RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Books : Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America'...

Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It, Revised and Updated Edition by Star Parker

I heard the author, Star Parker, interviewed on Sean Hannity today. She literally blew me away. I am recommending this book before even reading it because of how impressed, how in awe, I already am of her. She was so poignant, so prescient. I know of only one other woman -- a prominent mid-20th Century novelist/philosopher who will go unnam... (See the whole review)

(Added by Ed Thompson on 9/30/2010, 3:52pm)

Discuss this Book (57 messages)

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 11:27am

Steve and I are having a protracted debate on another thread regarding the 3rd-party elucidation of someone else's motives for doing something. In this thread, I'm in more agreement with Joe than with John or Michael -- but I'd like to try something which might backfire.

Rand outlined how it is that you can rationally mind-read (i.e., elucidate someone's personal, private motives for the actions taken -- or the ideas held -- by them). It goes like this:

If you wanted to expose a psychological aberration, you'd need to analyze what's wrong with an idea and then demonstrate that only improper motives A, B, and C could lead to anyone holding such an idea.

To discuss the psychological roots of certain evil or irrational ideas in this way is proper because you are not passing judgment on a person.

Now, here is what it looks like with respect to the debate in this particular thread:

If you wanted to expose a psychological aberration [of spouses], you'd need to analyze what's wrong with [marriage] and then demonstrate that only improper motives A, B, and C could lead to anyone holding [marriage as a value].

The next 2 step are these 2 honest questions:

1) has Joe analyzed what's wrong with "marriage" (as an idea or value)?
2) has Joe demonstrated that only a short list of improper motives -- e.g., loneliness, insecurity/fear, 2nd-hander social recognition -- could lead to anyone holding marriage as a value?

Ed

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 11:59am

Ed,

That is very confusing. Are you saying that you are doing a proper job (according to your understanding of Rand's understanding of how to determine motives) of evaluating Joe's motives? Or the motives of some unknown spouse in some unknown marriage?

And is it your position that marriage is evil? And that you are attempting to determine the psychological roots of this 'evil idea'?

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 1:45pm

Could be a can of worms, but what about the concept that marriage is simply a contract between two individuals...for exclusive mutual benefit. You know, just like business...ok, off to Vegas for some fun.

:)

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 5:07pm

Michael,

I think that some of the disagreement comes from the different view of marriage. It is different depending upon the culture and it has changed throughout history, men and women tend to view it differently and there is a big difference from one individual to another.

Add to that the different roles that different people assign to it: Social status, legal status, psychological status, and day to day changes in activities. And the largest item of all may be the different psychological wants and needs that different people bring to marriage.

Even your straight forward suggestion of a contract gets confusing because depending upon the culture, the person, the psychology, etc., different people will bring different expectations to what the would want in the contract. But I like the idea of contract, not so much for marking out the legal structure, but as a way that the couple can work on what their expectations are of the other - married or not, any long term relationship is better off for that kind of understanding.

Every relationship has a level of commitment - and there are many levels that can be gone through - from "Hello, how are you, my name is..." to coffee or lunch, to seeing each other, to intimacy, to exclusivity, etc. It is hoped that the couple have roughly the same understanding of what there current level is - what it entails. Commitment is coin of the realm in relationships - it is what you pay to move forward in intensity and the degree of connectedness. Marriage is a commitment level.

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 7:57pm

This is a very interesting discussion, and I hope Joe continues. I have to disagree with something Steve said, though:

I think that some of the disagreement comes from the different view of marriage. It is different depending upon the culture and it has changed throughout history, men and women tend to view it differently and there is a big difference from one individual to another.

The cause of marriage has changed (power, position, political, etc, vs romance and a value for life) but the actual view of marriage hasn't changed at all. Marriage has always been viewed as a public recognition and record of a relationship, from the most primitive jungle tribe, or clan, to the most advanced societies.

Birthday parties aren't maintained by any state record.

