About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 2:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 Here you go, Mark.
I'm not dissenting with Objectivism:

1. Rejection of the state is the rejection of anarchism.

state

   noun 1 the condition of someone or something at a particular time. 2 a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. 3 a community or area forming part of a federal republic. 4 (the States) the United States of America. 5 the civil government of a country. 6 pomp and ceremony associated with monarchy or government. 7 (a state) informal an agitated, disorderly, or dirty condition.    verb express definitely or clearly in speech or writing.

anarchy

   noun 1 a state of disorder due to lack of government or control. 2 a society founded on the principles of anarchism.

I'll go ahead and anticipate an ill conceived response here.

anarchism

   noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis.    DERIVATIVES anarchist noun & adjective anarchistic adjective.

So, you see where I'm going with this, Mark. The statement you made is completely wrong. I'm not going to diagnose exactly why you would make it. You'll see why in a sec.


 
2. Statist arguments, no matter how minimal, are not consistent with Objectivism.

statism

/staytizm/    noun a political system in which the state has substantial central control over social and economic affairs.    DERIVATIVES statist noun & adjective.

Who advocated that political system?

 
3. Dogmatism, in this case, the blind and unquestioning adherence to every last utterance of Ayn Rand, is a renunciation of Objectivism.
First of all, You've used the term dogmatic and dogmatism in the majority of posts since anyone disagreed with you. That and Childish. That would include using dogmatism in your own bio. We all get it. We get it. You like the label "Dogmatism".

dogmatic

   adjective inclined to impose dogma; firmly asserting personal opinions as true.    DERIVATIVES dogmatically adverb dogmatism noun dogmatist noun.

Uh Oh, Looks like anyone firmly asserting personal opinions as true is dogmatic. Guilty as charged.

dogma

   noun an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority.    ORIGIN Greek, opinion, from dokein seem good, think.

Also guilty. My principles are quite inflexible, and I do happen to consider various philosphers and academics to be authorities in these matters. After much study, which continues to this day, I find I agree with most of what they have to say, particularly in this area. This leads to your assertion.

the blind and unquestioning adherence to every last utterance of Ayn Rand, is a renunciation of Objectivism.
I'm pretty sure this isn't every last utterance you mention, but it sure is a lot, and it sure contradicts the hell out of what you're saying. Feel free to inform me of more source data that you know of, as you've read every Ayn Rand work available to check in the bio section.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

Here's some for gov't in case your're interested. I've read and thought on those, too. I agree with the principles involved in these statements.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

It seems a little intellectually dishonest to assert that Ayn Rand was full of shit regarding the components of her own philosophy. So, no. Validating what Ayn Rand said regarding certain subjects with my own mind and then agreeing with them is not a renunciation of her philosophy. Actually, now that I think of it "Adherence to Ayn Rand's philosophy involves the renunciation of Ayn Rand's philosophy." is a pretty interesting statement. So is the indication that one can follow a philosophy and yet hold central principles of it as invalid.

Mark, You must have, or believe yourself to have, some pretty amazing mental powers. In less than a week, with only the strength of a few posts regarding a very specific issue in a complex philosophy, you have determined that multiple people have adopted principles blindly and without questioning them at all. What hyper-advanced psycho-neurological apparatus have you invented to scan the contents of my, and other's, mind? Thats amazing, especially considering you also determined the processes operative in minds in the past, since you know myself and others never questioned the principles, concepts, or abstracts we advocate.


Post 1

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 4:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
dogma/dogmatic definition includes the word "impose", which to me means "to force something on another against their will". I'd argue that a society who's government is based on Objectivism would be the least imposing on its citizens and foreign people. Only pacifists would be less imposing, but pacifists get imposed on and they don't last long : P.

Also, dogma/dogmatic includes opinion. Objectivism does not hold many opinions. I would argue that the basis goal in Objectivism's ethics is a form of an opinion though. Never the less, I'd argue that Objectivism is the least opinionated philosophy, and the most scientific/logical.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 8:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anarchy is a VERY old word and originally referred to a political situation in ancient Hellas when for a period of some years, the succession failed for the absolute ruler, the Archon.  An + Archon = Anarchy = No ruler.

Some people preferred things that way at the time, and were referred to as Anarchists, whose who preferred no Archon, or no ruler, as it became generalized.  The concept of ruler also became more generalized over time, and came to be substituted with the concept of the monopoly state, an agency with a monopoly on the use of force, or the initiation of force, although, if you asked an anarchist, they would certainly object to an "Archon" as much as to any modern state.

