James Randi and Objectivism

[Dinwar]

So how would this be handled? Is it perfectly fine for me to, essentially, starve most of the town to death (those who can't afford a helicopter or my tolls)? I have not initiated the use of any force, except as explicitly allowed (to maintain control and use of my own property). I got everything I have by voluntary exchange.

While other Objectivists may disagree, I would say sure. It's your land, and I for one will not cross it unless I can pay your $1000. Of course, nothing stops me from tunneling through the mountain, or establishing a new pass. I'd also make it my life's work to drive you out of business, and more to see you economically destroyed so that you die alone, homeless, and starving. I wouldn't violate any of your rights, but I'd destroy you.

What if I let everyone use the roads across my land for free, unless you're black? Then I simply tell you that you can't use my land?

That's fine as well. I'd again do everything I could to run you out of business (I may not try so hard to destroy your personal wealth and see you die starving and homeless, though).

To question another part of the proposition, who decide whether or not I'm "adding value" to my property?

The idea of adding value is only applicable in an undeveloped and UNOWNED wilderness. Personally, I believe Rand misapplied the concept when it came to the native peoples of the Americas. A more applicable idea would be an island. Let's say I find an island, and mark it on maps and everything, but do nothing else with it. I in no sense own that island. You can go there and set up a hut and say "It's mine", and I have no recourse but to accept that (well, I can TRY to sue you, but I'll lose). That said, if the island was sufficiently large you can't rationally justify setting up a hut and saying you own the whole thing--if Australia were uninhabited, you couldn't justify saying that you owned it all merely because you'd made a shack. The limits of your property ownership must be defined somehow, and the most objective means of defining it are the limits of the areas you've developed. If you put a fence around an area, it's yours. If you plow it and plant it, it's yours. If you simply set up a hut and don't touch anything else, that "anything else" is still up for grabs (but your hut is not, nor I would say is a buffer around it).

If you already own your property, it's yours, period. You can let it go back to the natural state, or like my grandfather intentionally preserve and actively facilitate that move. Or you can build a factory on it. It's YOURS, and whether or not you add value is irrelevant to the discussion of property rights in such cases. Adding value is not the fundamental aspect of property rights--the concept of property rights is more or less fundamental itself (it has support, from the basic axioms on up, but you'll have to find someone else to explain that better, because it's not an area I've explored).

Suppose there are 10 individuals who all buy plots of land covered in timber. 8 start logging operations, producing lumber and timber products for the local community. The other two simply own the land, doing nothing with it but keeping others off it. Which one is adding value?

Both, really. The 8 add value by converting an unused resource into a usable form. The other 2 add value by adding the protection inherent in property ownership (and enforceable by the government) to the wilderness. They obviously value the natural state of that land, and adding their protection to it adds a value.

 

[MichaelM]

So.

There's a moderate-sized moutain community.

I own a plot of land that happens to be in one of the passes leading into town. By keeping my eye out for opportunity, I later aquire, through voluntary exchange, the plot of land that sits astride the other pass out of town.

Now, I put up a fence, and simply demand a toll of $1000 per trip for anyone who wishes to cross my land.

There's no other way into or out of town (short of climbing the mountains, or a helicopter).

So how would this be handled? Is it perfectly fine for me to, essentially, starve most of the town to death (those who can't afford a helicopter or my tolls)? I have not initiated the use of any force, except as explicitly allowed (to maintain control and use of my own property). I got everything I have by voluntary exchange.

The question here is where do you get your supplies to live from? To whom will you sell what you produce? You are one customer/vendor, and they are many. How many of the businesses who not only see you hurting their business, but also regard your acts as irrational and immoral would ever trade with you again. Instead they would pool their resources, lease a helicopter and do what the U.S. did in when they broke the back of the Berlin blockade after World War II.

Then when you were starving and penniless they would buy your land straddling the pass and make it into a beautiful park with deed restrictions on the deed of it and all the properties in town guaranteeing an open pass in perpetuity.

The problem with your comment is that you set up a hypothetical without bothering to grasp the absolutism of the principle and the capacity of men in legion to mitigate irrationality.

