Macro vs micro Objectivism

Ted,

Can you or someone else tell me how to add a description and/or photo to my profile. When I pull up my profile for editing, there is no field available for either.

jt

Post 21

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 9:55am

Ethan,

You say: "The proper question is, what is the proper role of government?"

I believe the most basic answer is 1)to establish laws to protect our individual rights, 2) to raise a military to protect our sovereignty (and hence our individual rights), and 3 )to mint a standard currency that can be used in free exchange.

You add: "That's a role for the courts though, and not "regulators" who seek to blanketly restrain all busniess for the sake of "protecting" people."

But I would ask 'why is that?'. The role of regulations and/or laws is to prevent infringement of individual rights. The role is valid. It is the execution of that role that consistently fails. If Objectivism offered specific ethical definitions limiting what regulations society (in the form of governments) could impose, such regulations could fulfill their protective purpose properly. Absent Objective guidelines, Regulatory agencies can, and do, foment more problems and damage than good.

You further say: "In the case of the housing/finance crisis, the goverment also can't and shouldn't protect people. If illegal actions took place you have grounds for legal action"

I agree with your statement. However, I would suspect that it is in the "rational self interest" of a society to help its citizens (individuals) avoid self destructive behavior. That said, of course, I do not believe societies in and of themselves can sustain "rational self interest", therefore intelligent, Objective guidelines are needed to limit what regulations such a society might try to install.

We will never be free of societies, so I think we must come up with a logical and rational, fact-based, Objectivist philosophy that more accurately examines and encompasses the nature of the animal (i.e. not truly rational).

Put another way... when planning for defense of the village, it is wise to include in one's calculations the fact there is a fire breathing dragon living in the nearby cave.

jt

jt

Post 22

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 10:21am

Hi Jay,

I think you have some research to do on Objectivism as several of your points here have been clearly answered in the literature. That said, saying "go read" is never a fun answer. However, you are missing some of the fundamentals. For example:

"rational self interest" of a society to help its citizens (individuals) avoid self destructive behavior

Society isn't an individual and it has no interests. It is a concept of a group of individuals. Avoiding self destructive behavior is in the interest of the individual, and perhaps those amongst his or her family and friends. Beyond that? No, "society" and "government" have no rational interests in it.

I strongly suggest reading Rand's works or, for an easy break-down http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/ and specifically http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_Main.html Objectivism is hierarchical though, so an overview of the whole system is important. Without this we are just throwing darts at scenarios and ideas you are discussing here.

E.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 7/22, 10:25am)

Post 23

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 12:09pm

Hi JT,

Forgive me if I'm asking you to be too redundant here, but it would be helpful to me if you would, in a statement or two, simply explain *why* Objectivism needs a theory of groups. What problems would group theory solve that the present content of Objectivism does not or cannot solve?

Thanks,
Jordan

Post 24

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 12:26pm

It is the mythology of the 'hive mind' , that the group has, as such, an embodiment of mentality and order, the same as the organ has over the individual cells.... tribalist mentality run amoke....

Post 25

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 12:54pm

Well put Robert.

There are phenomena that can be studied in group form - but only when you look to the nature of the individuals for the properties that emerge in a group.

I like looking at theories like memes, or group dynamics, or Gaia, or evolutionary psychology... they offer facinating new perspectives BUT only if you keep your wits about you separate out the nonsense.

There are a lot of people trying to make whole sciences out of thin metaphors and shaping them for the purpose of supporting hidden political inclinations.

Post 26

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 1:59pm

Jay:

John,

You said: "If you can give a clarification here of what you understand the terms used here to mean. It seems to me you are implying "laissez-faire capitalism" is synonymous with "anarchy"?"

Pinned down, I would have to say that in its purest definition, laissez faire capitalism will be insufficient to protect the honest, hard-working capitalists from the dishonest second-handers.

