RoR: Forum

You know, when Joe Rowlands met me at the RoR conference in Florida, he was surprised.

He said he expected me to be some kind of a philosophical bully: Finding fault in things others said; digging deep into my positions as if it were an actual war going on between people who -- on balance of shared values -- should be friends. He didn't use so many words, but I knew what he meant. You see, it is often the case, online, that I react to something someone said -- and that I react in a short, pithy manner. Here is a recent example.

But, alas, I was pleasant and kind in person, paying great attention to things others said without being standoffish or harshly critical. At one point, Ed Hudgins and I had a short-but-treasured debate about the possibility that religion as a concept might be a necessary aspect of human life (that if religion didn't exist, man would create it ex nihilo). We disagreed, but did so agreeably. It challenged my previous thinking and therefore, worldview; refining it somewhat. That is the beauty of interaction with others -- if you are open to it, there is much to gain. This is just like economic trade. I'm still reading the book: The Rational Optimist and examples of this are presented in spades and at every turn.

I am often a staunch watch-dog on the look-out for folks who think and say things that I either find offensive or just plain false and misleading. You need a little bit of that in your life. If you didn't stand for something, ... . There has been a few times when Mike Marotta has been the one saying something offensive and I have reacted accordingly. But I appreciate what Teresa is saying, too. Mike M. is a wily character, and I believe that he shouldn't be treated with the extremes of either kid-gloves or with a "cat-of-nine-tails" (a whip) -- but, instead, that he should be "touched with a 10-foot pole."

Though he doesn't send the vibe back to me, I actually consider him to be a "friendly acquaintance." I'd feel comfortable socializing with him in public. Now, for illumination, contrast that with Brad Trun. I wouldn't feel comfortable socializing with Trun (in public or even in private). There is a huge difference between Trun and Marotta. If you cannot see that difference -- a difference based on the contributions that Teresa pointed out -- then I'd invite you to consider altering the focus on your moral telescope so that Mike's contributions can be brought into view along with his idiosyncratic outbursts and apparent transgressions.

Ed

p.s. I remember a scene in the epic motion picture, Braveheart, where William Wallace says to the noble (who eventually sells him out, anyway):

"There is good in you, I can see it."

We could stand to have a little more of that kind of communication around here, in order to balance out something we have become really very good at: identifying and classifying error and malice. Individualists can be real supportive of one another.

:-)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/10, 7:40am)

Post 21

Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 9:54am

Teresa, we see things differently. Michael and I have been going back and forth for a long, long time. When Michael posts something you see it as funny, or bright, but you see my reaction to it as not just wrong-headed, but a case of being a bully. Personally, I think you are just not seeing what I've been trying to point out.

But I don't want to be a person that makes you feel like you have to walk on egg shells, and I don't want to take away anyone's joy at visiting RoR.

I recognize that the negative aspect of these posts of mine should be offset by some positive value and in your case that's not happening.

I'm of the belief that Michael disguises some positions in the way he words them, and that he is not nearly as friendly to Objectivism or to Rand as his explicit claims would leave people to believe. And it is the hidden nature of these posts that irritate and motivate me. (And, I'm not claiming any sinister conspiracy on his part - just a form of expression or polemical style on his part), but, if I'm the only one that sees these negative aspects in some of Michael's posts, and others don't find these particular replies illuminating... then I'll just quit making them.

Post 22

Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 10:43am

Steve,

To be clear, I see some of the same things -- and have some of the same reactions -- that you do in interaction with Mike Marotta. Everyone expresses themselves in their own peculiar ways. Mike uses a lot of innuendo and flair, and much of the time it appears snobbishly condescending. It's almost as if Mike thinks that Objectivists are deluded half-intellectuals (or half-deluded intellectuals), but that they (we) are the best that he can do in the social world -- so he sticks around because the alternative is intellectual isolation and invisibility.