Rights are absolute and immutable. They are "right", get it? That's as opposed to "wrong." Seeking to profit from wrongs in a nation of rational men is a fool's game.

But the most important part of moral principles is that there is no such thing that is practical enough to overturn them. In the hierarchy of one's values, morality is always more practical than any alternative, because qua value it is right up there next to life itself.

 

[Twiler]

MichaelM, you have still not explained how these principles come from logic.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You are not paying attention either. Neither Rand nor I have advocated no government.




Those who do not agree and act on the principle that they may take whatever they want from others by force will stopped by the force that the government wields (police, courts, army etc) in defense against force.

Why do you think there is another way?



But that government would be neither moral nor just because the decisions of what roads and where, what would be taught, and how thorough and trustworthy the certifiers were would be coerced at the point of a gun ... like it is today in Canada... and the US.[/quote]


Blah. Blah. Blah.

Who decides what is "moral and just" and thus what a government should do and what is not "moral and just" and thus what it should not do?

 

[Dinwar]

Who decides what is "moral and just" and thus what a government should do and what is not "moral and just" and thus what it should not do?

This is why I avoid words like "moral and just", MichaelM. You've got a handle on O'ism, but not on how to talk about it with non-O'ists, it seems. Remember, to non-O'ists the term "moral" tends to mean "altruistic", so you'll be talking past your audience 9 times out of 10 when you use that word.

As stated previousy, a government necessarily has a legal monopoly on the use of force. This makes it incredibly dangerous--it's the most likely of any human institutions to violate someone's rights. Thus, government has to be constrained to only thos activities which the government is necessary to perform. Those activities include those which require the use of force--police, military, and courts.

More significantly, in O'ist philosophy rights are not to be violated, period. NO ONE, not even the government, can violate rights, and anyone who does must be prosecuted. So that places some pretty natural limits on the nature of government. As I stated previously, O'ists disagree on precisely how to fund the government, but that's a minor issue that can be worked out once it becomes a serious posibility.

So the limits of a government are inherent in the nature of the government and in the nature of the people being governed.

As for who's going to actually list those limits, as in all cases it'll be philosophers, and then politicians will put it into practice. The feudal system of the Middle Ages was the practical form of the philosophy of the time, the United States government was the practical form of Enlightenment philosophy, and our modern government is the practical form of our current philosophical trends.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Your overeagerness to look like you are scoring against me is leading you to ask silly questions.

The response would not be any different than it would be under existing civilized governments. It would constitute a horrific crime of violence.

When I say that the government's only task is to stop violent actions of men, why do you ask me what I would do with people who perpetrate violent actions?

How does your government stop me?

I own the land. I have no need of building permits. I refuse to be constrained by safety regulations. I have no requirement to have registered and regulated engineers do my engineering, There are no laws constraining my purchase of dangerous radioactive materials.

When you knock on my gate I tell you to piss off. But that's OK because after you are dead you can sue me.

Have you really though through any of what you are suggesting? It has been tried -- it does not work.

 

[Hellbound]

The question here is where do you get your supplies to live from?

Outside the town, duh.

To whom will you sell what you produce?

Again, those outside, in other towns.

You are one customer/vendor, and they are many.

They are also completely powerless to sell their products, or recieve products from the much wider market outside town that I control access to.

How many of the businesses who not only see you hurting their business, but also regard your acts as irrational and immoral would ever trade with you again.

Who cares? The ones outside the town won't care, or won't even know if I simply close my borders. The ones inside have no access (or very limited access) to anythig outside, and can't get the supplies to tunnel through the mountain, and will be out of business soon. Of course, I can offer to let them cross my land at the price of all the property they own inside the town.

Instead they would pool their resources, lease a helicopter and do what the U.S. did in when they broke the back of the Berlin blockade after World War II.

Sorry, don't think so. How are they going to get out of town to lease a helicopter? Assume I close the border completely.

Then when you were starving and penniless they would buy your land straddling the pass and make it into a beautiful park with deed restrictions on the deed of it and all the properties in town guaranteeing an open pass in perpetuity.

Ah, so you are going to force future owners of that land to comply with the collective will regarding their own property, for perpetuity?

The problem with your comment is that you set up a hypothetical without bothering to grasp the absolutism of the principle and the capacity of men in legion to mitigate irrationality.

