Macro vs micro Objectivism

William (Bill?),

Certainly, I don't have your credentials. Most of my business reading is Forbes Small Business (FSB) and Newsweek nowadays, and Greenspan's "Age of Turbulence" was the last non-fiction I read (does that disqualify me now?).

I certainly recognize the Fed's part in the crisis, but I think it cannot be denied that the Fed's policies also contributed much of the years of healthy prosperity that preceded the adoption of irresponsible practices by lenders. In retrospect, it was quite a phenomenal and lengthy boom. This at least suggests again that the true issue may be one of quality (rational policies), rather than one of regulation. Of course, it might be said by some that rational policies cannot always be assured, and thus any regulations should be rejected.

jt

Post 61

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:25am

Kurt,

urQ "However, even this is dead wrong. It absolutely matters because an "entity" that is of one single mind is not at all the same as that of one "composed" - and quite likely in a temporary or even arbitrary way - of individual entities."

Actually, that is exactly my point. However, it does not follow that there is no need or value to evaluate it AS an entity. If you remember, my original analogy suggested it is like an individual with multiple personality disorder. In such an unbalanced individual, guidelines are needed to help them cope and prosper in the world. What guidelines work? Probably not guidelines without some measure of enforcement. Or take example of a parent with a small child. Does the parent simply suggest to the child not to use crayon on the wall, or do they enforce the message with some form of punishment.

The gist of the matter, I suppose, is that an entity - postulated here as society - that cannot be trusted to always behave in its own (and therefore its citizen's) self interest NATURALLY needs some rational guidance.

Whether it gets that guidance or not, it is still (again, I think, naturally) going to impose its own regulations on its citizens. There is the rub.

So how do you instill guidance. First, I would say, by understanding its nature as you would any other individual or entity.

urQ "Objectivism suggests and even has models of working examples!"

Can you name some public (government) examples. I do happen to work with a number of private regulatory agencies (e.g. class societies for ships). In most cases their determinations are used by government agencies (e.g. USCG) who will then use their work in enforcement of their own regulations.

jt

Post 62

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:28am

Ted,

Found how to enter description, but never got your email. As far as I can see, my address is correct in the profile.

jt

Post 63

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 3:28pm

Jay:

John,

You are again talking about the QUALITY of the regulations, and using that to reject the concept.

No I am not. I am not rejecting the concept of regulations because they are currently poorly implemented. Please characterize my arguments accurately. As I said in previous posts I would favor some regulations such as requiring pilots to receive a license first before flying a plane, requiring that nuclear weapons be handled by a government authorized entity that has met a burden of proof they can handle them safely. I can add more examples, but it usually revolves around regulating any highly dangerous activity that can endanger other people's property or lives without having given their consent to be put at such a risk.

The specific regulations you mentioned are ones I specifically reject because they are not in response to initiations of force which should be the guiding principle to any law or regulation. But I'm not rejecting the legal concept of regulations all together.

Post 64

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 5:40pm

Jay, I sent you the email locally through RoR. You should show my message in your in box on the top left of the main page.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/24, 9:37pm)

Post 65

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 7:19pm

Jay,

You said,

"The gist of the matter... is that... society ...cannot be trusted to always behave in its own (and therefore its citizen's) self interest NATURALLY needs some rational guidance."

This is where you will find problems matching up with Objectivism. This contains the assumption that a society HAS a self-interest (apart from those of the individuals), that someone (who?) determines what that 'self-interest' is and then passes regulations that constrain the actions of individuals (remember a law or regulation only applies on an individual basis - or to an organization being treated as an individual) to 'protect' the self-interest. When constraining - it is individuals that are constrained.

