Objectivists offer solutions for the ideal, not the real

Daniel,
Not even close. Certainly not in America. Not even in the comparatively sad state in which it exists today.

I'll provide detailed evidence and arguments later if you're interested.

But that's not the primary reason for my view. It's simply that long-term, wide-spread, lasting change is extremely unlikely to come about via that route, and even more certainly it's not the most "cost-effective" method of producing it.

Jeff

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/10, 9:58pm)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/10, 10:02pm)

Post 21

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 10:02pm

Jeff:
>I'll provide detailed evidence and arguments later if you're interested.

No need, I tend to agree.

- Daniel

Post 22

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 10:08pm

Don't be so gloomy, we already have -- now -- such a great head-start!

G.W. Bush has been one of the best talking-heads ever to take office. In Bush's words ("ownership society", "individual rights", etc) -- not necessarily his deeds (the largest ever government redistribution of public wealth) -- we do have a strong foot-hold to build on.

Mere reverberation of his words would be good. Sure, his actions don't follow his words, but his words are true and -- and this is important -- publically-acceptable, nonetheless. Bush's words can be a boom for Objectivism -- we must only repeat that which has been, at least verbally, emphasized by this man.

Holding future politicians accountable to Bush's truisms (about taxes, etc) -- would fix things. Holding Bush to his word, however, is another story. Bush is, verbally, right about so many things -- we have to keep the public convinced about this (while convincing them to ignore many of his contradictory actions).

That said, I do see the weight of Jeff's live-your-life-right point. Individuals have to first live their life right. I'm just saying what Rand was caught saying: Don't let it go.

Ed
Freedom is the antidote to Terror.

Post 23

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:19am

Sadly, Ed, I don't think that's the case. People know doublespeak when they hear it. When a man speaks of loving freedom while only acting to take it away, the people won't just hate that man... they'll distrust *anyone* who speaks of loving freedom a bit more. Actions will always speak louder than words.

For this reason, I regard Bush as more evil than someone who was up-front about their motives. No matter what his words might be, he is the one who lies and deceives and creates a false reality so as to invite people to give up their lives.

(both figuratively AND literally)

Someone who is factually wrong, but honestly believes what he's saying and doing... that is someone who might be corrected and redeemed. Bush knowingly uses lies as a cloak for his hateful behavior, for no purpose except to gather power for himself at the expense of everyone else. And that is unforgivable.

Post 24

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:49pm

Jason, you sell the public too short. Yeah, I know, I've been caught referring to Americans as sheeple. I know, I've been caught all-but-damning my own society before. Shame on me for that (but I know I'll one day make up for these biting statements -- out of my earlier years).

You see, we have a sub-culture here (that is larger than, say, 10-20% of US towns!) where we often lift the level of discussion to truly appropriate levels (the levels required for accuracy). There are other objectivist forums, too -- and I'll bet they say correct things about politics. There are libertarian forums out there who, broadly, advocate similar ideals. And also, I'll bet that there are some Scientology forums, which folks can enter (for "just 12 easy payments of $1999.95") that have similar political slants. If all these folks can find the truth about the superiority of minarchy over statism, then still others can, too.

In the last poll discussion, us folks talked about when we converted (better term: advanced) toward an objectivist view of life. So even WE didn't START OUT with only the right ideas in our heads. We're human, and we got it right. "They're" human, so there is nothing -- in principle -- from preventing "them" from (eventually) getting it right. Humans have a bunch of potential, Jason. Selling them short would be, at best, a transient error, and, at worst, a prolonging of the delay in their achievement of earned self-respect by the "self-fulfilling prophecy" function.

Ed

p.s. Jason, your distrust of Bush even exceeds mine. But that seems contradictory. I thought I was the most distrustful (of Bush) Objectivist on this planet. Please tell me Jason, what is your personal stance on Objectivism?

Post 25

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 7:49pm

Actually, I think I'm being perfectly charitable towards the people. We've had a succession of politicians and leaders, pretty much one after another, who have systematically taken away freedom. Usually in the name of preserving it. And if a particular group hurts you without cause enough times, it's perfectly reasonable and sane to stop trusting that group.

The problem is, of course, these are the people who are supposed to be representing us that we've, for the most part, given up on. (have you seen the latest approval ratings for Congress in general?) It's really not JUST Bush that I distrust - although I think he exemplifies absolutely everything wrong in American politics at the moment - it's pretty much the lot of them up on the Hill. I mostly like John McCain and his little cabal, and that's about it.

