RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Speaking for the Speechless

Tuesday
August 30, 2005

Speaking for the Speechless by Peter Cresswell

Too many people spend too much of their time speaking either on someone else's behalf, or as a spokesman for people or causes that can't speak for themselves—and they spend too much of our time telling us what we should be doing on behalf of those for whom they claim to speak. And in the name of those "without a voice," they often seek to silence those who do have a voice. How do they all get away with it, and why do we let them? (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (18 messages)

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 8:19am

(Democracy) It is about forcing officials to stand for election at short intervals, and about letting ordinary people express their political preferences without having to defend them in debate with their intellectual superiors. Richard Posner

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 10:49am

Wonderful article, Peter - is enough to almost have the speechless rise up, and speak.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 12:31pm

Aw, man! Yet another article which in its broadest outline speaks to Objectivist values, but is betrayed by its own specious reasoning and inflammatory rhetoric. Do we really need more of this? Is this the face of Objectivism you want the world to see? At what point does passion eclipse rationality all together?

After a few indisputable assertions you launch into an attack on the dishonesty and mercenary motives of--stop the presses!--politicians. Yawn. Then it's Cindy Sheehan who claims--but no, she only "allows others to claim on her behalf" to speak for the anti-war movement. Huh? What power does Ms. Sheehan have over members of the press and others claiming to speak for the anti-war movement? And what does this have to do with your topic? Anti-war activists are not speechless. It has nothing to do with your topic, you're just pandering to a crowd you presume does not approve of Ms. Sheehan's actions.

The rest of your article amounts to a cry of, "Why can't non-Objectivists think like Objectivists?" People fear that unrestrained capitalism will destroy resources and harm the environment, so they speak for future generations whom they quite naturally create in their own image. As do you. People speak "on behalf" of wildlife because they value wildlife as an end in itself. They disagree with Objectivism. If this stuff bothers you, why don't you write a persuasive article to counter it? As someone new to Objectivism and SOLO, I certainly would enjoy a passionately rational discussion on these matters.

And why'd you leave out child advocacy? Children don't get a voice in politics, but they certainly get exploited and marginalized. You disapprove of child labor laws? Age of consent laws? No children were involved in drafting the legislation that protects children. And to trade celebrities with you, you think Mary Kay Letourneau got a bad rap? Or is it that speaking for the speechless is okay in certain contexts?

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:08pm

Robert Davison,

I've given you a sanction for the Posner quote. It is a positive contribution to the debate, and so you are now off my list of trolls. That list is now down to "Celeste" and "grammarian," and I haven't seen either of them here on SOLO recently.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 4:22pm

Kevin,

You say Peter starts with abitrary assertions - look at your own first paragraph.

You ask Peter what Cindy Sheehan has over journalists making them report her anti-war views, completely missing Peter's sentence that the journalists share the anti-war views and are looking for a hook to swing their opinions on. Here is the sentence again: "Claims like this get traction only because the views of activists like Mother Sheehan nicely reflect those of the journalists who so breathlessly report her activities and opinions." [Emphasis mine.]

You then ask why Peter addresses his article to other Objectivists who he presumes will agree with him rather than writing "a persuasive article to counter" those who claim to speak for others. As it happens, Peter does this admirably and repeatedly here in New Zealand along with addressing many other libertarian issues - his Not PC blog (http://pc.blogspot.com) is one of the most popular New Zealand-oriented blogs. This aside, SOLOHQ.com is for homeless Objectivists, a place where we find respite with like-minded folk from the irrationality of those not acquainted with our ideas.

Your last paragraph is complete gibberish.

If you seriously want to find out "what's so great about Ayn Rand anyway" and SOLOHQ, I suggest you acquaint yourself better with the philosophy using the SOLO university pages and with the purpose of this site through reference to the Credo page and related pages. Better to do that than wade in gun's blazing at one of the heroic people in this community.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 4:34pm

Andrew-
Thank you.
Sanctioned.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 8/30, 4:36pm)

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 7:49pm

Yet another article which in its broadest outline speaks to Objectivist values, but is betrayed by its own specious reasoning and inflammatory rhetoric. Do we really need more of this? Is this the face of Objectivism you want the world to see? At what point does passion eclipse rationality all together?