Well what do you think the purest definition of laissez-faire capitalism is? You are saying the ideology lacks a particular virtue, that of protecting the honest, but you first have to establish what the ideology is before making that judgment. You can't define a term by saying what it lacks or doesn't accomplish. My cats also do not protect the honest from the dishonest, are my cats synonymous with "laissez-faire capitalism"? You have to give identifiable characteristics, and I suspect you and I do not have a common understanding to the term "laissez-faire capitalism". So let's not get ahead of ourselves by assuming we each agree on the premises here.

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/22, 2:03pm)

Post 27

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 3:13pm

Jay,

Thanks for the two examples. But they are not examples of any sort of group psychology. Rather, they are types of fraud or malfeasance that typically lead some to call for regulation. But regulation - as in your milk must come with vitamin D added - is an arbitrary positive requirement that some standard be met. The proper response is not a positive requirement here, but a negative requirement that people not engage in fraud and misrepresentation.

As for the housing crisis, no government agency could possibly set prices for houses any more reasonably than the market. Government regulators have no direct interest in the equity of a price. They are not risking their own money. The buyer and seller do so on the grounds that they do so freely. To introduce a regulator is to prevent these parties from acting freely or to do nothing at all.

The housing crisis arose in part due to to existing government intrusions. The first is the presumption that the government will not allow the housing market to crash or allow many loans to default. This expectation of rescue - both in the mandatory renegotiation of variable rates to help irresponsible borrowers, and in the rescue of Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac to help irresponsible lenders - led to irresponsible actions on both sides.

Another problem which Objectivists don't often address is the notion that repayment of loans should be enforced by the state. The Objectivist says that a borrower has benefitted by receiving a lone, and the law should require him to pay it back. But the lender has equally extended the loan on the assumption that he too will benefit. And the borrower expects to have the state act in part as his collection agency - repay or face jail or financial ruin at enforced by the courts. Lenders who expect the government to punish defaulters will be likely to extend loans to high risk borrowers on the assumption that people will not default if faced with ruin or imprisonment at the hands of the courts. We have done away with debtors' prisons. which were in effect a form of government intervention on behalf of lenders. Lenders wanted to receive interest payments for the risk they undertook, but also wanted the government to tip the scales in their favor by discouraging default by the threat of the gun. But default is always possible, it is the reason why people with good credit get lower interest rates. If it were possible to do away with default and bankruptcy, then all loans should be made at the same interest rate based only on calculations of delayed return and not on risk. Of course, this is not possible, and it is entirely proper that loaners take risk into account and adjust rates based thereupon. Defaulters who have not committed fraud should simply face the consequences of bankruptcy, losing the good credit of the market. Making bankruptcy harder or punishing default with government penalties above the damage one does to ones own credit by defaulting ends up artificially increasing the confidence and risk taking actions of lenders. Rather than the normal low level of defaults that one would expect one finds institutional bad judgment and massive institution wide defaults - with the added assumption that the government will step in to prevent those defaults. How does this effect the average consumer who doesn't default? That statement that your savings are guaranteed up to $100,000 comes with the hidden price that when your bank is at risk of failure you and every responsible borrower will have to pay the price in bailouts and higher interest rates.

Finally, however you think of these matters of fraud and lending, they are adequately explained given existent market and economic models. There is no mysterious groupthink that has been lying unidentified. Moral hazard and the like are well understood issues. The "masses" may not expend the effort necessary to understand the effects of artificial rate setting and government bailouts on behalf of borrowers and lenders. But the lesson to be learned is that regulation allows people to pretend that they can act safely without any personal need to understand the risks which they are taking upon themselves. "What, me worry? My account's "insured" and the government won't let the banks fail." This is not so much group thought as it is widespread individual mental evasion.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/22, 3:14pm)

Post 28

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 8:23pm

Ethan,

urQ "several of your points here have been clearly answered in the literature"

And I am suggesting they are incomplete answers.

urQ "Society isn't an individual and it has no interests. It is a concept of a group of individuals."

Yet the existence of societies is a natural fact, that it is made up of a group of individuals is actually inconsequential. Individual are a natural fact, and core Objectivist beliefs have been derived from analysis of their nature. Groups or societies do not really share that same precise nature any more than humans share the same nature or value system as amoebas. Would you simply extend what would be a logical philosophy for amoebas to provide a philosophical system for (sentient) humans?

jt

Post 29

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 8:49pm

Jordan,

I am confidant that all Objectivists would agree that while we may live within our own skins (requiring personal ethics), we are inescapably governed by societies.