And your entire argument neglects the fact that people are not rational, and even less so in groups. You are setting up a utopian society that not only demands every actor to be rational according to a preset definition, but requires it. If one individual decides to act in ways that are irrational (to the view of the group) but entierly rational (in view of personal gain), then you either have violate the principles you claim apply (by forcing restrictions on property rights) or simply assume that people will automatically group together, and that no matter the circumstances involved the group will triumph. What if the hypothetical land-owner happened to be owner of a large corporation that operated in other areass, outside this small mountain village? I could lose the entirety of those properties with no real threat, and frankly I don't need anything the town has to offer. I'd just like to turn it into a play area for my pure-bred dogs.

Rights are absolute and immutable.

No. Rights are a human concept, and are "immutable" only in two ways: in the abstract as a concept fo soemthing that should never be taken away or interfered with, and in the realistic way in that they are only as immutable as there is force available to make them so. Your right to anything stops absolutely at the point that the force (in whatever form) available to protect it can no logner stop whatever is attempting to violate it.

They are "right", get it? That's as opposed to "wrong." Seeking to profit from wrongs in a nation of rational men is a fool's game.

What wrongs? In my scenario, I am acting in my own self-interest. I've not used force, and I'm only acting to use my property as I see fit. I've done nothing against the basic principles...yet you seem to think I have done something morally wrong and should be collectively punished. You agreed that I was perfectly within my rights with my actions, so why should I suffer for exercising my rights?

But the most important part of moral principles is that there is no such thing that is practical enough to overturn them. In the hierarchy of one's values, morality is always more practical than any alternative, because qua value it is right up there next to life itself.

This is a simple assertion, and easily overturned by real-world examples. Contrary to popular sayings, sometimes crime does pay.

Again, you're setting up a system where it is assumed that everyone involved will act rationaly..where the collective rationality of a group is relied on to keep in check the abuses of others, and it automatically assumes that a group will be able to garner enough interested memebers and enough resoruces to overcome any individual. Besides, who is acting irrationally? I am taking precise and rational measures to aheive my own satisfaction. Yours is not a system that rewards rational conduct...it is a system that requires it in order to function, and only functions smoothly if everyone acts accordingly. It's a utopian ideal...much like communism. Another system that would work fine if everyone followed it.

And Dinwar, pretty much some of the same logic applies. How are you going to tunnel out of town if you can't afford to get tunnelling equipment or supplies in? I'm searching everythign that wants to cross my land (my right, I can control what I allow on my land and what I don't) and I won't let through any digging equipment. My resources (for this scenario) are far greater than yours...I own a corporation. Besides, before you even start tunnelling, you have to buy the rights to the land you'll be tunnelling through. If they're for sale, I'll simply outbid you. The rational seller will of course accept the option that provides the greatest benefit to themselves, meaning you're stuck. And why should you decide to drive me out of business and see me starving and penniless? I'm simply acting in my own self-interest. What if I offered to cut you in 50/50 on the gains when those in town eventually break and either sell their property to me for a price I choose in exchange for freedom, or starve to death (whereupon I buy the property from their heirs or at the estate sale)? Rationally, you'd be better off joining me and sharing in the profit...say I include a contract that gives you free access to my roads if you agree to help me.

Anything that expects all humans to act rationally is doomed to failure. In fact, just as a response to my hypothetical, both of you have stated that beyond the rational act of correcting the situation and regaining access outside, you would take the further emotional and irrational step of using additional resources and sacrificing your time, money, and happiness to make sure I was ruined and starving. Simply because I decided to exercise the rights to use my own property in the way I choose.

 

[tsig]

That would be an initiation of force, wouldn't it? And because the government is supposed to protect us from that, it would use force to stop said initiation of force. Objectivisim is not a pacifistic philosophy, nor does it advocate the dissolution of the armed forces. Rand herslef gave a presentation at the graduation of one West Point class (the first essay in "Philosophy: Who Needs It").

.

They justifiy taking your land the same way you justified taking the land from the Indians so why are you resisting the logic of your belief?


How will the government pay for the armed forces, the police and other government functions. Voluntary contributions are a Utopian fantasy.