Honestly, I think Joe's right to question the intrinsic value of marriage. I don't think he's necessarily being cynical about it, either. Marriage is always seen as a public recognition of a relationship, but why is this necessary? One very good and objective reason is inheritance. If a will is incomplete or totally missing, a recorded relationship is an excellent way to discover who has logical (and legal) claim to any property held only in the deceased's name, for what ever reason.

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 8:41pm

Steve,

That is very confusing. Are you saying that you are doing a proper job (according to your understanding of Rand's understanding of how to determine motives) of evaluating Joe's motives?

No, I was asking about Joe's argument, not his motives.

Or [that you are doing a proper job of evaluating] the motives of some unknown spouse in some unknown marriage?

No, by asking the questions I did, I merely made it possible for someone else (i.e., someone who can answer the questions I asked) to do a proper job of evaluating the motives of some unknown spouse in some unknown marriage.

And is it your position that marriage is evil? And that you are attempting to determine the psychological roots of this 'evil idea'?

As to your first question, I don't think it is an inherently evil, or dishonest, idea (such as the idea of communism), but only that it is often used for evil purposes. Good things can be used for evil and still hold (inherent?) value. A gun used by a criminal to kill someone would still be a value to me (if I could wrestle it away from him). Just the very fact that something is used for evil does not make it completely value-less.

As to your second question, my first answer hints at the notion that I may indeed try to elucidate a short list of the psychological roots of using marriage for an evil purpose (but preferably in the morning when I am lucid, and only after a fair amount of coffee).

Ed

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 9:07pm

Ed,

You wrote, "...by asking the questions I did, I merely made it possible for someone else (i.e., someone who can answer the questions I asked) to do a proper job of evaluating the motives of some unknown spouse in some unknown marriage."

Now, in that case you cannot know the motives. That is the case the Rand was mentioning. If you have no individual in mind, then you have no evidence of what is in their mind. You don't have their words, their facial expressions, their actions... nada. All you can do is make a long laundry list and say their motives for getting married is on this list and it won't mean too much because your list might be incomplete.

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 9:45pm

Steve,

Now, in that case you cannot know the motives.

But you are not integrating the second half of Rand's two-part method of third-party motive elucidation. It is the part where she says this:

you'd need to ... demonstrate that only improper motives A, B, and C could lead to anyone holding such an idea.

So, according to Rand's outlined method, if you can get yourself into the epistemological position of being able to demonstrate that only a few different motives could possibly lead to holding such an idea or value (i.e., the value of marriage), then you do it. Let's take the easier example of communism.

1) One motive or personal reason to value communism is so you can avoid independence, which is an improper motive (because independence is a virtue for humans).

2) Another motive or personal reason to value communism is because you want to be the guy at the top calling all of the shots, which is an improper motive.

3) Another motive or personal reason to value communism is so you can avoid any unearned guilt regarding the trials or tribulations which any other citizen is going through, which is an improper motive.

4) Another motive or personal reason to value communism is so you can avoid the envy of others by accidentally living your life too successfully and making yourself too happy, which is an improper motive.

5) Another motive or personal reason to value communism is blind faith in communists because of a gut feeling you have on top of avoidance of personal responsibility to think for yourself, which is an improper motive.

6) Another motive or personal reason to value communism is blind faith in your parents' belief in communism -- a kind of familial or traditional motive, which is an improper motive (and may even be collapsed into motive number 5 above).

Have I missed anything? I'm reasonably sure that that's at least half of all of the possible motives or personal reasons (12 reasons, at maximum) that one could ever have to value communism.

Ed

Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 11:47pm

Ed,

I don't see what your last post tells us about marriage. And since we aren't talking about a specific person what good does a discussion of motivation do us? And as far as the question on marriage goes it is somewhat circular that you presume only negative motivations, isn't it?

The marriage issue is about the question of can marriage be an objective value to people under desirable circumstances. We all know that there can be many bad reasons for marriage. On the question of whether or not marriage can be a value, I said yes. Joe said no. John and Michael Dickey said yes. Teresa said no.

