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


Post 0

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 4:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Discussing the movie in another Topic, Kurt Eichert asked: Has Angelina Jolie changed?  The reason I ask is that previously she was doing a show on MTV all about how terrible the 3rd world was and all the usual enviro leftist tripe. 
It is a principle of Ayn Rand's formulation of Objectivism that you do not trade with your destroyers.  If you think that Angelina Jolie's politics are difficult to accept, consider that about 20 years ago, Jane Fonda was considered for the same role.  Does an actor's politics -- or a politician's acting -- define the value of their services in the marketplace? 

In Merchants Make History, Ernst Samhaber says traders prosper on the principle that a good merchant does not argue religion with his client.  Every consistent Objectivist knows that mysticism in others leads to your own death.  So, why shop at a store owned by a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Buddhist --- or someone of any religion?

This has come up before.  In a previous generation of Objectivists, the fanzines carried advertising for "Objectivist plumbers" and other services.  The theory, of course, was that we would not sanction our destroyers; we would only deal with those who recognize our rights. That did not last very long.  The markets work against exclusion.  Boycotts fail. 

The logical extension of that practice can be seen in the never-ending line of "new country" ventures in which Objectivists are supposed to pack up and go someplace to live free of oppression.  Some such ventures might actually have been successful, but they are keeping the good news to themselves, of course.  Whether they have emissaries attempting to persuade Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or Oprah Winfrey remains to be revealed.

Although we like to think that an "integrated" personality makes you a better person, it is not clear that being able to derive the efficacy of romantic art from the law of identity makes you a better plumber. 

More disturbing is the fact that -- as explained by Eric Hoffer in The True Believer -- the people who are attracted to mass movements are society's losers.  Unable to support themselves in the open market, they blame others -- capitalists; Jews; atheists; liberals --  for their shortfalls.  Such people usually do not make good plumbers -- though sometimes they do.  Thus, the ideologically correct craftsman may be worse than the range of the moment pragmatist alltruist -- or perhaps not... 

The way to select a good craftsman is to rely on the general market and a clear definition of your needs.


Post 1

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Michael, I don't believe my comment meant what you bring up in this thread, but the point is valid nevertheless.  I do think about not watching certain entertainment with actors I am very opposed to, but the main reason is that this is often expressed in their work.  In addition, entertainment is a luxury you don't really need to have, and available in so many other forms.  It is like choosing to read a book, there are so many more you can get, it is not really an issue if you don't read one.

That said, I am not sure I put that into practice all that much.  It is more along the lines of just one factor (negative) in my decision.  Overall, however, I think that trading is not in and of itself a "sanction" until it reaches a very definitive point.  I also think governments should not make the choice for us except in extreme circumstances like an active war.  Overall, lack of trade is more likely to cause conflict and good trade more likely to mitigate it, so ultimately the support of free trade is of paramount value.  Also, experience has proven that "trade sanctions" are in fact counterproductive.  It creates very little pain for the people in power, and just isolates the populace more tightly - it is trade that lets a free market win and the forces of isolation and control lose. 

When does sanction come in?  I have to think about it.  It has to be very clear and in most cases up to individuals.  The BB&T example is a good one, refusing to deal with seized property.  I would not trade with a thief who stole goods.  I won't deal with organizations that use fraud and deception as a regular practice.


Post 2

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 9:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt, I agree that it is personal -- and perhaps even (ahem) "subjective."  Each of us makes our own choices, usually not according to some well-defined rule, but according to the "totality of circumstance" -- a phrase often used by the U.S. Supreme Court in explaining their decisions.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.