 

[tsig]

"just being there means living off of the wildlife and vegetation that was "just there" instead of utilizing the land to produce sustenance, the process of which augments the value of the land that was just there.

I did not deny that some of the previous inhabitants did create permanent communities and enhance the productiveness of the land. Killing the peaceable ones or confiscating their land was the same crime it would be against anyone else.

But when those that did not tolerate the homesteading of unowned land by the settlers raided their homesteads and killed them, it was they who were the criminals and the settler's rights that were violated.
Accusing all settlers and justifying all of the previous inhabitants without distinctions based on what they actually did or did not do and on what is or is not property is a form of bigotry as bad as any other.

The land wasn't unowned, the Indians owned it. They were living off of the wildlife and vegetation.

If you don't have a garden on your land it's free for the taking?

 

[Hellbound]

The land wasn't unowned, the Indians owned it. They were living off of the wildlife and vegetation.

If you don't have a garden on your land it's free for the taking?

The "unused" only applies if the land is "unownwed". But, of course, the land was unowned because it was not being used.

Again, no clear distinctions or definitions.

 

[Dinwar]

They justifiy taking your land the same way you justified taking the land from the Indians so why are you resisting the logic of your belief?

Please show me where I said what you think I believe.

How will the government pay for the armed forces, the police and other government functions. Voluntary contributions are a Utopian fantasy.

Hey, I agree. I don't want to pay for anything extra--I have a hard enough time making ends meet as it is. That's why I prefer a "payment for services rendered" approach, wherein all contracts are subject to taxation at some set limit. The government is expected to enforce those contracts, after all, so it only makes sense to pay for them.

I've already stated as much previously, however, and you apparently chose to ignore it. I doubt you'll listen to me this time.

They are also completely powerless to sell their products, or recieve products from the much wider market outside town that I control access to.

This is why I hate such hypotheticals: they're impossible to achieve in reality. As I stated previously, nothing is stoping us from opening up a new pass. I know of a few areas here in California that offer as close to the situation you describe as you can get--and I can find a way out in all of a day. It's IMPOSSIBLE for your situation to arise in reality. There is NEVER only one way in or out of a natural valley. Oh, the other ways may be unpleasant or dangerous, but if it let me break your monopoly on transportation I for one would be willing to do it just to see you impoverished (nothing against you personally, understand--I generally like what I've seen of you on these forums. I'm just saying that if you were to do what you're proposing, I'd be upset and want to destroy you). I know how to get around in rugged environments, so it'd be just another day at work as far as I'm concerned (or a vacation--the two tend to blur when you study geology).

Once I get out, it'd be easy enough to convince people to invest in opening a new access route. After all, I'm sure you'll have upset people who will then be willing to invest just to see you suffer. There'd also be the people looking for new markets, and some others who simply like to invest in roads. The point is, once I'm outside of your area, your plan is toast. And you cannot keep me in it.

 

[tsig]

Why do you think there is another way?



But that government would be neither moral nor just because the decisions of what roads and where, what would be taught, and how thorough and trustworthy the certifiers were would be coerced at the point of a gun ... like it is today in Canada... and the US.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Who decides what is "moral and just" and thus what a government should do and what is not "moral and just" and thus what it should not do?

[/QUOTE]

Consult the writing of the Holy Books of the Ayn and seek her spirit in meditation and use force against those who would use force against you*.

*kill everyone who disagrees

 

[Dinwar]

The "unused" only applies if the land is "unownwed". But, of course, the land was unowned because it was not being used.

Again, no clear distinctions or definitions.

No, they're clear--it's just that everyone apparently is operating under the assumption that the European settlers were acting in accordance with a philosophy that wasn't developed into the 1940s or 1950s (depending on how you define it). It's simply stupid to use the settlement of the United States as a test-case for Objectivism, for the same reason it's stupid to blame a child for my actions before I met his mother.

Again, the settlement of the Americas by Europeans is a complex issue, one in which both sides acted rightly and wrongly in many, many cases. But it was not, and cannot be used as, an example of how an Objectivist society would go about dealing with a newly discovered land. There weren't any O'ists for three hundred years after settlement started. So this is really nothing more than a straw man argument, given some tenuous validity because Rand made a small number of off-hand comments about the issue (she never, to my knowledge, addressed the issue fully or formally).