Love is an objective value - one of the greatest of values. If there are conditions under which the experience of love is enhanced by marriage then the question is answered. The fact that many people marry for wrong reasons, or that it has a history of 'wrong' reasons, or is culturally or legally or social status reasons, doesn't mean anything.

Are you going to deny that there are a significant number of people who marry to enhance their love (motive) and that it ends up having that effect for many people?

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 10:08am

Steve,

And since we aren't talking about a specific person what good does a discussion of motivation do us?

Rand said that you could only uncover motivations in a general way, like I did above -- not in a specific way (as you seem to want to be able to do).

And as far as the question on marriage goes it is somewhat circular that you presume only negative motivations, isn't it?

I didn't say I only presume negative motivations for marriage -- I said it's often used for evil purposes.

On the question of whether or not marriage can be a value, I said yes. Joe said no. John and Michael Dickey said yes. Teresa said no.

I know, I know. You want me to "weigh in" here. But I'm still thinking about it. Joe brings up great points. I'm swayed, but not conclusively so. That's why I said I'm in more agreement with Joe (not necessarily total agreement with Joe).

If there are conditions under which the experience of love is enhanced by marriage then the question is answered.

But sometimes trade-offs -- even if they lead to a net gain -- are wrong. The idea that net-positive trade-offs are always good comes from utilitarian morality (not my morality).

The fact that many people marry for wrong reasons, or that it has a history of 'wrong' reasons, or is culturally or legally or social status reasons, doesn't mean anything.

See above.

Are you going to deny that there are a significant number of people who marry to enhance their love (motive) and that it ends up having that effect for many people?

I'm currently wrestling with the idea of denying the first half of that sentence. The second half of that sentence is, again, a utilitarian statement and is, therefore, inconsequential (pardon the pun!) in my morality.

Ed

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 11:03am

Ed,

I asked: "Are you going to deny that there are a significant number of people who marry to enhance their love (motive) and that it ends up having that effect for many people?"

You answered,"I'm currently wrestling with the idea of denying the first half of that sentence. The second half of that sentence is, again, a utilitarian statement and is, therefore, inconsequential (pardon the pun!) in my morality."

So you have decided that you are able to read the minds of a great many people, whose names you don't even know, who are no where near you, and when the motives you are saying you will discern motivated acts taken in the past. That's an impressive trick!

And then you go on to say that a man and woman who believe, for example, that getting married will magnify the experience of being in love are utilitarian? Is that like Luthern? :-)

You'll have to explain why we shouldn't act to gain or keep that which we value, or why such a process would be inconsequential, or why values and acting to gain them would be amoral or immoral as such. Me, I would have said that if marriage enhances love it is a value. Isn't a gun a value when you can use it to defend against a criminal? Isn't a car a value when you can use it to go where you want to go? Isn't an honest car dealer a value when you want to buy a car that will be a value because it will let you drive to work which is a value because... you get the idea.

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 11:15am

Ed,

You wrote, "But sometimes trade-offs -- even if they lead to a net gain -- are wrong. The idea that net-positive trade-offs are always good comes from utilitarian morality (not my morality)."

That needs explanation. You say, "sometimes." What is it that makes a net gain a loss?

If you are claiming that a thing can be a positive gain while being immoral or unethical, I would disagree. I would say that it is a negative thing. For example, if I receive a gift of some money, that would seem to be positive, but if I know that it was stolen from someone, it is not a positive at all. My position would be that you cannot have a positive that is also immoral or unethical. Does that relate to you statement of a net gain that comes from utilitarian morality?

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 12:56pm

Steve,

So you have decided that you are able to read the minds of a great many people, whose names you don't even know, who are no where near you, and when the motives you are saying you will discern motivated acts taken in the past. That's an impressive trick!

It does seem impressive, but just between you and me, I want to share something with you: I'm really, really good at philosophy.