That's one non-generous interpretation of his participation here. But even if true, I'd accept it as a trade-off for other values gotten from interaction with him -- not just direct values to me personally, but indirect values such as a more open and engaging atmosphere around here. I believe Objectivism is (1) an open, but (2) completely rigid system. It is open-ended because not everything has been thought about systematically. That's part of life. Mistakes will be made in growing the sphere of application of Objectivism. That's part of life. We need to be actively engaging alternatives in a free arena of thought in order to discover more of the truth of the world. It's rigid because identity and causality exist. That's part of life, too. There isn't -- and won't ever be -- any room for self-sacrifice within Objectivism, for example.

People like Mike might not end up, in some kind of a final analysis, to be tried-and-true or dyed-in-the-wool Objectivists -- but I have recently become unconcerned about that. To use a double-metaphor: The truth will out, and it will set everyone free. I'm probably not done criticizing Mike. If the past is an indication, I'll probably have something negative to say about something he said. I kind of look forward to it, actually. It keeps me sharp. If Mike is the worst that I would ever have to deal with, I'd be happy. An eccentric-appearing intellectual who expresses himself artistically and shares most of my highest values?

I'll take that any day.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/10, 10:45am)

Post 23

Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 12:45pm

Kind of reminds me of politics, do you vote for the atheist that is a progressive liberal, or the libertarian that happens to be mormon. I agree with Ed's summary. Personally Mike drives me nuts one minute but then at the drop of a dime turns around and says something extremely brilliant and insightful. He is like a box of chocolates " ya never know what your gunna get".
Example I REALLY enjoyed his post on valantines day about the town that was responsible for the tradition and how that particular plant had actual contraceptive ability thereby being cultivated into extinction. I thought that was a facinating little ancient history lesson and was nicely tied to mike's passion for all things coin related.

Post 24

Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 7:59pm

Yes, #7 was an attack. Not only on the Ayn Rand Society, but on me. I have inside information about events leading up to that prompt post (which I’ll keep between Michael and me). I was taken back a little when Steve nailed it.

“What about at night?” Actually, at night exciting lectures and discussions go on to 10:30. (Well, exciting to me.) “Do they sing ‘The Philosopher’s Drinking Song’?” That is a denigration of the thread, professional philosophy, and people who take philosophy seriously. “Is there a lot of bed-hopping . . . ?” More making-frivolous denigration.

I mention this only to acknowledge that Steve, you are correct about #7. In other posts, I’ve noticed some good thoughts from Michael. I don’t mean to discourage that fount from reaching higher.

Post 25

Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 8:34pm

Thank you, Stephen. I appreciate your reply, especially since you have show yourself to be one of the most civil, and least contentious of those who post here.

Post 26

Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 8:40pm

Often when Stephen posts I dont have much to say other than tipping my hat in respect as he is such a pleasure to read and I hold him in the highest regard.

Post 27

Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 9:31am

Benjamin Bayer, a contributor to Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge – Reflections on Objectivist Epistemology* will be delivering a paper on “Believing at Will and the Will to Believe the Truth” at the 2012 Eastern Division Meeting of the APA in Atlanta at the end of December.

Shawn Klein of CEE will be chairing two sessions at the Meeting on the theme Virtue and Economics.
Speakers will be delivering papers including the following titles:
“Stoic Economics”
“Kant and Commerce”
“Kantian Economics”
“Aristotelian Virtue Ethics and Economic Rationality”

Post 28

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 4:31am

Last December I attended the Eastern Division meeting of the APA in Baltimore. One of the informative and stimulating sessions I attended was an Author-Meets-Critics one on Michael Huemer's recent book The Problem of Political Authority. I notice that this book has recieved 15 five-star reviews on Amazon, 3 four-star reviews, and none of lower rank.

Post 29

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 6:06am

Stephen:

This book sounds like a refreshing alternative to Against Autonomy , which, if it is any consolation, has struggled to garner two stars on Amazon.

How has your health been? I remember a few years ago you had concerns about moving to a new location and finding a new local health network. I hope all that has long since worked out well, and you are sailing on to other issues.

regards,

Fred

Post 30

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 8:40am

Hi Fred,

Yes, all is settled down. All chronic problems are being managed. The health services in this community are fine for anything that has come up. From all we know, I may be good for years, including good mind. So I've reasonalbe expectation of completing my book,* whether it takes total of two years, as I hope, or ten years. Thanks.

