James Randi and Objectivism

[tsig]

The more I read about Ayn Rand's ideas and their followers, the more I feel they're pushing religion, not philosophy ...

They've got the trappings, an infallible prophet who wrote a Book that has the Truth and a devoted following.

 

[tsig]

Objectivists want to restrict people from using force against each other. They want people to have more freedom from force. They do not want people to be free from their restrictions against force, because freedom and force are opposites, and the notion of a "freedom to use force" in the context of political rights is a contradiction in terms. No such right can exist.

So you will use force to free people from force.

"We got to burn this village to save it" Vietnam war quote.

 

[Hellbound]

Just out of curiosity, I've seen a lot of talk about contracts being developed to define and formalize various agreements and arrangements.

How is contract enforcement handled?

 

[tsig]

Just out of curiosity, I've seen a lot of talk about contracts being developed to define and formalize various agreements and arrangements.

How is contract enforcement handled?

FTFY, can't have any of that you know.

 

[Leumas]

Tyrants and despots (including Banking CEOs) cannot accomplish the rapine they do without an extensive pyramid of WILLING minions and collaborators.

Stalin did not kill 20M people one by one with his own hand. Hitler hardly ever touched a Jew.

People have done countless atrocities in the name of COLLECTIVES and hives and herds (e.g. Patriotism, Nationalism , Tribalism, Racism, Religions, Economic and Politics).

These were not a FEW individuals..... they were WHOLE COUNTRIES or nations. Albeit, they were DUPED by a few psychopaths, nevertheless the actual machinations of killing and extirpation were carried out by an extensive INFRASTRUCTURE of people.....carrying out their orders of course.... which, as the Nuremberg Trials have deemed, is not an exculpating excuse by any means.


Hitler without the minions that enabled and facilitated his rise to power and his rapine would have remained a frustrated greasy turd.

For every psychopath that has ravished this world there were thousands and millions of FACILITATORS either PASSIVELY or ACTIVELY.

The good sweet church attending folks of America saw absolutely no contradiction in cheating and imposing holocausts on Natives and enslaving Africans while at the same time loving Jesus.

History is nothing but an account of man's rapine and extirpation.

Look at the SWEET righteous faces of the GOOD folks in the second picture below.... they were assuredly of mighty neighborly Christian stock (especially that doting old lady on the lower left).

NSFW - Graphic images

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited images. Do not repost similar images.

If you plan on posting such images in the future, plese consider that they can be considered disturbing to others and place them behind NSFW tags.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

THANKS Kmortis.... I did not know about those tags. I will definitely use them next time.


Thanks for the information.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Just out of curiosity, I've seen a lot of talk about contracts being developed to define and formalize various agreements and arrangements.

How is contract enforcement handled?

I've had enough interaction with these folks over the years that I think I could answer this, if MichaelM's reply is unsatisfactory. Then again, odds are so could you, and both of us could use the same tl;dr: "not well."

 

[MichaelM]

What of economic force? People face this every day. Behind economic force lies the threat of violence.

The phrase "economic force" is a contradiction in terms. Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The distribution of goods in this context is by voluntary exchanges of values between two or more parties. Exchanges of values coerced by physical force are not economic exchanges. If an exchange is coerced it is not an economic event.

Thus the phrase is really a devious agenda driven metaphor concocted to make people think that economic exchanges actually involve the equivalent of force just because of the intensity of one party's dissatisfaction. It is a baldfaced attempt to justify intervention by government force to achieve the results desired by others who are not party to the exchange.

Mere need does not constitute a valid claim on the life of another person. If you own something I need, I may make an offer to you in exchange, but if you refuse, I do not gain a right to force you to sell it at the price I want just because I need it, no matter how consequential that need might be for me.

Conversely, what need does constitute in a market free from intervention is an opportunity. No matter how difficult it is to fulfill a need at a price low enough, if it is humanly possible, it will be provided.

 

[MichaelM]

Just out of curiosity, I've seen a lot of talk about contracts being developed to define and formalize various agreements and arrangements.

How is contract enforcement handled?

At the fundamental level, all exchanges among men of values that they created or acquired by voluntary exchange are contractual in nature, either unwritten and implicit, or written and explicit.

Contracts define the terms of the exchange and when agreed to, any violation thereof is an act of force. The withholding of a value due another person is an act of indirect force, meaning that it is an act that requires the use of defensive force to restore certain values to their proper owner.

 

[joesixpack]

The phrase "economic force" is a contradiction in terms. Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

This is the most ridiculous equivocation I've ever read here. By the same 'logic' you could say that "Social pressure" is a contradiction in terms because sociology is the study of society.

The distribution of goods in this context is by voluntary exchanges of values between two or more parties.