What I have in mind in order to perform what would look like magic to you (and perhaps many 3rd-part viewers), is to ascertain whether or not it is impossible to marry in order to enhance love. Let's say, for example, that it is impossible to do so. There will still be folks who intend to marry to enhance their love but, in reality, they don't (because it's impossible). As your statement was worded, it went beyond anyone's intentions and into the realm of actual fact -- i.e., it presumed that you can marry for the purpose of enhancing love.

And then you go on to say that a man and woman who believe, for example, that getting married will magnify the experience of being in love are utilitarian? Is that like Luthern? :-)

I don't get it.

You'll have to explain why we shouldn't act to gain or keep that which we value, or why such a process would be inconsequential, or why values and acting to gain them would be amoral or immoral as such.

You shouldn't act to gain or keep that which you value if your values are wrong.

The cardinal example is the heroin addict, who "values" (acts to gain or keep) a perpetuated, mind-wiping stupor. Just because it "feels good" to be high on heroin does not, retroactively, justify one's heroin use. That retroactive justification is utilitarian. It's more commonly denoted by the phrase: "the ends justify the means." You don't look to the product of action first, and then look backward, and then get moral justification by a backward-looking morality. Folks gamble for money sometimes. Often times they gamble because of addiction, but sometimes they gamble in order to get rich. Some folks get rich off of gambling, but looking backward at how they got rich does not justify gambling as a moral behavior (even though they succeeded with it).

It's the same, I say, with marriage. You cannot point to some happy, lovey-dovey couples and tell me that it is the marriage between them which is responsible for their lasting joy.

You wrote, "But sometimes trade-offs -- even if they lead to a net gain -- are wrong. The idea that net-positive trade-offs are always good comes from utilitarian morality (not my morality)."

That needs explanation. You say, "sometimes." What is it that makes a net gain a loss?

See the heroin addict example above. Getting high feels better than not getting high. Pain is removed. Pleasure is maximized. But -- because of the kind of creatures that we are -- it is always wrong. In order for humans -- capable of such a greater and deeper happiness than medication could provide -- to be truly happy, they have got to be operating from outside of a perpetuated, mind-wiping stupor. Both Aristotle and Rand are very insightful about that aspect of reality.

Ed

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 2:04pm

On the question of whether or not marriage can be a value, I said yes. Joe said no. John and Michael Dickey said yes. Teresa said no.

Where did I say "no?" I've barely said anything about it at all.

Marriage is, and always has been, a legal act in the eyes of every society, primitive or modern. There are good reasons for this.

The "happy" part of the marriage act is a fairly recent Western cultural development, because "romantic love" is a fairly recent development in the list of human values.

Of course collectivism screws up anything good about marriage, but I don't necessarily think its intrinsically a bad thing.

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 2:29pm

Hi Teresa, just wanted to respond to this:

Birthday parties aren't maintained by any state record.

Neither are wedding parties, but Joe did object to those particular qualities. He said things like putting together an invitation list, planning for the ceremony etc is evidence of marriage as a disvalue. When I objected to this on the grounds that many different celebrations for different occasions conceptually do the same thing, he says I'm being "too literal-minded" (not sure exactly what that means, should I be more metaphorically minded? Symbolically minded?). He hasn't explained why my objection doesn't hold. If these qualities are evidence of a disvalue he doesn't get to ignore those qualities when you examine a birthday celebration or any other kind of celebratory act that may over centuries have developed some cultural rituals to them (hey I suppose drinking games and birthday cakes and an invitation list to a birthday are now are out of the question)

Moreover, a date of birth for every individual is recorded and maintained by the state. So again to be consistent, if one were to object to marriage on the grounds it is state recognized then you can't pick and choose how this principle applies to any number of "state" recognitions. I couldn't give a damn if the state has a record of the town and date I was born in, I don't need that to give my life any kind of significance so why should the argument fly that marriage must intrinsically involve some kind of state recognition?
(Edited by John Armaos on 10/17, 2:31pm)

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 2:31pm

Ed,

You wrote, "What I have in mind in order to perform what would look like magic to you (and perhaps many 3rd-part viewers)..."