And personal stance on Objectivism? (here it comes) I fully approve of rationality and I love Ayn's stances on the heroicism of man and personal independence... but I see no practical way for her ideas to be turned into a workable system of government. I see it more as a personal philosophy to be followed, like a de-mystified Buddhism, than as something that could be implemented at the state level.

Post 26

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 9:18pm

Jason,
Interesting statements. Which specific ideas do you believe are impractical?
Jeff

Post 27

Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:04pm

Jason, to generally elaborate on Jeff's more specific point: If thousands (as I've shown above) can rationally arrive at the inherent superiority of minarchy (over statism), then why couldn't millions?

Ed

Post 28

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 1:10am

Ed, I think lack of intelligence, unconscious living, and religion are why millions cannot reach the same conclusion. Maybe over the next millennia or so things will change to favor the rational. Maybe even sooner. A few hundred years ago we could all have been executed for heresy for even acknowledging objectivism. In some countries we still could be.

Jason, I've met McCain, and ultimately he is no different than any other politician. His sheep clothing is just of a superior fabric.
(Edited by Donald Talton on 9/12, 1:11am)

Post 29

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 1:45am

Ed,

Whether or not you like McCain is not the relevant question. The relevant question is, in what context could you bring yourself to vote for a co-author of the McCain-Feingold Act?

Post 30

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 6:22am

Well, Donald's post hit my high points in brief.

I realize that Rand argued that, basically, there's no such thing as instinct and everyone is born tabula rasa. However, the majority of medical and genetic science seems to be against her on this one. There is every indication that many people are born to be extroverts who feed off socialization and public approval. (Myers-Briggs fans should recognize the question, "Do public gatherings energize you, or wear you out?")

And hormones regulate a lot of little things and "control" you to a certain extent. A self-realized person can recognize when it's hormones talking and fight it, but it is a fight and not just a matter of rational decision.

I could also point at the studies of Kohlberg into the stages of moral development. He had FAR more "Stage 3" people than he did "Stage 5," and the latter, I think, is what it would take to really understand Objectivism and internalize it. In short, I believe, fundamentally, most people are hard-wired to be second-handers and only a relative handful can be Atlas.

So I think in an objectivist state, at BEST we'd have a society of Randroids. At worst, it would turn quickly into feudalism. All it would take is one immoral person saying, "Hey, look at all these dupes I can exploit!" and things would go downhill from there.

Post 31

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:13am

Jason,

Even granting the 'hard-wired' thesis, I can't see how that prevents Randian ideas from becoming dominant in a society. a) They've already become much more widely accepted than they were 40 years ago. (Though one could reasonably argue that the ideas are not exclusively Rand's and that the reasons for acceptance have much to do with influences other than people reading Rand or her direct 'followers'.) b) The world in various places and various times in the past was, in many ways, much more Randian. For example, though it's often scoffed at today, 19th century America (the Eastern half, anyway) and Britain were in many ways morally and politically superior to the culture of today.

I don't think people need to be Randroids, nor Randian 'saints', nor a large number to be Jeffersons for Jefferson's ideas to be dominant. The latter's once were, after all. And aren't Rand's ideas very similar to Jefferson's, in many instances?

But really, rather than try to make an abstract case for Objectivism, it would be better to take specific cases. Which is why I ask again, which ideas specifically? Or, if those are your specific examples, are you suggesting that because humans may have hormonal or other 'hard-wired' influences, they can't (on a sufficiently large enough scale) adopt rational egoism or laissez-faire capitalism explicitly?

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/12, 7:30am)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/12, 7:30am)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/12, 7:32am)

Post 32

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:16am

Ed,
Well, there are two major broad issues I have. It's difficult to talk in specifics since these are more trends than exacts.

First is that, as technology advances, it seems to be getting harder and harder to truly be independent. Too many bigger entitites have powers over the individual, powers that aren't state-granted per se but exist as a result of technology. The big difference between someone living in the 1800s and someone living today is that a person today cannot *escape* society. At least, not without extreme difficulty.

Just about anyone living in, say, 1850, if they got fed up with where they were, could just get a mule and start heading west. Find some unclaimed plot and set up new lives. Or move to a new town and start over. That's increasingly difficult or impossible today. Every one of us has a pretty much inescapable electronic trail.

Even if you're blameless. The advent of electronic money has made identity theft a major problem. (and e-money is a terrible idea, but it also lets one, say, order CDs directly from Japan and get them within a week. Who are we to stop that kind of progress?) You give your CC info to some company. They get hacked. Hacker steals your info, makes a number of bogus charges in your name. It gets onto your credit record. You can't get a car, a house, possibly even a job if you're applying in the realm of financial services.

