RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Politics: the choice that determines humanity's fate

Thursday
July 12, 2007

Politics: the choice that determines humanity's fate by William Dvorak

Politics is the branch of philosophy that explores the interaction between members of society. Society is a group of individuals that choose to trade with each other. Interaction between two (or groups of) individuals can take only two forms. The first is force, the second is choice. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (11 messages)

Post 0

Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 3:19pm

Link

Edit

Very good essay, William.

I really like how you describe the subject of politics as interaction (i.e., interpersonal actions), and how you extend the idea down to merely 2 individuals. There are prominent Objectivists, e.g. Eyal Mozes, who do not agree that politics extends down to an interactive situation of merely 2 individuals (as on a desert island, for instance). I think that they are wrong about that, and that you (and I) are right.

I like how you simplify the core issue of politics as a dichotomy between force and choice, and how you vilify such dissembling terms as "society" and "public" -- showing that they merely mean everyone but the thinking/acting individual. Your blackmail example is interesting in that it seems to make a distinction between the moral and the legal. Perhaps more on that, later.

I thought that this part was brilliant ...

If force dominated, society would grow smaller. Men would be killed, both by the stopping of hearts and the stopping of brains. With a gun to someone's head, he cannot think ...

What a poignant way to sum up the harm that force entails! I like how you break "successful" negotiation down to the 2 essentials of consideration (applied rationality) and courage (taking proper risks). Your mention of synergy speaks to the relatively-superior productivity of corporations (beyond that of 'lone experts'), though some might give an indirectly-dissenting opinion about the comparative value of the single genius vs. the other corporate employees.

The only real problem that I have with your essay is your use of the term "intrinsic value" in the following quote [italics added] ...

At the negotiation table, it is possible that instead of merely agreeing on a price, the two parties decide that they will work together to grow the pie of the company. That is to say, the investor will bring in advisors—experts in the given sector—that will provide experience, guidance, and contacts for the entrepreneur. The synergistic approach increases the intrinsic value of the company.

According to Rand, the term 'intrinsic value' signifies something that is good-in-itself; rather than good for something, and good to someone -- a throw-back to that evil aberration of Kantian morality. In light of this apparently-superior definition of what intrinsic value must be, I have personally retreated to utilizing the term inherent, in place of intrinsic, when I mean to speak of a value that seems essential to a thing (without which, it wouldn't be what it is).

A very good essay, though. Thank you for writing it.

Ed

Post 1

Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 9:19pm

Link

Edit

I have a problem with the idea that blackmail is not a type of force. Force is the destruction of or threat to destroy any value, whether life, limb, liberty or property. Just because someone is not physically harmed or killed by a blackmailer, the blackmailer is either obtaining or destroying a value which does not belong to him by coercion. I'm not sure that this is essential to your thesis, but I do think this premise is mistaken.

Ted

(And I happen to be one of those who think that politics proper really only applies in a situation where more than two people are involved. Polities of two simply don't occur in nature. One can treat two people on an island as a special case, but I disagree that one can necessarily start with a polity of two and argue to all wider conclusions. But this is a minor issue here.)
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 7/12, 9:32pm)

Post 2

Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 2:40pm

Link

Edit

Force is the destruction of or threat to destroy any value ...

A very interesting 'take' on force, Ted. I'd like to dialectically explore it with you (or willing others). If force is the real or threatened destruction of another's hold on a value, then how does that integrate with the NIOF principle (the non-initiation of force) espoused by Rand? A 'quick & dirty' first glance leads to the dictum that you shouldn't ever threaten to, or really, take away or destroy anything that someone else has acted to gain or keep. Is that an accurate interpretation of what you meant to communicate?

And I happen to be one of those who think that politics proper really only applies in a situation where more than two people are involved.

Forgive the seeming pedantry, Ted, but would 3 people be enough? And, if not, then do you have a rough idea of how many people would be enough? Peikoff defines 'politics' as "an application of ethics to social questions." (OPAR, p 350). And 'social' -- in the sense related to society, rather than that related to a dinner party -- is defined (by Merrium-Webster, Collegiate, 11th) as a voluntary association for common ends. Now, it would seem that 2 folks on a desert island would have but 3 choices:

1) a perpetual avoidance of one another
2) a voluntary association for common ends
3) a physical or psychological battle; ending with either a death of one or both of them -- or an involuntary association (i.e., a slavery) of one to the other

Choice (1) renders the issue irrelevant, because both parties remain asocial, isolated hermits. Choice (3) renders the issue unacceptable, because of the lack of mutual volition (common ends). By elimination then, we seem stuck with choice (2), rendering any 2 people -- who are voluntarily associating for common ends -- a "society" and therefore subject to 'political' principles.

Show me what's wrong with that.

;-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/14, 2:44pm)

Post 3

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 2:06am

Link

Edit

Ed:

A very interesting 'take' on force, Ted. I'd like to dialectically explore it with you (or willing others). If force is the real or threatened destruction of another's hold on a value, then how does that integrate with the NIOF principle (the non-initiation of force) espoused by Rand? A 'quick & dirty' first glance leads to the dictum that you shouldn't ever threaten to, or really, take away or destroy anything that someone else has acted to gain or keep. Is that an accurate interpretation of what you meant to communicate?