 

[Dinwar]

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Who decides what is "moral and just" and thus what a government should do and what is not "moral and just" and thus what it should not do?

Consult the writing of the Holy Books of the Ayn and seek her spirit in meditation and use force against those who would use force against you*.

*kill everyone who disagrees[/QUOTE]

And I'm done discussing this topic with you. You are unwilling to even try to understand the O'ist point of view, and continuously make these sort of comments as if any O'ist would even pretend to support them. Sorry, but you know nothing ab out O'ism and are apparently uninterested in learning more. That's fine--I don't know about a lot of things, and haven't taken the time to educate myself in them--but please stop pretending your ignorance gives your opinions any validity.

 

[tsig]

The "unused" only applies if the land is "unownwed". But, of course, the land was unowned because it was not being used.

Again, no clear distinctions or definitions.

I was referring to this:

Originally Posted by MichaelM
"just being there means living off of the wildlife and vegetation that was "just there" instead of utilizing the land to produce sustenance, the process of which augments the value of the land that was just there.


This says that if you're not using the land to produce something others can just take it so if you're not growing a garden or running a profitable business out of your home it would seem to be fair game.

 

[Hellbound]

No, they're clear--it's just that everyone apparently is operating under the assumption that the European settlers were acting in accordance with a philosophy that wasn't developed into the 1940s or 1950s (depending on how you define it). It's simply stupid to use the settlement of the United States as a test-case for Objectivism, for the same reason it's stupid to blame a child for my actions before I met his mother.

Actually, the entire subject came up because Rand herself made that comparison, not her detractors. The claim that the taking of the land was a justified act, that is.

Again, the settlement of the Americas by Europeans is a complex issue, one in which both sides acted rightly and wrongly in many, many cases.

Definately agreed.

But it was not, and cannot be used as, an example of how an Objectivist society would go about dealing with a newly discovered land. There weren't any O'ists for three hundred years after settlement started. So this is really nothing more than a straw man argument, given some tenuous validity because Rand made a small number of off-hand comments about the issue (she never, to my knowledge, addressed the issue fully or formally).

I dunno, her off-hand comments seemed pretty clear, and don't paint a very good picture of her philosophy or how it's applied. I'm willing to let it drop, though, and simply assume that modern adaptations have dropped the more obvious questionable pieces of her logic.

 

[joesixpack]

... Remember, to non-O'ists the term "moral" tends to mean "altruistic", so you'll be talking past your audience 9 times out of 10 when you use that word. ...

Sorry, busy day here and not able to interweb debate as much as I'd like. I have a lot to cover, but I just want to take issue with this statement.

Morality does not equal altruism, at least from my perspective. I don't think anyone else here is making that conflation.
Morality means a code of behavior that is dictated by the social structure and culture which one lives in. For example, taking your neighbors property because he isn't using it to it's full advantage is immoral by most people's idea of the word, even if to do so would be to grow more food for a starving populace.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The question here is where do you get your supplies to live from? To whom will you sell what you produce? You are one customer/vendor, and they are many. How many of the businesses who not only see you hurting their business, but also regard your acts as irrational and immoral would ever trade with you again. Instead they would pool their resources, lease a helicopter and do what the U.S. did in when they broke the back of the Berlin blockade after World War II.

Then when you were starving and penniless they would buy your land straddling the pass and make it into a beautiful park with deed restrictions on the deed of it and all the properties in town guaranteeing an open pass in perpetuity.

The problem with your comment is that you set up a hypothetical without bothering to grasp the absolutism of the principle and the capacity of men in legion to mitigate irrationality.

Rights are absolute and immutable. They are "right", get it? That's as opposed to "wrong." Seeking to profit from wrongs in a nation of rational men is a fool's game.

But the most important part of moral principles is that there is no such thing that is practical enough to overturn them. In the hierarchy of one's values, morality is always more practical than any alternative, because qua value it is right up there next to life itself.

Now who is being silly?

Pool their resources and lease a helicopter?

