In our name?

According to Ayn Rand "a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it." Does that mean that I am, as an Objectivist, equally "responsible" for the high taxes in Sweden as my Statist neighbour?

Post 1

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 1:17pm

Carl, could you give the context for this quotation? I don't believe Rand meant what it sounds like out of context.

Barbara

Post 2

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 1:24pm

Sure.

I got it from here:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_morality_and_civilian_casualties

"Q & A with Ayn Rand on the Death of Innocents in War

The following are edited excerpts from oral question-and-answer periods that followed two lectures by Ayn Rand. Neither Ayn Rand herself nor the Estate of Ayn Rand has approved the final versions.

Ford Hall Forum 1972: "A Nation's Unity"

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government�as all of us are paying for the sins of ours.

That's why we have to be interested in the philosophy of government and in seeing, to the extent we can, that we have a good government. A government is not an independent entity: it's supposed to represent the people of a nation.

If some people put up with dictatorship�as some do in Soviet Russia and as they did in Germany�they deserve whatever their government deserves.

The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights."

Post 3

Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:16pm

OBS!

I did got it from here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_morality_and_civilian_casualties

But I quoted the wrong passage. This is the right one:

Ford Hall Forum 1976: "The Moral Factor"

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

AR: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression�in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.

In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones�and they're mainly in concentration camps.

If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn't be drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it�because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.

Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.

- Sorry!

Post 4

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 2:53am

Carl, it means to live an intellectually honest life. If you're in Sweden and you disagree with your government's politics you are responsible to do whatever you can to change it, to speak up, or to leave.

Rand is here railing against the people who swallow their "fate" and say, "May I have another bite, sir?" She advocates the individual's right to his own life and choosing a rational political environment is just one part of that.

Post 5

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 10:18am

Hi Lance Moore,

Thanks for your answer. I think your answer seem reasonable, but I would like to know if you have some thing to "back it up" with. Perhaps a Rand quotation or something?

Post 6

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 11:27am

Hey Carl, I'm not sure what you mean. If I find a quote that backs it up won't a I need another quote to back that one up? And so on ad infinitum?

I'm telling you what I think she means. You have to come to your own conclusions.

Post 7

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 12:31pm

This is a test, is my post working?

Post 8

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 1:20pm

The only reason I wanted you to "back it up" with something (like a quote) was because I wanted to know if your suggestion were based on anything Rand had said. Otherwise your guess is as good as mine. But I am not interested in making guesses. I want to know exactly what Rand meant. I am not interested in interpretations, although they seem reasonable. Don't get me wrong; I really appreciate your interest in my inquiry. By the way. I have taken some concrete actions in attempting to solve this problem of mine by ordering Rands speeches "A Nation's Unity" and "The Moral Factor". Perhaps I will get my answers that way...

Post 9

Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:33pm

Carl,
First I want to thank you for bring up this quote from Ayn Rand - it resonant strongly with my own views on similar issues.

However, what you said "I want to know exactly what Rand meant", is not achievable, in my opinion. You may find clearer statements by Rand somewhere addressing similar issues, but everything she ever said subject to interpretation now. And each person's interpretation may always be somewhat different from another.

I am content with my own interpretation of Ayn Rand. But I still wish that I were born earlier and could have talked to her in person!

Post 10

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 1:26am

Carl, to "back it up" or to "know exactly what Rand meant," see the novel: Atlas Shrugged.

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 2:38am

Hong Zhang, you're right. I guess I expressed myself a bit sloppy. It's impossible to read the mind of a philosopher who's been dead for more than 20 years. So in the end, everything I will get is probably just a interpretation. I guess that what I really wanted to know was if somebody had read or heard anything by Rand, were she makes her position clearer.

Post 12

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 2:49am

Ed Thompson: Were do you suppose I can find an elaboration of this issue in Atlas Shrugged? Accuse me of being lazy, but I won't go through the entire novel just to find a single passage or two explaining this particular issue for me. Besides, I can't bring myself to remember that she ever dealt with this particular issue in Atlas Shrugged, even though I re-read it quite recently.

Post 13

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 7:10am

Carl, I see the same problem you do. Ayn Rand either should have explained this is more detail, or else she was in contradiction to other principles.

I reject the idea that other people can establish a political system "in my name." Ayn Rand's own works support this view and invalidate the other claim. In a "Basic Principles of Objectivism" class, Nathaniel Branden was asked how one should answer the police of a dictatorship when they ask you about your political views. His answer: Lie. (I think it went: "You have every right to lie your head off.") He did not say to pull out a gun and open fire on them for being immoral. The facts of reality are unforgiving. Being faced with an overwhelming social situation is not much different than being caught in bad weather. You might have to wait 75 years for the storm to pass, but running aournd outside in it, yelling at the wind is not a successful strategy.

Objectivists believe that each person has volition and therefore the ability to reason. Consequently, the rational person can convince other people to do the right thing. Therefore, the moral person in an immoral society can change their social environment. I question these assumptions. I believe, also, that Ayn Rand herself saw a more complicated situation. At some level, some people cease being volitional. Certainly, they cannot be said to be rational except at the level of being able to drive a car. In Atlas Shrugged this comes out in a couple of scenes and dialogs.

