RoR: Forum

'Association' seems a bit floozy. After all, who, precisely is doing this 'associating' of America with natural rights? Telejocks and telebimbos unite! You have only your credibility to lose and corporate interests to gain!

More to the point: Locke was English, Rousseau was French. Among many others, both wrote before America even thought of becoming an independent country.

EM

Post 1

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 12:25pm

Eva,

Now you are trolling. Know that within Objectivist circles words have distinct meanings. You are questioning definitions of words doesn't really work out here... particularly this word, "America", in this context, which has a sacred meaning to Objectivists and is currently under attack by socialists.

At one time America was a symbol of a social system who's citizens respected each other's property. This isn't some new association that Machan has recently invented himself. Ever heard of "The American Dream"? From wikipedia:

"The idea of the American Dream is rooted in the United States Declaration of Independence which proclaims that "all men are created equal" and that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Is there any question that this is what Machan is referring to?

Post 2

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 12:29pm

Eva,

,,,who, precisely is doing this 'associating' of America with natural rights?

The founding fathers and the principle documents they wrote defining our nations founding principles and political structure.
-------------

What does the fact that Locke wrote before we became a nation have to do with the fact that our founding fathers "associated" natural rights with the purpose of government in our birth as a nation? Were they somehow, magically unable to use any concepts made public earlier than 1776 or because the concepts might have been from someone in England? How does that make any sense?
--------------

And what wild abandonment of logic do you use to "associate" the mention of America's connection to natural rights with gaining corporate interests? I've mentioned this association. Where is the gain in corporate interests?
--------------

Am I making a wild leap of unsupportable logic to say that you favor those who would have an elite in Washington that would toss out "natural rights" in favor of severely reining in corporations (and other forms of freely associating individuals)? How else can the Progressives ever regulate us for our own good and redistribute our wealth to the needy? [sarcasm]

Post 3

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 9:51pm

Dean,

There's no question of error as to what Machan was referring. The error is that private property and respect for individual rights was discussed far before America was a nation.

In other words, for 'association' to have any real meaning, it has to come to grip with roots. Otherwise, you'll wind up with a bunch of people who actually believe that Jefferson's ideas were his own.

These were also codified into the laws of every European nation who, in turn, discovered that the Salamanca School (1600) had derived their property and individual rights from a nice melange of Sharia and New Testament inspiration, beginning around AD 800.

So please tell me, how are commonly-known facts 'trolled'?

Yes, we all know that people of all nations like to 'associate' really nice things with their own character& traditions& all that. And we have Wiki to reference these, lest we forget.

EM

Post 4

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 10:06pm

No, Steve, you're on a wild fishing trip that involves trying to guess my political beliefs.

If you believe that corporatins have 'natural rights' then you're in what Hume called an 'ought' category that bears no resemblance to 'is".

That's because corporations have always been chartered by states--which basically means they're given a license. 'Nothing really 'natural' about that!

TeeVee stations are large corporations that pay telecasters lots of money to broadcast a highly telescoped view of the world. Part of this involves the intent of failing to offer other nations and cultures credit for discoveries, inventions, and ideas.

In this regard, a short, fun read would be Litton's 'One-hundred Percent American.

EM

Post 5

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 10:32pm

Eva,

There's no question of error as to what Machan was referring. The error is that private property and respect for individual rights was discussed far before America was a nation.

Jefferson and the other founders took the ideas they believed in and implemented them in a way that makes America forever associated with those ideas. It seems to me impossible that you can't see that, and strange to understand why you'd want to pretend you don't. Bad arguments whose flaws are major and have been exposed are best dropped early and never clung to as if they'd come back from the dead.
-------------

In other words, for 'association' to have any real meaning, it has to come to grip with roots. Otherwise, you'll wind up with a bunch of people who actually believe that Jefferson's ideas were his own.

What if we actually came to believe that Eva Matthews' ideas were her own? Do your thoughts all belong to others? Are you actually implying that you can never take an action that history should record as yours unless the action arose from a thought never before held in another mind? Are you going to claim that an idea, an action, and the product of an action are not separate entities? Nonsense.

You are the one who has thrown up the straw-man assumption that because someone acts a thought first published by another that the act on that thought could never be associated with the actor. History is riddled with people who acted on beliefs that weren't first theirs.