Societies, are - I would firmly insist - not truly rational entities, nor are they likely capable of consistent rational thought. Regardless of how they are composed (of many individuals), they have their own nature.

Problem? In order to build an Objectivist society - which I'd consider a logical goal - one must examine that nature as closely as Rand has already studied the nature of the individual. This type of effort does not turn up in any of the current Objectivist literature, and I think it is essential to promoting such a goal.

Objectivism, as it is currently presented, has been stretched too thin to accurately answer all of the questions detractors may pose.

jt

Post 30

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 9:01pm

Steve,

urQ "There are a lot of people trying to make whole sciences out of thin metaphors and shaping them for the purpose of supporting hidden political inclinations. "

Actually, I don't' believe my metaphors are that thin. Nor do I have any hidden political inclinations. I believe strongly in facts, and I think there is an entire case of facts that is ignored in current popular Objectivist thought about government.

My own particular ideas about laws and regulations may well be disproved, but not without a more rational, objective analysis and discourse on what logical, epistemologically sound values are natural to groups.

jt

Post 31

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 9:08pm

John,

urQ "You can't define a term by saying what it lacks or doesn't accomplish."

I didn't. I am quite clear on the definition of the term, and earnestly supported and argued for it for 40 years. I simply said I (currently) believe it to be insufficient. In this respect, I have fallen out of the mainstream of Objectivist thought.

jt

Post 32

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 9:50pm

Jay,

Maybe because you have so many people you are replying to, you didn't notice that my post #25 was discussing Robert's post #24. You objected to something that wasn't pointed at you. I wasn't accusing you of hidden politcal agendas.

If you want to reply to what I wrote for you, about your ideas, look at my post #17.

Post 33

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 9:42pm

Ted,

urQ "not examples of any sort of group psychology"

Weren't intended to be. I believe you wanted concrete examples of issues I felt were inadequately covered. And I do not think, nor am I suggesting further study into group psychology. I think much adequate work has already been done in analysis of the psychology of groups. What has not been done is to utilize that existing analysis, and derive an logical epistemology and subsequent philosophy based upon those facts.

urQ "As for the housing crisis, no government agency could possibly set prices for houses any more reasonably than the market."

Nor do I think so either, and certainly would not suggest. At the outermost boundary of any regulation regarding mortgage loans, I think such regulatory authority should not be permitted to establish any rule except what is already well recognized as good financial practices.

urQ "But the lesson to be learned is that regulation allows people to pretend that they can act safely without any personal need to understand the risks which they are taking upon themselves."

Actually, you are talking about 'bail-out here, not regulation. However, over-regulation is a proper villain.

urq "There is no mysterious groupthink that has been lying unidentified."

I agree there is nothing much left that is mysterious about group behavior, which is why I feel it is unsettling that it has not really been analyzed and accounted for in Objectivist thought. It is more ignored, or glossed over, and I think examining and properly encompassing it within Objectivist philosphy will be essential to ever making any forward progress in good governance.

jt

Post 34

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 1:41am

Jay, I originally asked:

"If you can give a clarification here of what you understand the terms used here to mean. It seems to me you are implying "laissez-faire capitalism" is synonymous with "anarchy"?"

You responded in post 13:

Pinned down, I would have to say that in its purest definition, laissez faire capitalism will be insufficient to protect the honest, hard-working capitalists from the dishonest second-handers.

I responded:

You can't define a term by saying what it lacks or doesn't accomplish.

You said in response:

I didn't. I am quite clear on the definition of the term, and earnestly supported and argued for it for 40 years. I simply said I (currently) believe it to be insufficient. In this respect, I have fallen out of the mainstream of Objectivist thought.

Jay, you implied in post 13 by directly quoting my question preceding your response you were answering it. So I'm a little confused and starting to think you are attempting to skirt the question. Could you entertain me in clearly defining the term? Because I haven't seen you do that yet. So I ask again, what is laissez-faire Capitalism?