"Then when you were starving and penniless"? How would that happen while I was living in luxury on a Caribbean island a continent away while my henchmen manned my blockade and were supplied from sources outside the valley?

Have you read any history what-so-ever? It has played out many and more of the scenarios we Rationalists have presented and the results either lead to collapse of the societies involved or to governments that impose restrictions on their citizens with the agreed co-operation of their citizens and to the benefit of society as a whole.

 

[tsig]

Consult the writing of the Holy Books of the Ayn and seek her spirit in meditation and use force against those who would use force against you*.

*kill everyone who disagrees

And I'm done discussing this topic with you. You are unwilling to even try to understand the O'ist point of view, and continuously make these sort of comments as if any O'ist would even pretend to support them. Sorry, but you know nothing ab out O'ism and are apparently uninterested in learning more. That's fine--I don't know about a lot of things, and haven't taken the time to educate myself in them--but please stop pretending your ignorance gives your opinions any validity.[/QUOTE]

Have you read the comments of your fellow O'ist in this thread?

 

[Hellbound]

This is why I hate such hypotheticals: they're impossible to achieve in reality. As I stated previously, nothing is stoping us from opening up a new pass. I know of a few areas here in California that offer as close to the situation you describe as you can get--and I can find a way out in all of a day. It's IMPOSSIBLE for your situation to arise in reality. There is NEVER only one way in or out of a natural valley. Oh, the other ways may be unpleasant or dangerous, but if it let me break your monopoly on transportation I for one would be willing to do it just to see you impoverished (nothing against you personally, understand--I generally like what I've seen of you on these forums. I'm just saying that if you were to do what you're proposing, I'd be upset and want to destroy you). I know how to get around in rugged environments, so it'd be just another day at work as far as I'm concerned (or a vacation--the two tend to blur when you study geology).

Once I get out, it'd be easy enough to convince people to invest in opening a new access route.

It's a small town, the market isn't that big. A new route through maountains isn't cheap.

After all, I'm sure you'll have upset people who will then be willing to invest just to see you suffer.

Ah, so we don't need rational actors, but emotional ones?

There'd also be the people looking for new markets, and some others who simply like to invest in roads.

Small town, remember?

The point is, once I'm outside of your area, your plan is toast. And you cannot keep me in it.

You make a lot of assumptions here. You assume that in every case others would be interested in opening the markets, that you yourself have the resources or ability to make it tempting, and so forth. I just want the land...maybe I plan to make an amusement park or a resort hotel. I can choose a community that's poor, that would not have the resources or influence to interest anyone that had enough power to make a difference. I would control the least expensive routes in and out, and those inside have a limited time before starving, or otherwise running out of something requried for living. I can simply make it known that I'll cut off all business relationships with anyone who assists you. And offer favorable business contracts to those who help me. There's a point where the amount of property one person or group owns (and the influence this gives them) makes them a de facto government, without any of the checks and balances that could limit that influence.

I choose this as a simple example. It may be unrealistic as stated, but that's simply because I've simplified it to focus precisely on the issue at hand. It could be done in any area, there is simply more land to acquire to surround an area one wants control of. And this tactic and similar ones have been used to force landowners to sell in the past (blocking things like cattle drive routes, for example, or a mountain pass or a bridge or ford across a river). In fact, these types of situations are one of the reasons why laws regarding public roads started in the first place.

And you are right, this is not something I would do. But from everything I understand of Objectivist philosophy, such a situation, however unlikely it might be, is not against that philosophy. If I acted in such a manner, assuming I had rationally assessed the odds and had enough power compared to the town I planned to hold hostage that they could not reasonably beat me, I would not be wrong according to Objectivism. I am acting in my own self-interest, using capitalism and the free control of my own property, without initiating force on anyone or coersion (beyond making a better offer to anyone who might want to help the town to help me instead..which is negotiation...I'm not forcing them, simply making the offer).

If you'd like, change the situation to an island community, and I'm the opwner of the largest shipping company. Sure there may be people willing to run the blockade, but I can simply make it my mission to drive any one who does out of business (it will benefit me in the long run as I'm working towards a monopoly anyway), and the island isn't a large enough market compared to everywhere else for any group or person with enough resources and power to take the risk.