
