| | Jim (and Dean),
... to formulate theories that deny that some humans are capable of acting parasitically is to deny reality. You're overstating the case and building a straw man (just as John said above).
John, myself, and Ayn Rand don't deny that humans are capable of parasitism, only that parasitism is inadequate/insufficient as a rule of thumb for man. Think of a predator bird that spends a minute part of its life under water, diving after fish. When we talk about the nature of that bird, we don't include being underwater as part of that nature (even though time is spent there). That bird could never live under water, because that would contradict its nature as an air-breathing animal.
We don't refer to that bird as being "amphibian" (i.e., an animal which has water-dwelling in its very nature). Drawing on the example of the diving bird which is most definitely not an amphibian, there isn't an "amphibian-like" man who has both parasitism and production as part of his nature (even though some folks act parasitic). In the "Man" section of ARL, there are many entries integrating many facts which validate the idea that reason and production are so primary or fundamental to man's life on Earth -- that they are an essential part of his very nature (just like swimming is for fish, or flight is for a bird that normally flies -- e.g., hawk, eagle, etc.***).:
1)
Man’s life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there’s only one price that pays for man’s survival: reason. 2)
If a drought strikes them, animals perish—man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish—man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them animals perish—man writes the Constitution of the United States. 3)
To the extent that a man is guided by his rational judgment, he acts in accordance with the requirements of his nature and, to that extent, succeeds in achieving a human form of survival and well-being; to the extent that he acts irrationally, he acts as his own destroyer. 4)
If some men do not choose to think, they can survive only by imitating and repeating a routine of work discovered by others—but those others had to discover it, or none would have survived. If some men do not choose to think or to work, they can survive (temporarily) only by looting the goods produced by others—but those others had to produce them, or none would have survived. Regardless of what choice is made, in this issue, by any man or by any number of men, regardless of what blind, irrational, or evil course they may choose to pursue—the fact remains that reason is man’s means of survival and that men prosper or fail, survive or perish in proportion to the degree of their rationality. 5)
He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. 6)
He has the power to use his cognitive faculty as its nature requires, but not the power to alter it nor to escape the consequences of its misuse. He has the power to suspend, evade, corrupt or subvert his perception of reality, but not the power to escape the existential and psychological disasters that follow. 7)
Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. 8)
From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. 9)
"It’s only human," you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept "human" mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure—as if "to feel" were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not—as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not. ***Note that it's true that, say, eagles aren't by-nature terrestrial animals even in the face of hard, statistical facts showing -- let's say, due to an outbreak of some kind of disease -- showing that a statistically large portion of eagles are found to be walking around on the ground (because of being sick). The same is true of parasitically-sick humans who likewise fail to "fly" -- even though it is proper to say it is in their nature to do just that.
To say that parasitism is part of man's nature is wrong -- in the same way that it would be wrong to refer to eagles as terrestrial animals.
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/12, 2:31am)
|
|
"[there is] no clear distinction between money and non-money ... although we usually assume there is a sharp line of distinction between what is money and what is not -- and the law generally tries to make such a distinction -- so far as the causal effects of monetary events are concerned, there is no such clear difference. What we find is rather a continuum in which objects of various degrees of liquidity, or with values which can fluctuate independently of each other, shade into each other in the degree to which they function as money."