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/23, 1:43am)

Post 35

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 7:57am

Any study of 'group psychology' would be in actuality a study of the dominant individuals within the group, their nature of being dominant, and the limitations such dominating incurs, and the kind of sub-ordinance required, and their limitations.....

Post 36

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 9:05am

Robert,

"A study of the dominant individuals within the group..." would be a primary area of study, but there is a broader statement:

A way of contrasting behaviors that differ when the individual is alone versus in a group (or in a type of group) and then isolating the beliefs or individual characteristics that give rise to those differences. Here is an obvioius example. Hypothesis: individuals with lower self-esteem will be more likely to violate their individual beliefs when in a group whose majority of hold opposing views.

Wikipedia talks about social psychology (group psychology) as a focus on the individual that attempts to explain how the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of individuals are influenced by other people. I would see that explanation as already conceding an assumption that the group is the cause of the differences, rather than a trigger of expressed difference that are explained by the individual beliefs, habits, and feelings towards groups.

Again, from Wikipedia, sociology has a greater focus on the behavior of the group, and thus examines such phenomena as interactions and exchanges at the micro-level, group dynamics and group development and crowds at the macro-level. Here is where we agree that the theorists often mistake man for an ant. They begin treating groups as entities while dropping the context of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and emotions which are held only in heads of the individuals who are the only actors.

Post 37

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 6:21am

Steve,

You are correct. My apologies. Going back to your post 17. The numbering system on this site is convenient, although I'd like to know if there is a setting to change the order of posts to last-to-first.

jt

Post 38

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 7:44am

Steve,

Referencing your post #17, I did capitalize 'group objectivist' , I suppose, to suggest that it should be a body of knowledge.

urQ "If you want fresh new ground to plow in a multidisciplinary area - jump in. Rand took care of the basics, there are enormous bodies of work in all the social sciences that can be Objectively 'deconstructed' - and reclaimed."

Quite honestly, I don't think I am the one most qualified to do what I suggest. I only believe that is essential that someone qualified undertake the measure with an open, inquiring mind. I would expect the process to follow roughly the same rigor of logic used by Rand. Use (or deconstruct, if necessary) the existing body of knowledge about groups/societies (treating then as an entity), and deducing a logical epistemology, and ethical system from those known facts. I suspect that an honest and clear examination would result in a value system similar and non-contradictory to core Objectivist values and beliefs.

urQ "AGREED. But there are two caveats... responsible, understanding citizenry is the only real check and balance against the thugs and thieves that would cloak themselves in government garb. "

Your points are well taken, and I can agree. Yet we live in a highly complex society that cannot be simply counted upon to elect rational, sane, and fair (let alone intelligent) governments. Responsible, understanding citizenry, acting in rational self interest, must still STRIVE to establish a value system within said governments that will preclude establishment of unethical laws and regulations.

urQ "Objectivist Ethics holds that a group does not have a natural right apart from the natural rights possessed by its individuals. And I can see no way that you can derive a set of group rights, that don't conflict with the individual's rights and there is no way that you can give preference to a group rights with out saying, "Adios Objectivism."

Which is why I am not in any way suggesting, nor in any way looking to establish any such separate creature as 'group rights. You can have eleven honest, and brilliant intellectuals on a jury, and one dolt or dishonest person, and it will be that one juror that will determine the outcome of the trial (likely a hung jury). Society is the same. The fact is that as long as there will be less educated, or less than honest people, government - its laws and regulations - will be subject to corrupted values. Therefore the better that clear, objective and fair, values can be intelligently codified into the system, the better. Your caveats, of course, still hold true.

Better laws, and "good" regulations will only be established, I believe, when they can be rendered obvious to the general public. Current Objectivist arguments fail, and I think it is because they do not fully account for all the facts - viz. group values. I do not think that the result of any serious effort at determining 'group' objectivism would result in anything truly contradictory of core Objectivist thought (if it did, then it would need to be re-examined).

I need to get back to gainful employment now. Hope this is at least clarifies my position some.

jt

Post 39

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 7:57am