James Randi and Objectivism

[tsig]

Woa! Exactly how does the part I highlighted work?

Sounds like the war of all against all.

All utopias fail because they don't take human nature into account, if we were all as rational as Ayndians think we are we wouldn't need any government.

 

[Darat]

Joesixpack,

It is not the nature of men to be autonomous it is autonomy from coercion by others that the nature of man demands, because all men are fallible and the success of each individual life depends on the choices each individual makes. Freedom means freedom from the fallibility of others.

Can you provide the scientific evidence that supports that claim?

 

[MichaelM]

stilicho,

your impressions of her nihilism are of no value to us if you cannot name them.

Greenspan was a fame junkie in the 60's who actually began his adult life as a Keynesian. Even Rand who was often naive in reading how genuine were those who latched onto her fame back then recognized that Greenspan was less than committed to the ideas.

 

[Darat]

stilicho,

your impressions of her nihilism are of no value to us if you cannot name them.

Greenspan was a fame junkie in the 60's who actually began his adult life as a Keynesian. Even Rand who was often naive in reading how genuine were those who latched onto her fame back then recognized that Greenspan was less than committed to the ideas.

Can you avoid speaking for me - thanks.

 

[tsig]

Joesixpack,

It is not the nature of men to be autonomous it is autonomy from coercion by others that the nature of man demands, because all men are fallible and the success of each individual life depends on the choices each individual makes. Freedom means freedom from the fallibility of others.

You're going to have to withdraw from all society for that to work.

 

[tsig]

stilicho,

your impressions of her nihilism are of no value to us if you cannot name them.

Greenspan was a fame junkie in the 60's who actually began his adult life as a Keynesian. Even Rand who was often naive in reading how genuine were those who latched onto her fame back then recognized that Greenspan was less than committed to the ideas.

Are you representing some group?

 

[MichaelM]

Gord_in_Toronto,

The same way this country did when it was founded ... government the wielder of force restricted to defense against force and all the checks and balances and more to hold it to that task. The government and all the laws would be directed at the guarantee of this single principle:

No person shall initiate the use of physical force or threat thereof to take, withhold, damage or destroy any tangible or intangible value of another person who either created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange, nor impede any other person's non-coercive actions.

Every value other than that defense would be achieved by the same people who produce the values that sustain and enhance our lives today by whatever manner they can, so long as they do not use physical force.

Do you really think that there would be no roads or schools or certification of drugs or whatever if men could not gang up on each other with a gun? Think before you react!

 

[MichaelM]

Darat,

If you think I did not condemn the posts of this thread as being empty with my reason and by evidence, please list for me the tenets of Objectivism referenced before my first post that address and rebut them specifically. Happy hunting!

 

[MichaelM]

Darat,

If you think I did not condemn the posts of this thread as being empty with my reason and by evidence, please list for me the tenets of Objectivism referenced before my first post that address and rebut them specifically. Happy hunting!

 

[MichaelM]

stilicho,

It is beyond bizarre to assert that a set of philosophical principles (politics) are inherently invalid because no one ever put them into effect. The actions of other men now or in history are not sufficient to invalidate any idea. The argument is about ideas. Step up to the plate!

 

[joesixpack]

Joesixpack,

It is not the nature of men to be autonomous it is autonomy from coercion by others that the nature of man demands, because all men are fallible and the success of each individual life depends on the choices each individual makes. Freedom means freedom from the fallibility of others.

So you imagine that society is protected from your fallibility? Will further freedoms make us safer and safer from your failures? Who will protect you from your failures? I don't think people deserve to starve or live under a bridge dying of a treatable disease because they made mistakes in life (the most common mistake being the failure to be born to middle class parents in the developed world). Perhaps you do though.

But seriously on balance, don't you think you've derived more benefit from society than you've contributed?

 

[MichaelM]

The Norsemen

So far yours are the only sensible points made here.

 

[stilicho]

....

Do you really think that there would be no roads or schools or certification of drugs or whatever if men could not gang up on each other with a gun? Think before you react!

This is the one that's always brought up but more appropriately you have to ask how a family unit survives the non-coercion tenet.

There might be roads and schools, of course, but not the same way we have them now. Public road-building really only got off the ground after the practical application of the internal combustion to the automobile made them necessary. Ford, Buick and Chrysler didn't pay for those roads but their innovations would have been useless without them.