To try to characterize anarchists as holding a particular set of beliefs beyond a rejection of all rulers is highly inaccurate.  It is equivalent to painting all statists with the same brush, making a republican equivalent morally and philosophically to a NAZI or a monarchist.

Many people - especially many statists - believe that without a ruler (and often only their own particular brand of ruler), society would collapse into chaos.  Thus, they try to smuggle in their own conceptual beliefs by treating "anarchy" as equivalent to "disorder" or "chaos," as in "mere anarchy."

If my recollection serves me, there was an anarchist union organizer in the Fountainhead, who was depicted rather positively.  And, Rand allowed the Rothbardian anarchists from City College of New York to attend her home parties, so they were at least on speaking terms.  Interested readers can probably dig up my account of the meeting between Andrew Galambos and Rand, which I got directly from Galambos.  Galambos had at one time referred to his concept of anarchy as "competing governments."  So far as I know, he was the ONLY person to have promoted that term, and he did meet with Rand, and managed to gratuitously insult her (Galambos gratuitously insulted EVERYONE, actually), and shortly after came her "Competing Governments" article.

Since then, it has been verboten in Objectivist circles to imply that one has a sympathy for anarchy, although the antipathy, curiously enough, seems strongest at the bottom of the intellectual heirarchy.  Yaron Brooke, for example, at one public presentation here in the OC, was asked about anarchy versus a limited state and said something to the effect that if we just keep aiming for zero state, or as little as is practical, then at some point perhaps we might discover how to go all the way, but that the question is rather academic considering how far we are from that point just now.

I would disagree on the grounds that the kind of strategy and permissable tactics might be very different for the two goals.  If you think that a constitutional republic, an idealized form of what we already have or that the founding fathers wanted, with strictly limited powers, is the goal, then that dictates certain strategic paradigms, such as education in political theory, as with Paine's Common Sense, plus of course the reading of "Atlas Shrugged," ultimately leading to a change in elections and a political power grab.  On the other hand, if you are an "anarcho-capitalist," then you are probably less interested in that kind of academic education and more inclined to look for market solutions that displace and replace state functions. 

Note that these two very different strategies can potentially complement each other.  Both of them are aimed at a reduction of what both camps agree is a very dangerous institution to its bare minimum, and getting the state out of most of the business that it is involved in - such as banking. 

(Edited by Phil Osborn on 8/24, 8:44pm)


Post 3

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 9:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is no such word as anarchon. An-arkh-ia is a the state of no rule, whether republic, oligarchy, monarchy or even autarchy - self rule..

Are you telling me, Phil, that your entire political philosophy is based up faulty arguments drawn from ignorance of Greek and the actual meaning of words?

You need to stop preaching to minarchists that you oppose archons, and are hence anarchists. An archon is simply a magistrate. I am not sure whether your ignorance or the arrogance with which you preach it surprises me more, and I wonder just how widespread your error is.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/24, 11:40pm)


Post 4

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon
[from wiki]

Archon (Gr. ἄρχων, pl. ἄρχοντες) is a Greek word that means "ruler", frequently used as the title of a specific public office. It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem ἀρχ-, meaning "to rule", derived from the same root as monarch, hierarchy and anarchy.
............

http://political-philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_politics_of_anarchy

The word “anarchy” has its origins in ancient Greek (like so many other words). It stems from the root word arcon (archon), meaning ruler, with the prefix (an) added to mean “against” or “without.” So, literally, anarcon (anarchon) means against/without rulers. It is a wonderfully descriptive etymology, and helpful for understanding the basic principles of anarchical belief, a system defined by limited (or nonexistent) government, self rule, and lack of private property.



(Edited by robert malcom on 8/24, 10:49pm)


Post 5

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 11:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is no such thing as an anarchon. There is a ruler, the Archon, (as in the nine Archons of Athens) spelled with an omega. There is the adjective anarchos, without a (legitimate) ruler, the neuter of which does happen to be anarchon, but with an omicron. But this, as a word, does not derive from "not Archon." The period without the Archons is called the period of the thirty tyrants. A lack of Archons is hardly a lack of rulers. That should tell you something! Confusing the two is kind of like treating the s plural as the same as the posessive s, or the third person s, or better yet, like equating "without a Governor" and "ungoverned."

Post 6

Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"There is no such word as anarchon."  There is now, 'cause I just decided to make it a part of my vocabulary.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.