Smells to me like an attempt to rewrite history as Progressive propaganda. Lots of that going on in academia.
-------------

Steve, you're on a wild fishing trip that involves trying to guess my political beliefs.

You are capable of expressing yourself, but choose not to stand up for your political beliefs. That makes your posts on this forums a kind of sneak attack game. You make the openness of others a weapon to use against them. Not an admirable form of intellectual interaction. Why would you be unwilling to state the political principles you align with?
-------------

If you believe that corporatins have 'natural rights' then you're in what Hume called an 'ought' category that bears no resemblance to 'is".

Yet another case of you racing through my post in ways that cause serious reading errors. I do NOT believe the corporations have natural rights and didn't say so. Corporations are a result of a kind of free association of individuals. It is the individuals that have the natural rights. Corporations can only have legal rights.

Post 6

Monday, January 6, 2014 - 10:35pm

Eva,

"who, precisely is doing this 'associating' of America with natural rights?"

We do you socialist scum.

Post 7

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 6:10am

I think Eva's REAL last name is Braun!!

Post 8

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 6:18am

You sound like a red-baiting half-wit.

Post 9

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 6:32am

Steve,

For me, the word 'association' carries historical meaning that refers to origin. I would have assumed as much from Machan, because the PhD philo types whom I know use the word that way.

You're saying, OTH, that 'association' means 'commonly-held, contemporary notions'. In that sense, I agree, Founding fathers loved property rights and freedom, which is why they initiated a rebellion against the Brits.

My real issue with you (and several others) is that because I have no strongly-held beliefs of the black vs white variety, you feel free to accuse me of having strong beliefs that are ad hoc opposites of those that you hold.

In other words, my strong conviction is that to analyze today's reality in terms of 'pure' idealist models that never have existed is fruitless.

EM

Post 10

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 8:02am

Eva,

...my strong conviction is that to analyze today's reality in terms of 'pure' idealist models that never have existed is fruitless.

I'm betting that you be okay with your doctor examining you and working from that pure idealist model of "health" - and not from some motley summation of the conditions of existing sick people (mixed units). When you are feeling sick, you are mixed model and it is hoped that you would move toward being a healthy unit. Declaring that no such thing as pure health currently exists would serve no purpose but to discourage movement in that direction, excuse the sickness as if it were an acceptable norm, and hide the nature of disease.

Post 11

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 8:13am

Eva,

...I have no strongly-held beliefs of the black vs white variety...

I'm sorry to hear that. A strong mind without clearly understood, firmly anchored principles is like a powerful, finely tuned automobile engine... but fastened to a stand, with no transmission, no drivetrain, no wheels, and unable to get anywhere.

There has long been a battle between those that want to control others and those who want to be free, between those who want to create and produce and those who want to steal, between those who want to push their beliefs onto others at the end of a gun, and those who want to remove the initiation and threat of force from a society, between those who revere reason, logic and critical thinking versus those who blank out their minds, avoid logical arguments, turn to scriptures pseudo-science or tired talking points. All black and white on paper, but the shades of gray we find in reality are made of the black and white and a thinker can know that, and separate them. It gives direction. It gives an inner power. Its more fun.

Post 12

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 9:35am

'Cute metaphor: physical health = political correctness. I believe that this was used quite frequently in the old USSR...

Post 13

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 10:04am

Steve,

I was clear in my last post as to what value I believe that black/white ideal types possess.

They're preliminary evaluations, ostensibly taken from the hard sciences in which 'black/white' has qualitative meaning (again, per Weber.). For example, with respect to mass, gravity is constant, Columb, etc....tossing hard stuff into the realm of soft human science is a highly elaborate metaphor at best.

And, yes, it is more fun to think of producers and stealers in eternal conflict. But what's fun--or elegantly simple-- doesn't give you a necessarily true picture.

In other words, if there were a discreet class of 'stealers', it would show up on a psychological profile, and then we might ban from public service. But they're isn't.

All prior-to-deed potential-criminal profiling breaks down into rather louche categories of degree-possibilities that, to a great extent, implicate all of us.

Normally, the testing starts with the taking of a wallet that's been abandoned, and go from there. The (assumed) a-morality of taking said wallet slides into criminality, as it were.

Otherwise, you're back to square one, with elected officals trying with sincere intent to do what they feel is right. That you may disagree with many of their actions (as I do) in no way compromises their integrity.