There is very little that is voluntary about the bulk of economic activity that most of the world faces. People need a place to live and they must pay the going rate for rent or a mortgage payment. People are forced to eat and therefore must pay the market rate for food. Do they have choices? I suppose they do get to decide what they eat and where they live, but those choices become quite narrow as one moves down the economic scale.

Exchanges of values coerced by physical force are not economic exchanges. If an exchange is coerced it is not an economic event.

It's funny how you like to pretend that objectivism is an economic theory and you dress up your speech as if you were an academic. By using the phrase "Coerced exchange" you're clearly trying to connect 'theft' and 'taxation'. A common fallacy of Objectivists and libertarians. Are you saying that theft isn't an economic event? You are wrong. It is. Are you trying to say that taxation isn't an economic event? You'd be wrong again, because that is too.

Thus the phrase is really a devious agenda driven metaphor concocted to make people think that economic exchanges actually involve the equivalent of force just because of the intensity of one party's dissatisfaction. It is a baldfaced attempt to justify intervention by government force to achieve the results desired by others who are not party to the exchange.

Nothing baldfaced about what I'm doing here except pointing out how the world actually is (and will continue to be under your objectivist ideal. You may sit comfortably in your home feeling secure in your economic position, but if you have disposable income you are certainly in the minority. Most people in the US face a very harsh economic reality (or is that a contradiction in terms because economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services?) and their freedom to act 'heroically' is severely hampered by things like rent and feeding their kids.

What's devious is how you try to sell Objectivism as a moral ideal. It is not.

Tell me again how an objectivist world will make their situation more free? Because the wealthiest will suddenly begin producing housing and food so that there is a giant surplus that will drive the prices down?

Mere need does not constitute a valid claim on the life of another person. If you own something I need, I may make an offer to you in exchange, but if you refuse, I do not gain a right to force you to sell it at the price I want just because I need it, no matter how consequential that need might be for me.

Why yes, now I see it, the very idea that you would pay a slightly higher tax rate so that poor people will have access to medical care is somehow intolerable. In your mind, the principle of having to submit to government taxation is a greater crime than allowing the poor to die of treatable illnesses. This is the perspective of idealism and this is why I am a materialist. You see yourself as the victim of an oppressive society because you will now have your luxury curtailed for the sake of poor people.

Conversely, what need does constitute in a market free from intervention is an opportunity. No matter how difficult it is to fulfill a need at a price low enough, if it is humanly possible, it will be provided.

There is no such thing as a free market. There are objective restrictions on every actor in every market.

Honestly, if you think a lack of government regulations will make the world more prosperous, then why is there still so much poverty after 30 years of continuous deregulation? Have we not gone far enough? Just a few more and everyone will be free and prosperous?

Oh, that's right, objectivism doesn't give two ***** about prosperity for all, they just care the ideal of 'freedom to act heroically'. Too bad that most people will have to live in abject poverty for that to be the case. After all, it was their choice to be born outside of the upper middle class in the developed world.

 

[Hellbound]

At the fundamental level, all exchanges among men of values that they created or acquired by voluntary exchange are contractual in nature, either unwritten and implicit, or written and explicit.

Contracts define the terms of the exchange and when agreed to, any violation thereof is an act of force. The withholding of a value due another person is an act of indirect force, meaning that it is an act that requires the use of defensive force to restore certain values to their proper owner.

So, cutting out all your extraneous wording, the government is charged with enforcing contracts?

 

[arthwollipot]

I wonder - has MichaelM ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma?

 

[tsig]

This is the most ridiculous equivocation I've ever read here. By the same 'logic' you could say that "Social pressure" is a contradiction in terms because sociology is the study of society.


There is very little that is voluntary about the bulk of economic activity that most of the world faces. People need a place to live and they must pay the going rate for rent or a mortgage payment. People are forced to eat and therefore must pay the market rate for food. Do they have choices? I suppose they do get to decide what they eat and where they live, but those choices become quite narrow as one moves down the economic scale.



It's funny how you like to pretend that objectivism is an economic theory and you dress up your speech as if you were an academic. By using the phrase "Coerced exchange" you're clearly trying to connect 'theft' and 'taxation'. A common fallacy of Objectivists and libertarians. Are you saying that theft isn't an economic event? You are wrong. It is. Are you trying to say that taxation isn't an economic event? You'd be wrong again, because that is too.





Nothing baldfaced about what I'm doing here except pointing out how the world actually is (and will continue to be under your objectivist ideal. You may sit comfortably in your home feeling secure in your economic position, but if you have disposable income you are certainly in the minority. Most people in the US face a very harsh economic reality (or is that a contradiction in terms because economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services?) and their freedom to act 'heroically' is severely hampered by things like rent and feeding their kids.

What's devious is how you try to sell Objectivism as a moral ideal. It is not.