Now if we are being democratic in carrying out the process you propose, it is society (speaking collectively at the ballot box) that provide that 'rational guidance' you called for. This whole process of trying to think what is in the best interest of society (the proletariat, the majority, 'the folks', etc.) is always going to create conflict with individual liberty. Society always exists in one of the following states: Free (minimal government that only enforces laws about individual rights), Part Free (society has some laws that protect individual rights and some laws that violate them), Not Free (society and all of individuals are under the control of a totalitarian govenrment), or Not Free - Anarchy (a state of violent chaos between stable governments while separate groups war for control to establish their rules).

'Free' isn't a shining ideal because it is a magic word. It isn't an ideal because people can do anything they want (some people WANT to do harmful things). It is an ideal because it represents the best of all possible environments for the humans to interact. We call it 'free' to represent 'free' of the initiation of violence, threat of violence, fraud and theft. Our assumption is not that this UTOPIA - but that the closer to the ideal of political freedom we can come, the better off we are (and we will likely never reach some kind of perfection - and that doesn't matter - getting close is more than good enough). And even if we achieved a perfect state of freedom, there are still areas of problems that exist in the world - we can still get sick, families may not know how to get along, people may still behave in ways that aren't in their best interest, etc., etc. - but this is because the solutions to many problems are not found in government of ANY kind.

This argument for a government based upon individual righst arises from the ethics and morality of Objectivism - It is the only truely moral government. But everyone would do well to to study economics - Free Market Economics, Austrian economics - since that shows how well political freedom unleases the best in people and creates the best environment for interactions. What I'm saying is that the truely moral government recommended by Objectivism is also the most practical - but you can't know that without a bit of study (I recommend Henry Hazlett's little book Economics in One Lesson and Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom or his newer book by the same author Free to Choose as starting places to grasp the basic, modern principles of a free economy. Then if you find you are fascinated by the subject - Trust me, this is not like the dry, boring economics taught in today's schools - then pick up Human Action by von Mise - it is a tough, hard read, but you are seeing real genius at work examining the world like you've never seen it before).

If someone wants to make regulations based upon properties they see in society as an entity - logic requires that they become acquainted with economics. And that they answer these questions: What, specifically, is something they believe to be in the 'self-interest' of society and what is the nature of the specific regulation they would pass? If you can do this, and not conflict with individual rights, you can find supporters for your position here - but without a basic knowledge of free market economics and answers to those questions, you will be going against the grain and eventually ignored as someone who 'doesn't get it'.

Post 66

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 8:30pm

Of Holes and The Metaphysics of Wholes

Is a society a real complex entity, like a symphony, or a mere collection, like the contents of a drawer? The question is not invalid. Certain types of groups of peoples do have emergent properties. This is why we have marriages. A man and woman of reproductive age have a vital potential that two men or two children do not. 'Gay marriage' is not an ethical, but a metaphysical conundrum. A barbershop quartet can indeed do something that no singer by himself can do. And yes, a society can do things an individual can't, the most incontrovertible being perhaps a market economy with a division of trade.

Now real wholes have certain properties which are emergent - more than the sum of the parts. But other properties, like mass, are merely additive. Some properties, like gender are incommensurable. Sewnators have gender. The senate does not. The shape of an object is an emergent property. A chair is not shaped like the plant cells that make up wood. A jigsaw puzzle is not shaped like a jigsaw piece. Neither are their shapes the mere sum or average of the shapes of the parts. The sum of the shapes of the parts of a jigsaw puzzle is the same whether those parts are assembled, or are left in the box. There is a significant difference between the shape of an assembled puzzle and an unassembled one and the properties that flow therefrom. Can you drag an unassembled puzzle across a flat surface with a finger on a corner piece? Yet even though an assembled puzzle is a real whole, and does have properties that an unassembled puzzle does not have, not all of the properties of an assembled puzzle thereby become emergent. The mass of the puzzle is a sum that is not changed by assembly. Its flammability does not change. A barber shop quartet can sing harmonies that an individual cannot. But barbershop quartets don't fall in love or suffer from diabetes as barbershop quartets.