What the hacker did was illegal, but because of the web of ties we've all got on us, you're still screwed for *years* trying to sort out the problem. In the 1800s, you'd just shoot the jerk and move on. But no more.

Again, I present this not as a specific problem (although it is), but also as an illustration of how whether we like it or not, we're tied down by forces we cannot challenge directly. And for this reason, it's a lot harder for an individual to get through life without some sort of support system beyond what a minimalist government might be able to provide. Otherwise, if you have any knowledge of the beaurocracy that governs these things, you would it would be almost impossible for a person to clear this up on his own. (And we won't even go into the hell a person goes through if the hacker is in a foreign country.)

(I can go into details if you want; I've worked for a couple companies for whom someone's credit rating determines everything.)

The other issue that arises from this is what I personally call the A**hole Factor. The ability of a single person, or small group, to screw things up for everyone else. The more complex and interwoven the system, the easier this becomes. Like the hacker in the above situation. Or another example I'm fond of: What if Warren Buffett decided to crash the stock market? He has that power. All he'd have to do is cash out and everyone else would panic and follow. He'd end up the richest man left in the world and the economy would be in tatters.

Again, in the 1800s... someone could NEVER accumulate that sort of power. It just wouldn't be possible. Someone in New York couldn't have any effect whatsoever on someone in, say, San Diego. But because of globalization and the technological interdependence we're all forced to rely upon, now someone can. And a stronger centralized government is the only way I can see to prevent people from both accumulating that much power over unassociated individuals and having the ability to abuse it.

It would be great if all capitalists behaved like Dagny or Roark or Rearden. But they won't. And as long as people in Taiwan could theoretically ruin my life beyond my ability to put it back together by myself, I can only appeal to a higher authority to help out. I say this out of very grudging self-interest. If you can come up with a way to protect myself from all this, I'd love to hear it - but sticking my fingers in my ears and saying LA LA LA YOU HAVE NO POWER just doesn't cut it.

Maybe if I could go in and redesign the system from the bottom up, I could make it so that a strong government isn't needed. But with the current global system, as we have it, I see no way an Objectivist government could be practical.

Post 33

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:48am

OK, that post got long and rambling. Here's my position in short:

1)To live in any significant way in today's world, I'm forced to tie myself into a global web of electronic transmissions and databases I have no direct access to. While it might be possible to survive using nothing but hard cash, it would be very difficult and I couldn't get anywhere. It would be a subsistance living at best.

2)I have no power to stop this. If I want a car, a house, even a job, I have to be part of this global and for the most part privatized system. I suppose I could move to a non-industrial country but THAT'S hardly a viable option. I rather like having indoor plumbing, thank you.

3)Because of flaws in the above system, people anywhere on Earth have the ability to destroy my life from afar if they really want to. Some a**hole screws up my credit and I'm useless for years trying to get it settled. If ever.

4)Removing this system would involve literally rebuilding civillization from the ground up - banking, commerce, monetary flow, the internet, all these things and more would have to go and be completely rebuilt.

Therefore 5)I'm forced to conclude it's in my best interests to have a strong government backing me as long as the first four conditions exist. And since item 4 especially isn't going to come about until the nukes drop, I'm forced to conclude this situation will exist in perpetuity.

(And incidentally, I speak from a certain position of authority here. I work with loans and every day, I have *dozens* of opportunities to be the afforementioned a**hole in item 3. Only the fact I am a moral creature stops me from doing so. But a glance at the news every day tells me that there are plenty of people in similar positions who aren't nearly as moral.)

Post 34

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 12:09pm

Jason, what if the problems you describe are the result of strong central government?

Post 35

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 1:01pm

Then it's the result of every strong government worldwide.

I'm not just talking about government policies. I'm talking about credit ratings - a purely private institution if there ever was one. And the availability of information over the internet and through unsecured databases. And the private groups who've gotten so addicted to these sources of information that they won't even deal with you if you aren't in "the system." (but won't give you any slack if something is wrong and it's not your fault) And a beaurocracy that's gotten so tangled that no single person can navigate it.

Trust me, I'd love to have a magic button that did away with all that. But I don't have one. I'm stuck with the current system, and I can't see how a minimalist government would do anything but give me even less protection from these outside threats.