Moreover, my contention is that in doing so, you're simply weakening our case. As for metaphors, you're the soldier who attacked the enemy alone, thereby giving away our position.

Eva

Post 14

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 3:47pm

Eva,

We still know next to NOTHING about your political positions. What do you advocate? What do you want to see happen in the next elections? What do you base your vote on? What are the top five things you'd do if you could be 'dictator' for a month? Do you think our government would be better, all things considered, if it was bigger/smaller? Should the federal government have more or less power relative to the states? If you could have a single thing put into the constitution (something new or something changed), what would it be? Who are your favorite presidents?

Post 15

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 4:57pm

Steve, you're way off topic.

My rationale for participation is clear: I'm for the development of strong individuals.

Nevertheless...

As for politics, I really don't think that having a two-party system fosters individualism, rather, squelching it.

That's why I'm basically libertarian; having a smaller government is an obvious goal.

I don't accept the premise of dictators because I'm against having only one voice within the political arena. I therefore would reject the title, even for one second.

I admire strongly individualist presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson, who opposed a national bank.

Likewise, Lincoln, for having ended slavery.

Jefferson had the good sense to negotiate the Louisiana Purchase, without which there would be no USA to speak of.

Madison and Monroe stood up to the Europeans, particilarly the British.

Reagan is not admired because he drastically increased the deficit, despite all his talk against 'big gov'ment.

In this sense, Clinton is to be admired for both having balanced the budget and finding ways to reduce welfare payments.

That FDR admirably led America in her second moment of crisis takes positive precidence over new deal...

...which gets to my main point: admiration should come in balanced doses.

Yes, states should be left more to govern themselves. They should also quit begging for money.

EM

Post 16

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 5:02pm

Steve,

From Eva's profile: "... I discovered Atlas and Fountainhead; ... Ms Rand seems to have discovered something rather important ..."

I surmise Eva's conclusion reading Atlas was that Ellsworth Toohey was the hero.

Post 17

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 7:40pm

I've just received a personal email from a fellow board member that strongly suggests that I simply ignore Gores.

Done deal.

Post 18

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 9:55pm

Eva,

Thank you for sharing. I was way off... for whatever reason, I was starting to think you were a Progressive, and just hiding those colors. It is a very pleasant surprise to find out you are a libertarian who values individualism, particularly strong individualism. :-)

We seem to agree on most of those points.

Regarding the Two Party system: The founding fathers were in favor of the two party system, but they also worried about factionalism which their study of history showed to be the downfall of many of the Republics that went before. Factionalism, as I understand it, is when the competition for power between the parties becomes so intense that winning trumps all other ends and the party members will do anything to win. We seem to be there now. But on the other hand, if we have reached one of those moments in history where extremes are presented to society for their choice: Liberty with a small government, or some form of paternalism with a very large government, then I can't see the possibility of much compromise - hard to be a principled person and bridge that wide of a chasm.

As to a two party system squelching individualism.... maybe so. I hadn't thought about that before. But a party system is primarily so the grass roots can organize into more effective pressure blocks under a representative government and it forces people to focus on key principles to make a party (you couldn't have a party that represents a huge number of principles). Libertarianism, which we are starting to see a little of in the GOP conservative wing, is the best hope for a party of individualism. The two party system is so tightly integrated that I see the Libertarian party as a supplier of ideas, and not a viable source of winning candidate at the national level - but I hope I'm wrong on that (I've voted Libertarian in every presidential election since John Hospers, excepting only those where Reagan ran - I like him very much despite his failure to manage the budget - and I voted for Mit Romny because I see Obama as the greatest danger liberty has had since Woodrow Wilson).

The worst thing for squelching individualism is huge government. It always gets defensive and pushes collectivism as a religion.
-----------

I don't accept the premise of dictators because I'm against having only one voice within the political arena. I therefore would reject the title, even for one second.

Yes, I agree, but it isn't intended as a serious suggestion, but rather as a shorthand way to ask what major changes should be made.
-----------

As to admiration coming in balanced doses... I think that is an excellent approach. I've never liked the idea of ignoring someone's good qualities because they held beliefs I didn't agree with. If the beliefs are really bad, they need to get criticized, but it makes no sense not to also recognize greatness in some area for a lack of perfection. Taking the concept of "balance" seriously keeps that approach from ever praising Hitler for liking dogs.

Post 19

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 6:39am