Societies do have emergent properties. These properties do not include hair color, heart rate or hat size. They do not include dreams, values or concepts. Yes, everyone in a society can have the same idea, but only if each individual conceives and holds that idea individually, Individual laws can be good or bad. Individual theories can be right or wrong. But every criminal act and every idea is the act or idea of individuals, in the same way that each person has a genetic makeup but society itself does not have a genetic makeup. Societies do not have ideas. Societies do not commit crimes.

Epistemology is radically individualistic. To speak of the epistemology of a society is a category mistake, like speaking of the weight of a shadow. The one doesn't have the other. Individuals think, speak, and make mistakes. Societies do not. If it is not true to say that Objectivism doesn't have a rigorous theory of regulation (a plausible claim, but as of yet undefined) because it doesn't have a proper social epistemology (it can't, there is no such thing) it still does not follow that it does not lack a rigorous theory of regulation. This lack, this hole, if it does exist, is not a fault of Objectivism. A child may lack a degree or a career. These are not faults, they are future goals. If Objectivism lacks a rigorous treatment of any specific science then it is because no Objectivist has yet addressed that science. No one is stopping you.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/24, 11:09pm)

Post 67

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 7:03pm

John,

urQ "The specific regulations you mentioned are ones I specifically reject because they are not in response to initiations of force which should be the guiding principle to any law or regulation. But I'm not rejecting the legal concept of regulations all together."

However, these latter types of regulations are the primary subject of this discussion. It is clear you disagree, citing the standard Objectivist reasons. I am questioning the validity of those arguments, by suggesting a broader Objectivist examination of the nature of groups may be warranted.

jt

Post 68

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 7:05pm

Ted,

Thanks. Found it. Added a photo.

jt

Post 69

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 8:56pm

Steve,

I appreciate your remarks and suggestions. It seems though that I am failing to make my intent clear. Certainly I'd like to get past what appear to be the two sticking points, viz. treating a society as an entity, and (pursuant to that) examining the ethical viability of regulation. That first point, really, is only a jumping off point for the more serious discussion I hope to see.

urQ "This contains the assumption that a society HAS a self-interest (apart from those of the individuals), that someone (who?) determines what that 'self-interest' is "

I think there is more than ample evidence to treat - let me emphasize that word "treat" - society as an entity. Regardless of the fact it is made up of individuals, it 1) does not behave like an individual, but 2) it takes independent actions (as do individuals), 3) it sets independent goals (as do individuals), and 4) (discussable) it seeks its own self-preservation (as do individuals). I think these are more than adequate reasons to at least try to examine whether such an animal as societal values could be extrapolated (if just for intellectual amusement).

As societies are made up of individuals, and are created by individuals for the benefit of individuals, it stands to reason that any societal values MUST be consistent with the protection of individual values. Period.

I also readily embrace the concepts that a constitutional, democratic, republic and a free market (I really do understand the definitions quite well) best represent the best interests of the individual.

urQ "What, specifically, is something they believe to be in the 'self-interest' of society and what is the nature of the specific regulation they would (should be permitted to?) pass?"

I cannot answer this. If I felt I could - adequately - I wouldn't have cause to bring it before this group. My entire endeavor here is to interest open-minded Objectivists into considering this as a valid question to ask, to think about, ... and to try to answer. Examined thoughtfully and honestly, I think it can lead to objective, non-contradictory answers, that will protect individual rights, and support solutions that will be more easily adopted by mainstream society.

jt

Post 70

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 5:53am

Jay,

Here is where I stand at this time. You believe that society is a separate entity to a degree that I could never agree with. I would heartily suggest that you study Ted's post above (on the metaphysics of wholes) and try to list the properties that society has and doesn't have - always cognizant that any emergent property cannot be a property that requires a hive-mind or a common consciousness and cannot be an equivication on a property of the same name in an individual.

You want us to answer the question of what is in the 'self-interest of society' and what regulations would be called for to protect it. You say,

"My entire endeavor here is to interest open-minded Objectivists into considering this as a valid question to ask, to think about, ... and to try to answer."