(Edited by Jason Blalock on 9/12, 1:04pm)

Post 36

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 1:04pm

Jason, Constitution Day is coming up. What this means is that this week is 'Constitution Week' in all educational institutions in this country which have ever received any sort of federal funds. Students in these institutions will be made aware of the US Constitution.

The school I work for has chosen the individual classroom method for discharging this legal obligation to teach the US Constitution. That's right, Jason. This week, I'll be talking about the US Constitution with dozens and dozens of students. So will the other instructors. You see, Jason, Bush did do something right! Now, young Americans will learn the superiority of minarchy (constitutional republics).

Here is a rough draft of one of the handouts I plan to disseminate (see next post in this thread -- I've broken this reply up for length concerns) ...

Post 37

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 1:05pm

Why have a US Constitution?: Historical reasons to have a Constitution
(A timeline of events to show what can, and does, happen -- without a Constitution in place)

The purpose of Constitutions: To protect peoples from their governments.

Timeline of Relevant Events
================
================
c. 1800 BC: Hammurabi, king of Babylon, develops first influential Code of Laws (Code of Hammurabi)

Notable (unconstitutional) example:
285. If a serf declared to his master -- "Thou art not my master," his master shall confirm him (to be) his serf and shall cut off his ear.
================
================
c. 88 BC: Mithridates VI Eupator, ruler of the kingdom of Pontus along the Black Sea, took advantage of unrest in Rome to conquer Roman territories in Asia Minor and modern-day Syria. Deciding that the only way to control his newly won territories was to kill all Romans living in them, he orchestrated the massacre of some 100,000 men, women, and children.
================
================
1175-1218: Genghis Khan suppressed a rebellion in Herat, Afghanistan, by killing a reported 1.6 million people.
================
================
1209-1229: Albigensian Crusade: A crusader who asked how he should separate the heretics from the faithful Catholics was told, "Kill them all; the Lord will know well who are His."

They butchered everyone--even women, babies, and priests--and killed 7000 in one church alone. Altogether at least 20,000 people died in the massacre at Beziers.
================
================
1252: Inquisition under Pope Gregory IX begins use of toruture
================
================
1459-1462: Vlad II Dracula, prince of Wallachia (in modern Romania): Dracula is estimated to have impaled, tortured, and killed between 50,000-100,000 victims before being deposed and imprisoned in 1462.
================
================
1478: During the first 18 years of the Spanish Inquisition, an estimated 8800 people died by burning and some 90,000 were tortured and imprisoned.
================
================
1514: Hungarian Peasants Revolt: As was their habit, the lords soon resorted to force while trying to keep the peasants on the farm, capturing, beating, and threatening to harm the families of those who attempted to leave.

More than 70,000 peasants and nobles were killed in the bloody revolt and its aftermath.
================
================
1520: Human Sacrifice Among the Aztecs: According to chronicles, when Aztec King Ahuitzotl dedicated a new temple in the capital of Tenochtitlan, he blessed the event by offering the sacrifice of an incredible 80,000 people to the gods.
================
================
1536-1541: John Calvin leads reformation at Geneva and sets up a government based on Calvinist creed (the church is supreme over the state)
================
================
1553: Protestants persecuted under Queen Mary
================
================
1570: Massacre at Novgorod: Then, on January 9, Ivan (the Terrible) ordered the killing of the general population to begin. Each day the army was ordered to round up 1000 citizens, who were then brutally tortured and killed in front of Ivan and his young son. Parents watched their children being bludgeoned to death, while elsewhere women were slowly burned to death over fires.

These and other atrocities lasted for 5 weeks, during which time an estimated 60,000 people were put to death.
================
================
1638: Shimabar Rebellion: To test for Christians, they forced those they suspected to tread upon bronze plaques bearing images of Christ or other Christian figures. If the subjects refused, they were presumed to be Christians and were subjected to horrible tortures until they recanted their faith. Those who refused to recant were beheaded.

Peasants of the Shimabara Peninsula finally revolted against this harsh treatment in the spring of1638, and some 20,000 peasants seized an abandoned castle. Local noblemen mobilized an army of 100,000 men to attack the rebels.