Bravo - unfortunately Peter misses the opportunity to influence hearts and minds because he is so consistently extreme. He fails to realise the truth lies in the practical nuance, not the ideological purity.

I have influenced more mainstream people and made them think about less government than he ever could in 100 years.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 9:44pm

Andrew: great post!

Ruth: In the name of intellectual honesty and consistency, you should remove Peter from your profile of 'other favorites' with that attitude towards him. You say:

I have influenced more mainstream people and made them think about less government than he ever could in 100 years.

Do you know how petty and small that sounds? I don't even think people who agree with your views would admire that statement.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 10:40pm

Thanks for the sanctions guys.

Ruth is clearly a troll - you can see "her" constantly sniping at PC on PC's blog or Peron's (http://lookinginnz.blogspot.com/2005/08/husband-arrested-for-having-sex-with.html). Latching onto any criticism of PC is true to form. She can be ignored.

Kevin, on the other hand, has noted that he is new to Objectivism and SOLO so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 11:10pm

Oy! Andrew, slow down a minute please. Try to read my post without assuming that I'm the enemy, 'k?

You wrote:

You say Peter starts with abitrary assertions - look at your own first paragraph.

Um, er, no. I called his assertions indisputable. Meaning, I cannot argue with them. They are opinion and opinion is something to which all of us are entitled. I don't think they're arbitrary at all. I do think Peter's assertions are a little sweeping.

You then ask why Peter addresses his article to other Objectivists who he presumes will agree with him rather than writing "a persuasive article to counter" those who claim to speak for others.

For Peter to presume that people will agree with him on the home page of a public website seems a little odd to me. That he would presume that his reasoning or the relevance of his examples wouldn't be questioned on a site who's credo includes "passionate rationalism" seems even more odd. And what does his popularity in New Zealand or his status on this site have to do with whether I should question his methods?

I was not aware that Peter was a hero of yours. I haven't been particularly fond of his posts that I've read. Again, relevance?

Your last paragraph is complete gibberish.

I mentioned children as a speechless group for which a lot of folk have spoken over the years. One which, I dare say, would be of greater concern and interest to Objectivists than the plight of a tree. How is that gibberish? Same way "indisputable" means "arbitrary?" (And to be clear: I'm teasing you, Andrew, tweaking your ego if I may; not declaring war or wading in "guns blazing." We can still make that distinction on this site, I hope.)

The question "what's so great about 'X' anyway" seems to be a reasonable question for an interested free-thinking person to pose at the beginning of any study--really, at any stage of study, unless you're interested in becoming a mere devotee.

So, guns blazing? Hardly. As Ed Thompson in his very pleasant article Ye' Ole' Skills-o'-Icon-Catchin' said, SOLOHQ may very well be a "world leader for intelligent—and passionate—online discourse." Thus far, I have found it to be just such a contender. Since the recent loss of Ms. Brandon and Mr. Kilbourne I've noticed an upsurge in this kind of sloppy cheer leading "article" on the site and I know SOLOists can do better. As an enthusiast of rationality, I felt the need to speak up. That is all.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 11:20pm

Mr. Haggerty, if you have a problem with the quality of SOLO's recent articles, perhaps you'd care to submit one of your own to the queue? Or would you prefer to just take shots from the sidelines?

This sentiment applies equally well to some of the other posters who have been incessantly whining about the supposed decline in quality since Brandbourne's departure.

