RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, February 2 - 2:53am

Link

Edit

Reply to original article:

The original poster write:

The ideal and definitive governmental system is one with no tolerance for the initiation of (physical) force or (financial) fraud by others against the sacred and untouchable individual, and no tolerance for socio-economic taxation or regulation by government against this same sacred and untouchable individual.

I reply:

No compulsory jury duty. So how do we manage fair citizen regulated trials of accused persons presumed to be innocent? No subpoena of evidence in trials. No regulated searches and seizures. No arrests prior to indictment or trial. In short a system in which fair trial is not possible. Congratulations!

Bob Kolker

Post 1

Saturday, February 2 - 1:38pm

Link

Edit

I liked this essay. I think it identifies timeless truth.

I would be resentful even of a BENEVOLENT dictatorship -- where we would perpetually be treated like children, by the overseer(s) looking out for our best interests. We'd never get better at living. We'd never get better at being human.

It was a bark up the wrong tree from the get-go. Thanks for putting that point into thoughtful words.

Ed

Post 2

Saturday, February 2 - 2:37pm

Link

Edit

Ed, you DID read this essay? I have the impression that you must have skimmed it and thereby missed a couple items.

The ideal and definitive governmental system is one with no tolerance for the initiation of (physical) force or (financial) fraud by others against the sacred and untouchable individual, and no tolerance for socio-economic taxation or regulation by government against this same sacred and untouchable individual.

Under this final and absolute system of government, even if men were devils, they and their society would flourish. Even if all citizens were converted to Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos, there would still be a type of political and social paradise created. And this would be so even if all the state leaders were changed into absolute demons as well. The definitive political system and last word on government would take advantage of human nature and effectively make the citizens and leaders behave in an idealized fashion.

The whole societal system would discourage and punish -- not just crime and tyranny -- but general immorality and unproductivity. Even peccadillos like discourtesy and tardiness would be dealt with ruthlessly and efficaciously by "the system."

No tolerance. What does that mean? A given act of aggression has an objective cost to the victim(s). Below a certain threshold, it's not worth paying attention to and certainly not cost-effective. Justice is something that has dimensions of quality, as in the threshold that triggers a response and the appropriateness of the response. A "No tolerance" standard, taken literally, would mean that we would have to give up our lives to the cause, as it would take an infinite amount of resouces to produce. Justice is one among several primary goods that we require to survive and prosper. A rational approach is to apply marginal returns analysis to choose which among them needs investment of further resouces. The Platonic "No tolerance" would necessarily end up as "No Life" and therefore "No Justice."

As to the next paragraph, it sounds good until we hit the last sentence: "make the citizens and leaders behave in an idealized fashion." Again, this takes the alleged solution out of the realm of the real and possible and poses a Platonic ideal. A possible paraphrased underlying idea, that a proper system of goverance systematically re-enforces its own successful behaviors is fine, altho I'm not at all sure that that is what the author meant. Governance itself, as a general concept, is the process by which processes are kept on course, which inevitably requires feedback and correction. But feedback and correction are themselves processes that require investment of resources. Again, a Platonic approach yields a black hole of costs, as opposed to a rational returns analysis.

And finally... "punishing" immorality and unproductivity? OK, so now it's the job of the STATE to define what is immoral or unproductive?

Even peccadillos like discourtesy and tardiness would be dealt with ruthlessly and efficaciously by "the system."

What business is it of the STATE, or the "whole societal system," (whatever that means) to "ruthlessly" deal with (as in what?)
discourtesy or tardiness? If someone is tardy, then you can admonish them, stop dealing with them, cancel your contract with them, charge them for you inconvenience in some cases, fire them, etc. But tardiness is not generally a initiation of force. At worst it might be a violation of a contract, explicit or implied. And, discourtesy? WHO makes that determination? Do you want the STATE to ruthlessly deal with your often unintended failure to meet someone else's expectation as to your behavior?