Another problem is that of our differing abilities. Ayn Rand might have been one heck of a crusader. What if you are not? I have worked with engineers who do most of their thinking in shapes and flows (or so they describe it to me). They speak well enough, but their writing is poor. "How can this be?" I asked them. Basically, I was told, you do not solve problems in material processing by writing paragraphs. Ayn Rand once demanded from Boris Spassky that he confront the evil Soviet government. Even if he had wanted to do so, his real problem would have been to put his thoughts into words. Ordering dinner in a restaurant is one thing; convincing the Politburo of their errors is another. The point is that we (or certainly I) are all creatures of limited and differing abilities. It cannot be immoral to fail to convince everyone around you to do things your way -- and to know in advance that you cannot achieve this.

Basically, Carl, I agree with you. This quote from Ayn Rand is a problem.

Post 14

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 1:24pm

Gentlemen, I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.

The essence of what Rand wants you to consider here is that your volition is real. You have a choice about the state of things in your environment. In this very real sense you are responsible (to whatever reasonable extent) for where you are. Only you can measure the power of your volition in a given context. To paraphrase Aristotle, it's difficult to act at exactly the right time, in exactly the right way. What's important is that we do the best we can to hit the mark.

Rand's quote is political guidance, not a commandment.

Post 15

Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 8:20pm

Since this quote was a spontaneous oral response to a questioning without a careful thought out and editing process, I wouldn't take every of Rand's words literally.

My own interpretation of the gist of this quote is the following:

First, it is ridiculous to surrender to aggression because of the fear of killing innocent people.

Second, the assumption that in Soviet Union "there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there" is wrong. Most who had openly opposed would have been executed or put in the concentration camps. And the majority of the population had to follow the communist leaders. By such association with a aggressive reign, the so-called innocent people or civilians will not be safe from the fights against the aggressive reign. (For example, many Germans and Japanese were killed during WWII).

I believe that Rand's call for the concern about politics and for individual's responsibility for their political system are mostly addressed to people in the Western democratic countries - the audience that she was directly speaking to. She knew very well that in Soviet, such action was impossible.

I do agree with Rand that democracy comes with the responsibility. We are ultimately responsible for the system that we live in.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 11/20, 8:27pm)

Post 16

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 5:58am

I don't understand why so many of you are "interpreting" Rand's statement, when she makes herself perfectly clear. Assuming she said that "This question . . . assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country)."

It is simply not true that an individual accepts the social system under which he lives because he hasn't left the country. In many countries, he cannot leave, no matter how much he hates the system. His mere presence says nothing about his politics. I am inclined to think Rand misspoke in saying this; in We The Living, Kira is not presented as someone who accepts communism until she attempts to leave Russia. And Rand stated, in an interview with me, that had Leo asked her to marry him, she would have remained in Russia; would that have meant she became a communist?

Her final statement: "Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life" -- clearly addresses the issue of collateral damage. She is saying that one should not hesitate to defend oneself from a person or a country because innocent people may be harmed.

Barbara

Post 17

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 6:55am

I am inclined to think Rand misspoke in saying this;

Barbara,
I agree. Or as I thought before Rand might have changed the subject a little. I think the confusion should now be cleared.

in We The Living, Kira is not presented as someone who accepts communism until she attempts to leave Russia. And Rand stated, in an interview with me, that had Leo asked her to marry him, she would have remained in Russia; would that have meant she became a communist?

Well, she might have to become one if she needed it to survive there.

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 11/21, 7:00am)

Post 18

Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 9:30am

"Accuse me of being lazy, but I won't go through the entire novel just to find a single passage or two explaining this particular issue for me. Besides, I can't bring myself to remember that she ever dealt with this particular issue in Atlas Shrugged, even though I re-read it quite recently."

Carl, you are lazy. For someone who has read Atlas Shrugged at least twice (" ... I re-read it quite recently."), you display a remarkable degree of mental laziness.

More importantly, you want (without personal effort) to achieve a "single passage or two explaining this particular issue." Carl, single passages don't explain issues.

If a single passage were all it took to explain an issue, then you should have been happy with the initially-quoted passage. But this is not the case. No, you are going to have perform integration, Carl. You are going to have to use your mind.

If that's too much work for you, then perhaps you are someone interested in effortless answers to questions regarding reality. But this is not what objective philosophy provides, so your choices become either solipsism and religion.

I suggest that you whole-heartedly adopt one of these 2 alternatives, and then put all your energy into trying to achieve the values of life with the choice you've made.

As they are each a better match (than philosophy is) for the mental laziness which you seem to wear proudly on your sleeve, you will at once gain the integrity of being true to yourself. The only question is whether you will survive the choice, and this question will be answered by reference to the necessitated growth in character (the building of a soul) that follows repeated attempts to "understand" without "effort."

All learning is discovery. Nothing was ever learned without the effort of discovery. There is no way to cheat this process. Philosophy does not provide a list of textbook answers to questions posed, it provides the "textbook" (only viable) method for using your mind to discover answers - and that is all that it provides.

Ed

Post 19

Friday, December 17, 2004 - 9:27am