Tell me again how an objectivist world will make their situation more free? Because the wealthiest will suddenly begin producing housing and food so that there is a giant surplus that will drive the prices down?
Why yes, now I see it, the very idea that you would pay a slightly higher tax rate so that poor people will have access to medical care is somehow intolerable. In your mind, the principle of having to submit to government taxation is a greater crime than allowing the poor to die of treatable illnesses. This is the perspective of idealism and this is why I am a materialist. You see yourself as the victim of an oppressive society because you will now have your luxury curtailed for the sake of poor people.


There is no such thing as a free market. There are objective restrictions on every actor in every market.

Honestly, if you think a lack of government regulations will make the world more prosperous, then why is there still so much poverty after 30 years of continuous deregulation? Have we not gone far enough? Just a few more and everyone will be free and prosperous?

Oh, that's right, objectivism doesn't give two ***** about prosperity for all, they just care the ideal of 'freedom to act heroically'. Too bad that most people will have to live in abject poverty for that to be the case. After all, it was their choice to be born outside of the upper middle class in the developed world.

There will be spontaneous outbreaks of altruism, contracts will be sacred and the lion will lay down with the lamb, which means that the lion has a mutton dinner.

 

[marplots]

Can anyone recommend a good Objectivist forum? I'm interested in taking my show into the revival tent and seeing how it plays for the converted.

 

[Earthborn]

Objectivists want to restrict people from using force against each other.

No, they don't. Restricting people from using force implies doing something that prevents force before it happens, and that implies an "initiation of force" which is something Objectivists are against. They think only force that is a reaction to an initiation of force can be legitimate, not a restriction on people before they might initiate force.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The phrase "economic force" is a contradiction in terms. Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The distribution of goods in this context is by voluntary exchanges of values between two or more parties. Exchanges of values coerced by physical force are not economic exchanges. If an exchange is coerced it is not an economic event.

Thus the phrase is really a devious agenda driven metaphor concocted to make people think that economic exchanges actually involve the equivalent of force just because of the intensity of one party's dissatisfaction. It is a baldfaced attempt to justify intervention by government force to achieve the results desired by others who are not party to the exchange.

Mere need does not constitute a valid claim on the life of another person. If you own something I need, I may make an offer to you in exchange, but if you refuse, I do not gain a right to force you to sell it at the price I want just because I need it, no matter how consequential that need might be for me.

Conversely, what need does constitute in a market free from intervention is an opportunity. No matter how difficult it is to fulfill a need at a price low enough, if it is humanly possible, it will be provided.

So if I have several billion pounds I can buy up your house and throw you into the street and it isn't force?

I can legally buy everything in your immediate area and refuse it to you and that isn't force?

I could, assuming I had enough money, buy absolutely every store in the US and refuse you service (meaning you couldn't buy anything at all) and this wouldn't be force?

Afterall, I have the money and it's a free and unfettered market. Therefore I can spend my money how I want (and keep that economy ticking over) and because there's no anti-monopoly laws (because they are restrictive and bad) I could conceivably just own everything?

If not, how exactly am I restricted from doing so, at least theoretically?

 

[eerok]

Can anyone recommend a good Objectivist forum? I'm interested in taking my show into the revival tent and seeing how it plays for the converted.

Since Rand's ideas offer nothing more than demented woo, have you checked the Icke forums?

They tend to ban those who don't drink the kookaid, though likely a dedicated Randian forum would as well.

 

[MichaelM]

I can legally buy everything in your immediate area and refuse it to you and that isn't force?

If not, how exactly am I restricted from doing so, at least theoretically?

No, it isn''t force. What it is is an admission that you are sufficiently naive to expect that a neighborhood or city or metropolis would not already have a network of voluntary deed restrictions (enforced by the government) that would preclude the possibility of someone doing this.

Of course, in your frantic quest to slander Rand, you overran the obvious question you should have asked yourself first: just how could a society protect itself from this without violating anyone's property rights? The implication of your question insults humanity by presuming that men would be unable to cope with such a situation—which implies a view of yourself as well.

 

[MichaelM]

No, they don't. Restricting people from using force implies doing something that prevents force before it happens, and that implies an "initiation of force" which is something Objectivists are against. They think only force that is a reaction to an initiation of force can be legitimate, not a restriction on people before they might initiate force.

I would ask you to go to Rand's writings, find citations to demonstrate that what you say is true and bring it back here for all to see, but no one who is here now would still be here, because no one can live forever.

 

[joesixpack]

... just how could a society protect itself from this without violating anyone's property rights? ...

And the answer is that they can't. These "deed restrictions" you posit are nothing more than zoning laws by another name.

 

[Gazpacho]

They tend to ban those who don't drink the kookaid, though likely a dedicated Randian forum would as well.

Oh yes, I've been tossed out of an objectivist forum on at least one occasion and been told to "go join the Kellyists."