Ex.: recently, I was at a supper club for skeptics and got into a long conversation with someone who eventually informed me that she was a professional psychoanalist. I've read somewhat widely in that field, and I know that there are probably fifty major schools of state-licensed psychotherapy, many of which completely contradict each other and many that are obvious nonsense. Thus, saying that one is a psychotherapist, by itself, gives no reasonable assurance that one actually knows anything, and, as I was somewhat interested in her personally, I saw this as an opportunity to further narrow down just what kind of person she was.

At some point I asked her if she had read Nathanial Branden. She had never heard of him! I noted that I was astonished and asked her how long she had been working in the field, which turned out to be almost two decades. From my own standpoint, I was simply trying to get a handle on the issue of how he had apparently dropped off the radar in the schools of psychotherapy. To my surprise, she then informed me in a very hostile tone that my behavior had been insulting! How dare I imply that she was somehow ignorant in her field! She then stalked out in a rage. So, should "the system" ruthlessly come after me for accidentally insulting someone?

I suppose that it's probably obvious that I did not find this essay of any worth in itself. In fact, I'm surprised that it would even show up on an objectivist site, as opposed to a Platonic or Kantian newsgroup.

Post 3

Saturday, February 2 - 7:03pm

Link

Edit

My thanks to Ed! I'm going to try to answer the objections in Posts 0 and 2 on Sunday -- when I have some free time.

Post 4

Sunday, February 3 - 7:14am

Link

Edit

Phil Osborn asks: "So, should "the system" ruthlessly come after me for accidentally insulting someone?"

No, the perfect "Objecto-wahabbist" state would come after her for being a psycho-kantian.

Some of the regular posters here have made the point that while "bad" Christians commit unchristian acts, "good" Christians condemn them, yet, on the other hand, no Muslims condemn the Islamic extremists, therefore all Muslims are evil. That line of (ahem) "reasoning" comes from Kyrel Zantonavitch, John Armaos, Michael Dickey, and some others, our own coterie of "Objecto-wahabbists." These self-styled "fundamentalists" have the muscle mystic psycho-epistemology but they couch their anti-man, anti-life rants in Objectivist jargon, so we take them seriously. We consider them "allies," merely expressing "valid" opinions that we discuss here in the search for truth.

I see the matter differently. One reason that I have not said more on this is that I am afraid of them. I fear that if I were at at Objectivist conference or social gathering and Kyrel Zantonavitch, Michael Dickey or John Armaos were there, they might (ahem) "initiate self-defensive force" against me for my ideas. Ideas lead to actions and the "Objecto-wahabbists" here have announced their belief in the efficacy of force. I can only take them at their word.

As for the original post, the words about freedom and the Constitution and all are nice. We all like that kind of talk. That is the reason why I have to offer my opinion that based on my understanding of human events, the reasons that America has a limited government are complex, structural and evolutionary. You can go to websites to read the constitutions of the world.
http://kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/constitutions-subject.html
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06constitutional/03forconst/
http://www.oceanalaw.com/
They all sound nice when you read them. They don't all work. In fact, most are not even in effect. It is questionable as to whether the US Constitution is in effect. Consider all the talk about religion in this presidential campaign. Yet:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Would not the best response be, "My religion is none of your business." And would not the questioner be negatively sanctioned for the social transgression? I submit that the US Constitution is only partially in effect. It matters who the people are. Angels, devils, or humans, rational or irrational, tolerant or uptight, confident or fearful, it makes a difference.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/03, 7:29am)

Post 5

Sunday, February 3 - 11:52am

Link

Edit

Mr. Marotta,

You do Mr. Armaos an injustice.

Nothing he has ever said could give you a valid reason to fear he would initiate force against you. You're not a jihadist. You wouldn't forcibly violate his property right intentionally. If you did so accidentally, I'm sure he would recognize that possibility and attempt to work out any dispute peaceably.

To suggest he would even raise his voice towards you at a party is a stretch, much less actually strike you.