Post 31

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 9:31am

Stephen,

From Amazon's blurb: "The author goes on to discuss how voluntary and competitive institutions could provide the central goods for the sake of which the state is often deemed necessary, including law, protection from private criminals, and national security...."

I suspect that each of those 5 star reviews are from other Anarchists excited to promote a fellow partisan. Anarchy needs to be understood as a very different kind system - one not in anyway representative of libertarian or capitalist thought - because it can not exist in the way its followers describe, just as a unicorn can only exist in the minds of those who are taking that fantasy seriously and not be there for a person to actually ride about on.

I was able to read portions of the book with Amazon's "Look Inside" feature. I was not impressed. He makes the same arguments for competing protective services we've all seen before. He goes on to say that when this is proposed educated laypeople, students and professors alike all come up with many reasons why it wouldn't work: that justice shouldn't be for sale, that the rich would control it, that the services would war with each other, that they would come under control of criminals, that they would evolve into governments, that they would turn into agencies of extortion, etc. How does he answer these objections? Like this: "But if we examine the proposal more carefully and at greater length, we see that none of these objections are well founded. Anarchists have well-reasoned accounts, grounded in economic theory and realistic premises of human psychology, that show how an anarchist society would avoid each of the disasters the critics fear." And he goes on to say things like, "...the objection that protective agencies would go to war with each other overlooks both the extreme costliness of combat and the strong opposition that most people have to murdering other people." He somehow ignores that if a government can initiate force, as in a war, than so can another organization. We see it with war lords in Somalia, terrorist organizations, and criminal organizations. All of his arguments that I saw were equally thin and didn't measure up.

He makes statements like this: "The central advantage of a free market anarchy system over a governmental system..." without dealing with the fact that he is using the phrase "free market" in some places to prove that anarchy will create a free market while in other places using the phrase free market in saying what makes anarchy work (e.g., why protective agencies won't go to war with each other). That is a fatal ambiguity. If it requires free market principles to make anarchy work, then what is the system that created the free market in the first place? And if anarchy creates a free market, all of his arguments relying on free market principles to prove anarchy works are false. Anarchists have to pick a side and give up the other.

This is fundamental because "free" means "free from initiated force" and that is what a properly enforced, monopoly of laws based upon individual rights is intended to do. Without a degree of success from that monopoly of laws, there is no freedom and the competitive protective agencies can use force if they choose to. To say at that point, that no one would because it is too costly is a foolish display of ignorance in the face of all the bloodshed history and the daily news show us - violence from governments, criminal organizations, and individuals. The only way anarchy will work is if the human race evolves to where we no longer need protective agencies or governments or laws - or we can find an alternate universe where we can ride unicorns as well.

There is choice and there is force. Free association and forced association. They are diametrically different and that difference calls for the creation of government to limit the use of force to self-defence. The purpose of that is to create the free market where we can maximize our choices. You don't have a free market till the force is removed. The two enemies of a world free of initiated force are the totalitarians and the anarchists.

I'd also mention that some of his arguments against duty constitute a strawman - you don't need to believe in duty to believe that minarchy is the best system, and not believing in duty doesn't mean you support anarchy. Individual rights should be implimented as law because it is the best system from the perspective of each individual's rational self-interest.

----------

p.s., I'm happy to hear your health issues are under control. I wish you great success on your writing (unless it is in support of anarchy :-)

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 4/23, 9:34am)

Post 32

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 10:16am

Steve:

Between the anarchists and the Totalitarians are the fans of fettered government, but even within those fans, there are degrees.

So I think of the fettered government fans(of which I'd include myself)as being involved in an unavoidable -- by the very nature of the oxymoronic 'fettered government' -- tug of war.

So books like The Problem Of(not with!) Political Authority tug real hard in one direction, while books like Against Autonomy pull real hard in the other.