As someone who has spent the past four years on a college campus listening to tenured profs and trust-fund students speaking on behalf of various aggrieved groups, I found Peter's article refreshing and incisive.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 9:40am

Thank you Adam. It is good that we can find some common ground. I'm not a feuder by nature. Someone on another thread speculated that Celeste was Orion(?) Reasoner(?) in drag. That may be why 'she' no longer posts, or she's on vaction.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:11pm

Mr. Bissell, I'm sorry. Of course you're right. Though I don't have many posts on this board yet, there have been a disproportionate number of them in a plaintive key. I intend to amend that forthwith. I've been working on some ideas for articles, actually, but I keep feeling like I need to do more research first. I've been trying to determine if there's a place for me here. I don't want to waste anybody's time. My first post on this thread was my first posting on the board when I felt like I had a personal stake in the subject as a member of this community rather than just an interested observer.

One part of Objectivist thought or style that I'm still trying to understand is this whole "rallying the troops" thing that seems to be of central concern to many SOLOists. I recognize the essential optimism and righteousness of the movement, but the degree of raw "us and them" thinking around here doesn't strike me as a recipe for successfully winning over the rest of the world. It does seem like a recipe for prejudicial and irrational tirades. It seems that the essential sensibleness and life affirming qualities of the movement can get lost in all the posturing and invective. Like my mama used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." I'm not here to tell you that Objectivism is wrong. I'm not here to change anybody's mind about Objectivism but my own. :-)

Take care,

Kevin

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 3:09pm

Thanks for the comments, people, and for the defence Andrew. I have to say I wasn't too upset by Kevin's ping at the article.

I could of course have used plenty of examples, but brevity requires one to select just a few. The examples of speaking for children or for the impaired is of course an obvious one -- rather too obvious I thought.

Another example I considered -- an example in reverse perhaps -- was to discuss a proposal put forward in some humour here in NZ a few years ago, that legal submissions and reports on planning matters and the like be banned from using the passive voice. For example, one would not be able to say, "It is considered that the proposed shopping mall is an unsustainable use of the local resources"; instead the consultant would have to write the following: "I don't like it."

It might be considered food for thought. :-)

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 3:32pm

Nice article Peter.

Wanna see the utter futility of speaking in the name of someone without a mandate? How about this?

Peter, when on earth are you going to ask Ruth out?

(ducking...)

//;-)

Michael

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 6:09pm

Kevin,

If stick around long enough to say things like this every once in a while, you'll contribute.

One part of Objectivist thought or style that I'm still trying to understand is this whole "rallying the troops" thing that seems to be of central concern to many SOLOists. I recognize the essential optimism and righteousness of the movement, but the degree of raw "us and them" thinking around here doesn't strike me as a recipe for successfully winning over the rest of the world. It does seem like a recipe for prejudicial and irrational tirades. It seems that the essential sensibleness and life affirming qualities of the movement can get lost in all the posturing and invective. Like my mama used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." I'm not here to tell you that Objectivism is wrong. I'm not here to change anybody's mind about Objectivism but my own.

Although the honey-vinegar thing is a little naive, your honest reaction to the site is not, not that this site is special in that regard. We don't want to catch flies. It is part of posting on line, or being on line anywhere I guess. In the supermarket the person behind you counts your items, for films concerts, people cut in line, and seats are saved. On the highways when a lane is closed most cars move left or right as directed, but there are always the schmucks that drive as far as they can in the closed lane and then try to cut ahead of the people who have cooperated and patiently crawled along for an hour. Benevolence and fair play are hard to find anywhere.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 8:47pm

Robert,

“…but there are always the schmucks that drive as far as they can in the closed lane and then try to cut ahead of the people who have cooperated and patiently crawled along for an hour.”

And sometimes they encounter me in my van, in their way. With thousands of feet of empty and unused but closed lane ahead, I’m in their way, crawling along at the speed of the open lanes. Drives them crazy. I have a prominent NRA sticker on the back, it’s the only sticker—so I never get more than honks and exasperated looks. Drives them crazy. The other drivers love it, and so do I, every time.

Jon

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 6:29am

Jon-
Your actions have been sanctioned. I'm still chuckling over it too.