Disagree with him as you will on the Iraq War and foreign or domestic policy. But he has never shown himself to be anything close to what you suggest.

P.S. I agree with you on a point you've expressed before, though. Character matters, as does the wider culture. A society of scoundrels could never put forth good leaders (though the reverse is true). Immoral leaders, judges, etc could never ensure a good government, no matter what documents they might mouth allegiance to.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 2/03, 11:55am)

Post 6

Sunday, February 3 - 6:05pm

Link

Edit

A community composed entirely of people of the ilk of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, ad nauseam would quickly ditch or ignore any Constitution based entirely or in part on the NIOF principle. This is why our Bill of Rights has been shredded -- too many people view it as an obstacle to be gotten around, not something that protects them.

Our Constitution, if not supported by the people it purports to protect, is just an old dusty document. A piece of paper can't restrain our baser instincts, only ideas supported by a sufficiently large enough number of people who believe in them.

Post 7

Sunday, February 3 - 11:13pm

Link

Edit

Few of the critical remarks in this thread are very impressive or substantial, which is a disappointment. Still:

Kolker writes in Post 0:

No compulsory jury duty. So how do we manage fair citizen regulated trials of accused persons presumed to be innocent? No subpoena of evidence in trials. No regulated searches and seizures. No arrests prior to indictment or trial. In short a system in which fair trial is not possible.

In a free society jury duty would be voluntary but probably paid -- like military duty. Subpoenas violate the First and Fifth Amendments, and so don't apply to private citizens at criminal trials-- just government officials operating in their official capacities. But in a free state the voluntary cooperation of juries and third parties in criminal matters can be relied upon. And American-style arrests, searches, and seizures of people who are objectively criminal suspects would still obtain. This wouldn't violate the "no force, no fraud" rule.

Marotta wildly writes in Post 4 that I'm some kind of "Objecto-Wahabbist" who writes "anti-man, anti-life rants," -- which is strange, to say the least. He says he's afraid of me, and fears I might "initiate self-defensive force" upon him if he disputes my ideas -- which is more than a little silly. So long as no-one initiates force, fraud, taxation, or regulation upon me they have nothing to fear. Marotta also compares me to two individuals I know nothing about, but which surely can't be very similar.

He also writes:

It matters who the people are [in the nation and the government]. Angels, devils, or humans, rational or irrational, tolerant or uptight, confident or fearful, it makes a difference.

The whole point of the essay is: to a shocking and previously unknown extent, it really doesn't. Get the system right, and you've pretty much got everything right, socially and personally. Get the political system wrong, in turn, and it really doesn't matter how virtuous and wise the citizenry and leadership: you'll still have overwhelming social conflict and personal unhappiness.

In the end, James Madison in the The Federalist #51 is basically agreeing in advance that "communism is good in theory but bad in practice," which is absurd. The other idea I had in mind with this essay is that Adam Smith, and everyone who came after him, gave a remarkably poor defense of the "invisible hand" theory of social cooperation and self-improvement.

Perren writes in Post 5:

Character matters, as does the wider culture. A society of scoundrels could never put forth good leaders (though the reverse is true). Immoral leaders, judges, etc could never ensure a good government, no matter what documents they might mouth allegiance to.

Henshaw writes in Post 6:

A community composed entirely of people of the ilk of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, ad nauseam would quickly ditch or ignore any Constitution based entirely or in part on the NIOF principle.

In thinking thru this issue recently, I really did come to the unexpected and amazing conclusion that in a completely free society, even the lowest of the low would be effectively 'forced' to behave. They'd want lots of money, for example, and since they couldn't effectively get it via crime or tyranny, they'd have to open respectable businesses and deal with people honorably and efficiently. They'd want lots of friends too, and not being able to effectively buy or compel them, they'd have to be sociable, friendly, loyal -- and even sympathetic and charming.

Such are the hugely important indirect and socio-personal results of a political system of pure freedom!