I'd say, looking at our current teetering state, we need some mighty pulling in the right direction.

Of course, everyone thinks 'right' as in correct, and so, a tug of war. But I meant right as in supportive of a free state political right, as opposed to left in the political context of a free state.

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/23, 10:24am)

Post 33

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 10:22am

Stephen:

Glad to hear you got that under control and that is in your rear view mirror. Sometimes the guard rails in life can get real close to each other, and life gets tense while we are speeding through it. It is for sure more fun when the road ahead is a little wider, and less restrictive.

regards.

Fred

Post 34

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 11:24am

Wikipedia: "Huemer describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist, and claims to be both a philosophical anarchist and a political anarchist" (link).

With or without government, a big problem is dispute resolution. With anarchy a party to a dispute dissatisfied with the outcome of an arbitration can seek another 'defense agency' to give it another try. With government, another try is far more limited. At least in the USA, state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were.

A YouTube video for the anarchist side is here with lots of comments.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 4/23, 11:50am)

Post 35

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 12:53pm

Fred,

I see it a little bit differently. I lump anarchists and totalitarians together - both want systems that result in no free market, no free association, and initiation of force is pretty much unfettered. The communists once said that theirs wasn't totalitarian - that it was utopian, and that Stalin and Mao just didn't do it right. I see no difference with the anarchists as they spin out their utopian fantasy. And if they got their way, and it collapsed into chaos and violence from which gangs evolved, they'd find some reason to explain why it wasn't done right.

You can look at a particular totalitarian government and try to guess where, if anywhere, it would be safe to make a move and hope that you don't come to the attention of the rulers. With anarchy you have to look 360 degrees because you don't know all the possible dangers, and do this all of the time, because it isn't a stable system. With anarchy, you can do anything you want, but so can others, including initiate force, and some people will choose to make that their specialty. You won't always know whose crosshairs you are in until it is too late.

The other problem with anarchy is that it gives libertarianism a bad name (along with the other fringe types - back to earth libertarians, socialist libertarians, etc.) What might be perfectly good suggestions about how to begin shrinking government in some area get tainted by their end goals, and their approach to politics as one large floating abstractions that we can all play with ("...but don't worry, we probably won't ever do anything about it.") Purposefully pursuing a goal centered discussion with an anarchist on government is too much like acceptin intellectual masturbation as meaningful dialogue - or staying with the same organ, but changing metaphors, its like getting your leg pissed on.

In terms of political efficacy, I think giving any respect to anarchy is for libertarians, like constitutional conservatives giving respect to the nuttiest of the religious right.

Post 36

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 1:18pm

Steve:

I can see that; I've never seen the upside of anarchy. Maybe they do come full circle in chaos.

The Problem of Authority, in my mind, goes away with a right sized, fettered government. Authority to do what? Paint the double yellow lines fairly down the middle of the road? Here's the paint, here's the brushes, knock themselves out with all the authority they need to do the limited things that we need government to do. When fettered and right sized, I don't think there can be much "Problem of Authority." As distinguished from no "Problem of Authority." That, to me defines when when government is fettered 'enough.' When there is no "Problem of Authority."

Yes, we're nowhere near that. For example, it is too easy to wage war anywhere in the world these days, with no national declaration of war.

A treaty signed in 1994 by the US and Britain could pull both countries into a war to protect Ukraine if Putin’s troops intervene.

The Budapest Memorandum was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma – the then-rulers of the USA, UK, Russia and Ukraine – as part of the denuclearization of former Soviet republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union

Technically it means that if Russia has invaded Ukraine then it would be difficult for the US and Britain to avoid going to war.

Sir Tony Brenton, who served as British Ambassador from 2004 to 2008, said that war could be an option ‘if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding.’

It promises to protect Ukraine’s borders, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

Today Kiev has demanded the agreement is activated after insisting their borders had been violated.

In response Mr Brenton said in a BBC radio interview: ‘If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia’.

Funny political use of the word promises. Sort of like those promises made to the Kurds in 1996(with some irony by the same Us President.)