It is said that about 100 of the 20,000 or more rebels escaped alive.
================
================
1773: Boston Tea Party; American settlers revolt against a new, 1 or 2% British tax on tea
================
================
1776: Declaration of Independence; demanding the recognition of the inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Governments don't "give you" these rights, and governments can't take them away from you, because they're inalienable. Governments can only either secure these rights, or violate them.
================
================
1781: American Revolution ends with British surrender at Yorktown
================
================
1787: Convention creates U.S. Consititution; a government of laws, not one of men. When we vote a new president in, we're supposed to get a new "administration" -- but it's supposed to be administration of the same (constitutional & fair) government -- not a new (unconstitutional) "government"
================
================
1791: U.S. Bill of Rights ratified; example: 1st Amendment rights = Freedom of Speech (later amendments freed slaves, and allowed them to vote; the right of women to vote -- was also acknowledged)
================
================
1808: U.S. bans importation of slaves
================
================
1924: Communist Joseph Stalin rises to power in USSR; kills 20 Million citizens + 10 Million enemies
================
================
1933: Fascist Adolf Hitler gains power, declares Third Reich; kills 6 Million citizens + 3 Million enemies
================
================
1945: U.S. detonates first nuclear weapons (atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), ends World War II
================
================
1948: U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Preamble: "human rights should be protected by rule of law"; Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person."; Article 4: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude"; Article 6: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."; Article 17: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others."; Article 18: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion: this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief"; Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"; Article 30: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
================
================
1975: Communist Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge take power in Cambodia; kills 2+ Million citizens
================
================
Ongoing (unconstitutional) atrocities ...

The Chechen Republic
"Russian Federation security forces continued to act with virtual impunity in the conflict in the Chechen Republic, amid ongoing reports of their involvement in torture and 'disappearances'."

Azerbaijan
" ... in Azerbaijan where a campaign by the state-sponsored media against several prominent human rights defenders culminated in violent attacks on their offices and raised fears for their safety and that of their families."

China and Vietnam
"...many prisoners of conscience remained in jail for the peaceful expression of their political beliefs. In China and Viet Nam in particular, there were crack-downs on people using the Internet to download or circulate information on human rights and democracy."

Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Indonesia
"Weak and corrupt criminal justice systems in countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia and Indonesia continued to impact negatively on human rights. Torture, "disappearances" and extrajudicial executions continued to be widespread across the region."

Thailand
"The Thai government appeared to condone killings of drug suspects as one method of fighting drug trafficking and use in the country. According to official statements, 2,245 people suspected of trafficking or using drugs were killed during a three-month campaign starting in February."

Pakistan
"In Pakistan, children continued to be sentenced to death,"

Jordan
"In Jordan, proposals to amend Article 340 of the Penal Code (which relates to family killings) to make it more favourable to women were rejected by the Lower House of Parliament. The more frequently used Article 98, which allows for a reduced sentence for perpetrators whose crime was committed in a "fit of rage", remained on the statute books."

Africa
"Governments of countries such as Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Togo and Zimbabwe used malicious prosecution, arbitrary arrest and excessive force against demonstrators as tools of political repression. In some cases newspapers and radio stations were arbitrarily closed down."

"Violence against women continued to be widely seen as socially acceptable,"

" ... there continued to be different standards of evidence for sexual "offences" such as zina (involving consensual sexual relations above the age of consent), and culpable homicide was used as a charge in cases of abortion and miscarriage in some states in Nigeria. As a result, women, especially those from deprived economic backgrounds and with little formal education, were more likely than men to be convicted and sentenced to death or other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments for some crimes."

"Female genital mutilation continued to be widely practised in different forms in many countries,"
================
================
Source for quotes directly above: [online] amnesty.org
Other sources: [book] A Documentary History of Human Rights. A record of the events, documents and speeches that shaped our world. -by Jon E. Lewis; [book*] The Pessimist's Guide to History. -by Stuart Flexner and Doris Flexner

*Historical atrocities (at the top) were directly quoted out of this book [quotation marks were not used because they were distracting and introduced ambiguity about the expressed sincerity of these historical events]

Post 38

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:49pm

Jason:

"I'm not just talking about government policies. I'm talking about credit ratings."

Why is it a given that people need to go into debt? Because it's the 'American Way"? Why can't you take the bus until you can pay for a car, or live in a one bedroom apartment until you can get a decent down payment for a house? The answer is 'instant gratification'. I'm 72 years old and have never bought anything in my life on time, except for a various houses I have lived in. I took a year out of university to earn enough money to return. I found that I needed a credit card when I tried to check into a hotel and they wouldn't let me pay cash, however I'll admit that buying things on the net is very convenient with a credit card.

Can you imagine how empowering it is to go to a car dealership and tell them you're paying cash, and how uncomplicated the purchasing process is? To have to go to a credit granting agency with your tail between your legs and justify yourself is demeaning beyond tolerance. To me the whole issue of consumer credit is just one of self discipline.

Take your life back.

Sam

Post 39

Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:44pm