Post 8

Monday, February 4 - 1:50am

Link

Edit

"In thinking thru this issue recently, I really did come to the unexpected and amazing conclusion that in a completely free society, even the lowest of the low would be effectively 'forced' to behave."

Kyrel, I agree (though I don't find that conclusion to be particularly unexpected)-- IF there were a sufficiently large percentage of people in that free society that supported its continuation, and were willing to apply effective constraints against the sociopaths who would continually be pushing the boundaries, seeking a way to impose their will upon others without consent.

Human nature being what it is, I unfortunately feel that most variations of non-freedom will have to be tried and fail catastrophically before people give up and decide that freedom is the only workable alternative in the long run.

It took a long time for obviously flawed systems like pure communism and socialism unadulterated by capitalism to spectacularly fail, and even now Mugabe and Chavez are trying to make variants of it work. I think it will take much longer before liberal democracy reaches its endgame of total government control, fails, and becomes as thoroughly discredited. Only when smiling sociopaths like FDR are as widely reviled as Stalin or Pol Pot because the events they set in motion caused society to implode, and people overwhelmingly recognize the links in that chain of events, will a completely free society be possible.

Post 9

Monday, February 4 - 7:33am

Link

Edit

Kyrel writes:

In a free society jury duty would be voluntary but probably paid -- like military duty. Subpoenas violate the First and Fifth Amendments, and so don't apply to private citizens at criminal trials-- just government officials operating in their official capacities. But in a free state the voluntary cooperation of juries and third parties in criminal matters can be relied upon. And American-style arrests, searches, and seizures of people who are objectively criminal suspects would still obtain. This wouldn't violate the "no force, no fraud" rule.

I reply:

A paid jury is a potentially bribe jury. You are extremely naive. In a society full of devils the world will rapidly become hell. The "good guys" would have to form a gang to keep the "bad guys" in check. We would need stealth vigilantes. We still would need authority of law to gather evidence and force people to testify.

In a world in which there are criminals a certain amount of force is required to keep them under control. That means searches, seizures, subpoenas and warrants. There is no way out. The alternative is either tyranny or anarchy.

Also I do not like your notion of enforcing good manners. Good manners can be imposed or encourages by social sanction. Discourteous folk can be shunned without force of law. If you want a well behaved society make sure -everyone- over the age of 15 is armed to the teeth.

Bob Kolker

Post 10

Monday, February 4 - 8:12am

Link

Edit

You don't defend your thesis with argument or historical analsysis; you merely repeat it.

The closest you come is this:

"They'd want lots of money, for example, and since they couldn't effectively get it via crime or tyranny, they'd have to open respectable businesses and deal with people honorably and efficiently. They'd want lots of friends too, and not being able to effectively buy or compel them, they'd have to be sociable, friendly, loyal -- and even sympathetic and charming."

But these are mere assertions and don't take into account the variety of human values and behavior (in any type of society).

In essence, you appear to assert that freedom is some kind of primary and that once established (somehow) it would be self-sustaining. This is philosophically erroneous -- it implies a kind of determinism -- and historically false. We've seen how relatively free societies can become less so over the past 100 years.

Merely asserting "freedom is good" (while true) doesn't guarantee that others will continue to think so, however much of an epiphany it may seem to you.

Post 11

Monday, February 4 - 1:55pm

Link

Edit

I think Jury duty would have a set pay scale = what you earn currently. That would not be subject to bribery. Of course if there were no taxation verifying income would be more difficult, but essentially that is the idea - show a paystub or a balance sheet or such.

Post 12

Monday, February 4 - 6:42pm

Link

Edit

Kyrel wrote:

The whole point of the essay is: to a shocking and previously unknown extent, it really doesn't. Get the system right, and you've pretty much got everything right, socially and personally. Get the political system wrong, in turn, and it really doesn't matter how virtuous and wise the citizenry and leadership: you'll still have overwhelming social conflict and personal unhappiness.