Read a little bit about challenges such as the cross-country race in 1909 concurrent with the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific exposition and you'll get an inkling of what RandLand is like:

http://www.issaquahreporter.com/community/50394072.html

If you don't detect nihilism as essential to Rand's philosophy then you probably haven't read much of it. Try to read her scenarios and apply the same sense of "autonomy" (really just thinly-veiled outrage and contempt) to the "chorus" she plays her Rational Man against. Her scenarios act out a lot like early Greek drama, where there is a solitary hero set against a backdrop of the chorus who work either as a foil or as a cheerleading section. Real human interaction and transactions aren't like that and at some point you encounter someone with a different vision arrived at using precisely the same faculties you did.

It's more common than you think it is.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

stilicho,

It is beyond bizarre to assert that a set of philosophical principles (politics) are inherently invalid because no one ever put them into effect. The actions of other men now or in history are not sufficient to invalidate any idea. The argument is about ideas. Step up to the plate!

See that button at the bottom right of a post? Labelled "Quote"?


Use it.



Thank you.

 

[stilicho]

stilicho,

It is beyond bizarre to assert that a set of philosophical principles (politics) are inherently invalid because no one ever put them into effect. The actions of other men now or in history are not sufficient to invalidate any idea. The argument is about ideas. Step up to the plate!

The idea is wonderful. I've already said that. I sure don't like anyone trampling on my autonomy. I like Kant's categorical imperative too. It's a great idea that deserves its due. Heck, "love your neighbour as yourself" is another fabulous idea.

The world is teeming with nifty ideas.

 

[joesixpack]

Gord_in_Toronto,

The same way this country did when it was founded ... No person shall initiate the use of physical force or threat thereof to take, withhold, damage or destroy any tangible or intangible value of another person who either created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange, nor impede any other person's non-coercive actions.

Ever hear of these poor saps?

 

[MichaelM]

Humes_fork

It is a misrepresentation to say that Rand's society is unregulated. First of all the regulation against the use or threat of violence among men is infinitely more stringent than any you have ever known of.

You conveniently overlook 1) the profitability of Consumer Reports style companies that would ferret out every flaw in every product that exists with their reputation riding on it. The difference would be that you would have the right you do not have not to take make use of their findings by the judgment of your own mind. So if the judgment of such organizations is split 50-50 or however over the advisability of smoking pot, you would get to consider both sides and act accordingly. 2) you also overlook the power of economic boycott and social shunning of those who do not act as you think they should or who endanger the populace with their products. Who is regulating which cell phone is better? How fast did the Blackberry disappear into the shadows of the iPhone? What government could have effected that regulation that fast?

----

Rand is neither a rationalist nor an empiricist which is a false dichotomy. Read the first several chapters of Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

 

[MichaelM]

tsig,

All Utopias fail because they assert an "impossible dream", i.e. an unachievable perfection. That is a logical fallacy in and of itself. If a dream or a theory is unachievable or impractical, it is sheer foolishness to regard it as "perfect."

You are in this also contradicting the intent of this foundation, because that is utopias are inherently a product of some form of mysticism. Rand condemns Utopian ideas.

 

[MichaelM]

tsig

Yes, I am representing all human beings who can muster an honest mind.

 

[Dinwar]

What level of Government control is she talking about? Freedom to lie about your competitors? About your product? Freedom to drive the competition out of business through undercutting and then raise your prices through the roof? Freedom to buy up or intimidate all the manufacturers of machinery for making your product so that no one can make a competing product? Freedom to use substandard or outright toxic materials in your products and not tell the consumers?

Freedom is a great word to wave about, until you find out the actual price of total freedom.

She was very specific on this topic. Wrote a number of essays on it, actually. The issues of personal responsibility and non-initiation of force are two of the central concepts in her ethical theory (the most central is individualism, but that requires accountability and the non-initiation of force). Rand was not an anarchist, and gives very explicite reasons for this.

I've always found it facinating that people who have this level of understanding of Objectivism--that is to say, really next to none--feel qualified to criticize it. The philosophy is not beyond rational criticism; as an Objectivist I feel that the philosophy stands up to said criticism, but there are justifiable objections that can be raised. But you have to understand the philosophy to offer them, and when you ask "What level of Government control is she talking about? Freedom to lie about your competitors?" you show that you don't have that level of understanding.

This is one reason I avoid discussions of Rand on these boards: many people here think they're criticizing her ideas, when in fact they can't even identify them.