But we have been trying to say that we do not see society as a separate entity in the way that you do and to the degree that it invalidates your proposition.

Government is intended and justified by it's purpose. Laws in general have a purpose, and specific laws have their specific purposes. The purpose you give for this change is an unsupported assertion that:

A) Society is an entity that needs protection apart from or in addition to protection provided to individuals. But where is the evidence of this creatures natural rights? That after all is the rational purpose and justification of laws and regulations for individuals. The heart of Objectivism is that chain of metaphysical-epistemological-ethical reasoning exists that leads to the rational assertion of man's rights (as an individual) thus giving moral justification for those laws in consonance with those rights.

B) You state that if we would only be open-minded, and discover these things about society (or skip over that), that we will then have a purpose - do you pick on the circular reasoning in that?

I think that you continue to pursue this doggedly without paying adeqate heed to the things that have been offered here in rebuttal. You start off by saying you want to jump past the sticking point of "treating society as an entity" and "examining the ethical viability of regulation" - but that first sticking point, has to stay stuck till answered, because the answer determines any answers to the second being possible.

You say,

"As societies are made up of individuals, and are created by individuals for the benefit of individuals, it stands to reason that any societal values MUST be consistent with the protection of individual values."

What IS a societal value? I don't understand that concept - I know what a value is in the context of a living individual - and that concept won't cross over without some serious caveats. Your claim of "MUST" doesn't hold water without a defintion of societal value.

Jay, it seems to me that you've hitched your wagon to this concept of micro-macro objectivism all over a concept of society that is fuzzy and you want Objectivists to bring this whole thing in and help you integrate it. Yet you aren't paying attention when those who have a lot of knowledge of Objectivism point out the problems with your approach. I don't think you will ever get any traction here.

Post 71

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 5:56am

Ted,

Wonderful metaphors and analogies.

urQ "Societies do have emergent properties... Individuals think, speak, and make mistakes. Societies do not."

Emergent properties is the appropriate description, and what is essentially important to this discussion. Individuals think; societies hold committee meetings. Individuals act; societies set down laws and regulations, individuals make mistakes; well, look back at prohibition or at the morass of faulty regulations at hand, these are mistakes made by society & government.

urQ "it still does not follow that it does not lack a rigorous theory of regulation. This lack, this hole, if it does exist, is not a fault of Objectivism. A child may lack a degree or a career. These are not faults, they are future goals. If Objectivism lacks a rigorous treatment of any specific science then it is because no Objectivist has yet addressed that science."

It need not follow my arguments here, but I'd have to say that yes, Objectivism certainly does lack a rigorous theory of regulation. Having, myself, used Objectivist arguments many years to criticize regulation, I feel compelled to say they are too simplistic. And this is a complex world. Non-Objectivist critics of our philosophy are quick to point this out, and to ask what solutions we offer in place of those being exercised by society. Our answers are usually a rehearsed repetition, and are insufficient. So, yes, a more rigorous theory, more detailed thinking, should go into Objectivist analysis of laws and regulations. I've suggested a re-evaluation of societies as a jumping off point.

urQ "No one is stopping you."

While I may think I am relatively bright, I simply do not have the adequate credentials and educational background to properly shepherd the discussion required. I have a clear view of what I think can be accomplished, and even an idea of what I think may be discovered, but better minds are needed for the work. My job is just to get some qualified Objectivist minds thinking about it, and applying the same rigors to the examination as Rand employed when she first developed her epistemology and core Objectivist beliefs.

Critics constantly refer to Objectivism as being a closed system. I've only re-entered Objectivist discussion in the past two years, after simply living my life, and found there is division between (primarily) two Objectivist camps. I believe strongly in the fundamental core values, but I do not believe that we should just pack up and say everything has been discovered. I believe we've just gotten a heck of a good start from Rand, and need to keep thinking, and eventually giving those critics better, more informed answers.

jt

Post 72

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 9:41am