I got that you probably intended your essay to make that point. Unfortunately, you burdened it with a lot of Platonic verbiage which undercut any positive message you intended. I don't think that it is generally an advance in our language to use terms like "force" metaphorically, either. Or,

Even peccadillos like discourtesy and tardiness would be dealt with ruthlessly and efficaciously by "the system."

Occasional usage of a term in a metaphorical sense can be useful and make a point. However, you then have to clarify what the point was that you intended, unless it is completely clear in context, which your's were not. I have fallen prey myself in the past occasionaly, succumbing to the temptation to exaggerate by metaphor or hyperbole in order to pound home a point or generate excitement in a dry line of argument. It does not usually work and afterwards I am often embarrassed in having to defend or retract or, at best, restate my positions. I suggest that you avoid doing this, as there are better things for us to focus upon.

Such as, your intended point. I agree that having a good system of governance is very important. Coming from the anarcho-capitalist school, I probably attach more weight to the issue of a proper system than do most of those who support a limited state. On the other hand, there are those who push both positions way too far.

I have all too often heard - most often from doctrinaire anarchists, as though it were an actual argument, the phrase "well, the market will decide." It's used as a universal put-down for any proposal. Imagine if someone had said that to Henry Ford, and he decided they must be right.

The underlying position is, of course, that somehow the "system" of the market will roll on, delivering whatever good is possible, independent of any human intervention. Au contrare! In fact, the "market" is the sum of all the free transactions between individuals. It is those individuals who will determine whether Ford, Toyota, GM, or whoever will dominate or not in the auto marketplace.

The idea that a market of itself is going to save us and bring us to utopia, which is pretty much the position of many "religious" libertarians, begs the question: "How come it ain't already here?" We've had markets for a LONG time.

A far more nuanced and objective position is that taken by Spencer MacCallum, who I have known since the late '70's, in his "The Art of Community," in which he traces the evolution of markets, including the way by which key concepts necessary for successful long-term complex trade emerged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_MacCallum

Many of the concepts which were required for trade, such as an objective comparison of market values - apples vs. oranges vs. wheat vs. manufactured goods - have been around for a very long time yet have not yet produced that utopia. Yet it is equally hard to argue that without those concepts we could have progressed nearly as far as we have. MacCallum shows how it was likely the lack of objective concepts of value and a system of trade that lead to the water wars in Sumerian society, but that the very act of conquest and subjugation then forced the conquerors and conquered to identify the underlying implicit concepts of their respective languages and societies, to move from memorized rote and role to full conceptualization.

Like a market, a system of governance will either require a continuous input of anti-entropy energy by participants, which has the downside of potentially burning out the people who are key to maintaining it, or it will systematically reward those who contribute to successful governance. Every state system of governance has the downside that it rewards whoever is in power. Thus, it becomes "power" itself which is selected for. Strong individuals can prevent the descent to the bottom so long as they are in power, but people die eventually, or lose interest, and this can easilly become another sacrificial alter of the individual to the interests of "society."

Just as bad, states respond to squeeky wheels. Not having a positive agenda - at least not in our pure objectivist state, strictly limited to defence of individual rights, etc., the state focuses on whatever is a "problem." Thus, problems are reinforced. Do the police get bigger budgets when crime is up or down?

Markets do not have that problem as they reward success. A market in liberty would by its nature reward those people and systems that produced more liberty more efficiently. Even so, if people were overwhelmingly evil or irrational - think of Catholic Spain during the inquisition - then no market or market system or state, for that matter, could prevail in imposing human rights.

Post 13

Tuesday, February 5 - 8:09am

Link

Edit

Kyrel makes an excellent point.