Perhaps you were being humorous... otherwise it was very condescending. When you write something like that it does not encourage me to view you as "really good at philosophy."
--------------------------

You wrote, "As your statement was worded, it went beyond anyone's intentions and into the realm of actual fact -- i.e., it presumed that you can marry for the purpose of enhancing love."

YES! That is what the issue is. That is what I have been saying.

I, and others, have offered the premise that marriage can enhance the experience of love - under the right conditions. I, and others, have acknowledged that under other conditions it can detract from ones enjoyment of life.
-------------------

You wrote that you would "ascertain whether or not it is impossible to marry in order to enhance love. " Then, without pause, you wrote, "Let's say, for example, that it is impossible to do so."

When do you get around to ascertaining, instead of just asserting?
------------------

You wrote, "You shouldn't act to gain or keep that which you value if your values are wrong. "

I'm well aware of that. (Kind of a condescending reply in its obviousness, don't you think?)
-------------------

You wrote, "You don't look to the product of action first, and then look backward, and then get moral justification by a backward-looking morality. Folks gamble for money sometimes. Often times they gamble because of addiction, but sometimes they gamble in order to get rich. Some folks get rich off of gambling, but looking backward at how they got rich does not justify gambling as a moral behavior (even though they succeeded with it)."

Let me change that a bit. Say someone uses reason to examine the stock market and makes investments based upon a rationally derived theory. Instead of a "gamble," it is a rational calculation of risk. (Some poker players would say they are doing the same thing.) The product of action is the same - if gambler and investor are successful they have money. If the couple getting married used reason to decide to take a risk on marriage as a mechanism for enhancing their love, and they experienced that enhancement, then it is reasonable to say they, and the investor may have used valid theories, and applied them reasonably. No 'backward-looking morality' there.

Again, you still haven't demonstrated that all people who "intend" to enhance their love with marriage, will necessarily not be able to do. You have not shown that their theory isn't valid or that their resulting happiness is not a product of applying that theory. You claimed you would show that it is impossible. That is the task to declared for yourself isn't it? (You said, "because it is impossible.")
---------------------

I believe that we are on the same page on the issue of net gain and our approach to making moral decisions (as far as the recent posts go). Which makes it feel like you have been lecturing me (in what feels like a condescending fashion) on something where we agree and where I already know what you are telling me.

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 2:45pm

Teresa,

I never intend to put words in someone's mouth or imply they took some position they didn't.

Here is what you said, "Honestly, I think Joe's right to question the intrinsic value of marriage."

After reading that, I said, "On the question of whether or not marriage can be a value, I said yes. Joe said no. John and Michael Dickey said yes. Teresa said no."

Can you see where I'd assume that saying that marriage may not have any intrinsic value (the reference to Joe's post where you said he was right) would also mean that marriage cannot be a value (the negation of my position)?

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 4:54pm

(As usual) John's right. ;)

However -

I couldn't give a damn if the state has a record of the town and date I was born in, I don't need that to give my life any kind of significance so why should the argument fly that marriage must intrinsically involve some kind of state recognition?

Great works of fiction have been written about the legitimacy of birth; Hunchback of Notre Dame, King Solomon, etc. I'm thinking record keeping started around the time Solomon threatened to cut a stolen and disputed child in two.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 10/17, 5:08pm)

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 5:16pm

Steve -

Can you see where I'd assume that saying that marriage may not have any intrinsic value (the reference to Joe's post where you said he was right) would also mean that marriage cannot be a value (the negation of my position)?

Well, I said he was right to question the intrinsic value of it. If such an intrinsicism exists, surely Joe would be able to show it. That's how I read his objections, anyway.

Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 5:35pm

Well, there's no such thing as 'intrinsic value', as Tara Smith clearly pointed out - so guess that answers the question...