Ed I think the distinction here is what kind of force are we talking about? And Rand made a distinction between initiations of force and retaliatory force. I would think blackmail is an initiation of force because one is taking from someone who is under coercion an unearned value from the victim. For example "give me money or I'll post embarrassing photos of your affair" is a means of extorting money from someone who is put under duress. The transaction being "give me money and I won't hurt you", and not necessarily "let's voluntarily trade goods or services and if you breach the contract I will use force in retaliation" kind of thing.

The affair is not an initiation of force, and even if it were, promising to keep something that was an initiation of force a secret would meet the definition of a criminal conspiracy or perhaps obstruction of justice. Let's say even the threat is "give me money or I'll tell the police you have been freeing slaves from the South", this would be an unconscionable act worthy of retaliation.

Post 4

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 12:11pm

Link

Edit

Is there a subtlety in this thread that I'm not aware of? It seems to me that the whole issue of the Objectivist view of force and coercion has been dealt with. I've always understood that blackmail and fraud were instances of force/coercion in that they induced others to take actions, to their detriment, that they would not otherwise have taken.

Coercion and force are synonyms.

Sam

Post 5

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 12:47pm

Link

Edit

Re Force & Society

Regarding force, the essence is the use or threat of violence to attain an unearned value. Armaos nailed that one.

As for the desert island "issue" if one wants to so glorify it, it is an arbitrary argument, one that I would expect from what Rand would call a "hair-splitting linguistic analyst." Humans evolved from chimplike apes, our closest relatives, the chimps, bonobos, and gorillas all live in packs of up to about thirty individuals which cohere with their own internal dynamics and which compete with outsiders who defend their own territories and who have their own separate dynamics. Human tribes had this same structure for all of our history.

There was never any Adam and Eve. Society pre-exists Homo sapiens sapiens as a species.

Having become more intelligent and able to communicate conceptually we can now conduct explicit politics, and can extend and have extended our societies far beyond the limits of primate troops. But apes, dolphins, crows, wolves, elephants and all sorts of pack animals have their own versions of politics congruent with their level of intelligence and communicative ability. (And as an aside, there is a difference between a pack, a flock, a herd, and a hive or a swarm and referring to bees, ants and termites as social insects was a terrible mistake. A hive is an type of organism, not a society.) Trying to start a discussion of politics from the viewpoint of two men stranded on a desert island is either a cocktail party diversion or the intellectual equivalent of starting the teaching of medicine by examining the details of the appendix.

No offense, Ed, but I'm just not interested in having this sort of dialog right now. Maybe I'll write an article, and then we can do this. I'll just mention that the word politics comes from the Greek polis and refer anyone who is interested here and to Aristotle and Isabel Paterson.

Ted Keer

PS John, is Armaos a Greek name?

Post 6

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 1:23pm

Link

Edit

Well put, John (and good clarification, Sam).

Good points, Ted. While you haven't answered my question about "polities of two" -- you have made a pretty good case that the question itself is either irrelevant, unacceptable, or insufficient (as a means to understanding the essentials of "politics proper").

Nevertheless, the article under discussion mentions politics in relation to 2 people, so there is nothing for me to personally take offense to from your response (because I didn't bring it up, the article's author did). In short, I remain unconvinced as to the postulated, inherent worthlessness of examining the issue as it pertains to 2 castaways on a desert island, such as to Gilligan and the Skipper. After all, there's a lot that can be learned from the re-runs available from daytime TV.

;-)

I hope that you write that article, Ted. In the meantime, my questions stand in this discussion thread (regarding 'polities of two') if anyone, including the article's author, wishes to explore them.

Ed

Post 7

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 1:38pm

Link

Edit

Ted:

PS John, is Armaos a Greek name?

Yes. Although for some reason the name was originally Armagos 300 years ago which I found out from my grandfather who conducted a genealogy.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 3:57pm

Link

Edit

Ed, I don't see a problem with treating the two men on an island issue as a defective political situation. By defective, I mean nominally political but lacking the normal full structure of a polity - in the same way that verbs which are not conjugated in all persons are called defective verbs. Two people stranded on an island would presumably agree to live by pre-existing convention, or they would probably immediately try to kill one another. But I can't see two babies born on a desert island writing up a constitution and making plans for what a grand free state they'll live in once they get to the mainland. People in this situation probably will not even know what death is, and they certainly won't have any way to know what laws or war or jurisprudence and so forth are in their circumstances. Children grow up and learn within the context of their societies and societies also evolve over time within their wider geopolitical context. One cannot start with a child or children raised in isolation and draw conclusions therefrom. If one begs certain questions (i.e, they are already civilized, rational, and can communicate at an abstract level) and then uses the two men on an island situation as a mind experiment, that is fine. But otherwise my prior objections stand.

Ted Keer

Post 9

Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 4:03pm

Link

Edit

John, thanks. The loss of the sound represented by the Greek gamma between two vowels is a common development. If the name were spelled according to pronunciation, this loss would be unsurprising. The original spelling of my last name is Kjaer, which sounds close enough to how you would pronounce Keer in English that my Great Grandfather changed it when he opened Keer's Diner. Kjaer's Diner would quickly have gone bankrupt due to unpronoucibility.

Ted

Post 10

Friday, July 20, 2007 - 5:41pm

Link

Edit

A good article, but would have prefered it that 'society' was not used but instead, 'aggregate of individuals'