An economics professor of mine used to say that you could have the Harvard faculty (you can substitute Ayn Rand, if you want) dictating economic policy, and the result wouldn't be much different than if you had a high-school dropout dictating it. Why? Because, as Mises and Hayek pointed out, even the most brilliant people can't know what each individual desires in his capacity as a consumer, nor do they have the specialized knowledge of individual producers and businessmen required to satisfy those desires. Such knowledge is dispersed and decentralized throughout the entire society, because it is shared by each person's own knowledge of his or her unique circumstances. No central planning authority, no matter how brilliant or well intentioned, could begin to acquire it.

Conversely, the government could be staffed by dolts, but if their power were radically limited, as it would be under laissez-faire, their impact on the economy would be insignificant.

The system is more important than the people running it.

- Bill

Post 14

Tuesday, February 5 - 10:44am

Link

Edit

Bill makes an excellent point about Kyrel making an excellent point, and in support of this I offer up an excellent point I made.

;-)

Ed
[lover of excellence]

Post 15

Tuesday, February 5 - 8:18pm

Link

Edit

Phil Osborn: "The idea that a market of itself is going to save us and bring us to utopia, which is pretty much the position of many "religious" libertarians, begs the question: "How come it ain't already here?" We've had markets for a LONG time."

That entire post was worthy of quotation and reply. Allow me to take just that one point and shine a different light on it. I just finished reading Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (My edition is the Talcott Parsons translation on the theory that if anyone could do Weber justice, it would be Parsons... well that and the fact that this was $12 new.) I cite Weber in particular because Objectivists have a smuggled concept from him as a primary plank in the platform. Weber said that the state is the one institution in society with a monopoly on coercion. I know that it seems odd, perhaps, but that exact wording is not in Aristotle or Plato or Locke or Hobbes. The idea that there is one agency with a monopoly on force is directly from Max Weber. I mentioned this before here.

In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber devotes a nice long passage to Benjamin Franklin on thrift. Weber then goes to show how that secular code of enterprise originated in Lutheran and Calvinist ascetism. This is important because "modern" capitalism -- the kind we know -- was distinct from other examples. In our time, in modern time, but not in modern spirt were the chartered plantations and monopoly trading companies. These were "traditiional." They were the state-centered capitalism of the Caesars and Pharoahs, where the rentier gathered the labor of others in order to enjoy luxury and leisure. In modern capitalism, the enterprise owner may well profit from the work of his employees, but, according to the "spirit" of modern capitalism, the entrpreneur works long, hard hours as well, not to win leisure and luxury -- though those may obtain -- but as an end in itself. Work is good. Productivity qua productivity is a virtue. This was a new kind of capitalism. It was Scrooge working on Christmas. We know it as Hank Reardon working long hours in the lab and as Hank and Francisco throwing fire clay into the ladel.

The point here is that if you could go back to the time of the Caesars and present a Latin edition of Adam Smith or Ayn Rand no one would understand you. At best you would some wierd marginalized "semi-stoicurean." At worst you would be another oriental cult like Mithras and Christ. The Protestant "ethic" that Weber wrote about was created by the Reformation of Luther and Calvin, but neither of them could have expected what their teachings became 100 years later.

We benefit from rapid communication, but it still takes time for ideas to sink in, take root, and grow... and then to bear fruit.

I point out to my anarchist friends that we have governments for reasons. People want them. A purely capitalist analysis would see them as "competing." I have posted examples from private international law. So, governments do compete.[1] We can analyze them that way. But they are still governments. Their nature cannot be altered by placing "good" people within them. It will take a "reformation" -- and that is what we are doing here.

[1] What brings foreign students to American universities is that ours compete against each other. We have no national university system as France and Germany and the others all do. In fact, you can find your own Upstate State U., placing Saturday Grad School classes in stripmalls to tap into the hometown markets of Downstate State U. That impels to excellence -- or at least to market service...

Post 16

Tuesday, February 5 - 11:04pm

Link

Edit

My thanks to Bill and [T]Ed! Excellent! ;-)

I think the human raw material or peoples of Australia and America were pretty mediocre for a long, long time. But these two nations prospered due to relatively good -- that is, comparatively libertarian -- government and law. Australia was populated largely by convicts, and America largely by the "tired...poor...huddled masses."