Putin's troops have intervened in the Ukraine; we are just denying it.

So now what?

An 'agreement; signed by a US President. But not a treaty ratified by the Senate. It was a political agreement. Meaning, so much toilet paper.

The Ukraine was snookered. Agreed to have smoke blown up its ass. Like the Kurds in 1996.

It's Russia's.

Maybe the West will draw the line at Poland and Estonia. Oh, Hell, what is all this talk of 'drawing lines.' They are just lines.

Maybe. If Putin doesn't think he can press this weak president. If Putin wants to take the chance of there ever being a weaker US president.

By all appearances, he is limited only by how far he can supply his troops, period. He is advancing against air.

He is done when he says he is done.

But he's go a long way to go to get to New Jersey.

regards,

Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/23, 1:22pm)

Post 37

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 1:21pm

It's one thing to have a weak President.

It's another thing to have a guy in the White House cheering on the resurgence of communism in the world.

Post 38

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 1:43pm

Merlin,

I took a look at that YouTube scenario:

"This is Alice. She lives in a free society where..." Stop! Where did her society become free of initiated force? If it is an anarchy then nothing stops a larger protective service from using force to take over a smaller one which means it is NOT free.

The basic principle at work here is that "freedom" is an end result of the active exercise of a system that prohibits the initiation of force. Governments could exist that would do just that and nothing else. The result would be freedom. Take away that government and what would exist? A market in which people would seek competitive agencies for conflict resolution or protection against foreign invasions or local thugs? There would be such a market but we have yet to see how freedom from initiated force comes about - remember that limited government that we imagined has been taken away.

Would there be a market (a need, a desire, and a willingness to pay for) these security needs? Of course. And people would seek them, engage them, and competition would arise between those offering the protection. But here is the rub. They are not constrained from using force as a tool of competition.

In the little scenario where Alice is mugged by Bill, Bill is determined by Dawn Defense "with reasonable confidence" to be the mugger and is sent an invoice for his "punishment." Doesn't anyone see any problem with not having probable cause as a central standard for all? Doesn't anyone see any problem with each defense agency being able to determine guilt and levy punishment?

The assumption that no defense agencies would ever fight it out is silly. It flies in the face of history. When conflicts exist, and no mechanism is available that forces all parties to accept peaceful resololution, there will be blood. I can imagine anonymous defense agencies that live in the shadow world and accept bit coin payments from thugs to give them protection - like being a made man in the mafia, these crooks would have purchased protection from the normal defense agencies that would know that the black ops defense agency would not play fair and can't be found or identified - they'd be the terrorists of defense agencies.

But isn't this all a bit silly?

The scenario goes on... the two defense agencies disagree so they bring in an independent arbitrator and agree to be "bound" by his decision. But what does "bound" mean when there is no single juridictional court that will enforce properly made contracts? Nothing, that's what it means.

Bill is decided guilty by a mediator chosen by two security firms. No jury of his peers, no right to confront his accusers, no probable cause, no habis corpus, no legal rights of any kind (Hey, there is no law!) Once this happens, in the scenario, Bill's defense firm stands down and no one else will represent him. So Alice's firm gets to do with him what they want. They can jail him "where criminals are housed" - "criminals"? Doesn't that require laws that define crimes and shouldn't there be a single set of criminal laws per jurisdiction? Not under the magic of anarchy. Under anarchy to know what is a "crime" means knowing what any and every defense agency believes to be crime (and hope they don't add new crimes ex post facto). Would there be an Eco Defense Fund that find you guilty of driving a car that doesn't get good enough gas mileage?

They can now make Bill a slave for life. It is in their financial interest to do so. It makes them look tougher to their client base, it makes thugs more leary of crossing their clients. And the slaves keep making them money.

Without a common set of laws - one set that applies to all - there is no way to establish a society where individual rights prevail. Laws are needed to define property rights, record property rights, protect property rights, etc. There has to be an expectation that the same rules will apply in the future for people to be willing to invest in longer term projects.

Post 39

Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 2:00pm