The Roman Empire, in turn, had quite good leaders in the 100s AD with Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. But they couldn't stop the Roman decline under increasingly poor and tyrannical government and law.

Bill Dwyer wrote:

An economics professor of mine used to say that you could have the Harvard faculty (you can substitute Ayn Rand, if you want) dictating economic policy, and the result wouldn't be much different than if you had a high-school dropout dictating it. Why? Because, as Mises and Hayek pointed out, even the most brilliant people can't know what each individual desires in his capacity as a consumer, nor do they have the specialized knowledge of individual producers and businessmen required to satisfy those desires. Such knowledge is dispersed and decentralized throughout the entire society, because it is shared by each person's own knowledge of his or her unique circumstances. No central planning authority, no matter how brilliant or well intentioned, could begin to acquire it.

Conversely, the government could be staffed by dolts, but if their power were radically limited, as it would be under laissez-faire, their impact on the economy would be insignificant.

Good points! Both your professor's and yours.

I certainly think the intelligence and education, plus the virtue and wisdom, of the peoples and their leaders count for something. But evidently not much. I think free will still exists and is important. But it certainly doesn't seem to have much beneficial impact in an evil welfare state. (You might be better off with high levels of hypocrisy and corruption.) Similarly, under a libertarian social organization, stupidity and depravity seemingly doesn't hurt much -- even in giant doses(!).

I think it's actually possible to view America's Founding Fathers as being rather a bunch of cry-babies who whined and weeped for angels to save them -- because they didn't properly understand liberal political theory.

Post 17

Wednesday, February 6 - 2:09am

Link

Edit

K says:

I think it's actually possible to view America's Founding Fathers as being rather a bunch of cry-babies who whined and weeped for angels to save them -- because they didn't properly understand liberal political theory.

I write:

Those cry babies produced the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not bad for weepers.

I assume you are Russian. Only a Russian could propose a World of Virtue, such as you have. Now you know why Russia as been miserable since the Vikings founded it.

Bob Kolker

Post 18

Wednesday, February 6 - 5:45am

Link

Edit

Phil Osborn: "The idea that a market of itself is going to save us and bring us to utopia, which is pretty much the position of many "religious" libertarians, begs the question: "How come it ain't already here?" We've had markets for a LONG time."

I believe some Objectivists have a utopian view of markets, too. Maybe it's in part due to Atlas Shrugged. As I recall all the non-hero businessmen in AS were in cahoots with the government. There were not businessmen who were otherwise crooks, frauds, or sold shoddy products, or falsely advertised. One of the reasons I chose a business career was to see if the business world portrayed in AS matches the real world. There are some significant differences.

Post 19

Wednesday, February 6 - 10:31am

Link

Edit

I'm not arguing that the type of government or political philosophy one has is irrelevant or unimportant, simply that it can't be created or sustained in the presence of a large number of influential people being committed to an anti-freedom one.

Clearly, a highly free society encourages good behavior and discourages bad. Conversely, an unfree society will be filled with people who do all sorts of bad things, merely to get what they can within the limits to which they're held, or to take advantage of the situation.

But freedom can only evolve and persist when people have the right philosophy. In the absence of that, freedom will necessarily devolve.

Further, character isn't a sufficient condition, but it is necessary and, importantly, it's a sign that people in fact have that right philosophy.

This, however,

"I think it's actually possible to view America's Founding Fathers as being rather a bunch of cry-babies who whined and weeped for angels to save them -- because they didn't properly understand liberal political theory. "

is simply ludicrous. To suggest that men like Jefferson, Madison, and others who made possible the very type of society you're advocating were as you describe is an insult to those great men and to the very values you claim to be extolling.

The history of the period and the character and philosophy of these men is too well known here to make necessary any lengthy proof. Reading the Constitution alone would suffice.