James Randi and Objectivism

[Darat]

Sometimes the results of pragmatism are right. Sometimes they are wrong. Pragmatism as a principle is invalid, because its only purpose is to stop the crises in progress and is unable to act for the long range, because it has no ethical principles to guide it.

Additionally, pragmatism becomes expediency at the flick of a wrist and is responsible for most of the tyrannies imposed in the world by the left and the right.

Pragmatism in the sense I was using it means that you deal with the world as it is not as you would like it to be.

 

[MichaelM]

The rational individual doesn't want to die in a plane crash caused by a smoker's careless cigarette left in the toilet wastebasket. Yet people have died in the past for this very reason. The Objectivist would state that the regulation is unnecessary because the rational individual has already assessed the risk.

We would expect that a number of airlines would voluntarily make their flights non-smoking to offer a competitive advantage but few if any actually did this.

In this case, the regulation kicked in much quicker than any decision made by the rational consumer or the rational producer. We could play tit-for-tat this way all day long.

You are trying to judge a system that does not exist and about which you know next to nothing by the standards of the present one without taking into account all of the other factors that would arise if the whole system were quite different.

The reaction of a society would be dramatically different if there were no regulations. For one thing, a giant chunk of the populace trusts that the government is taking care of everything on the one hand, and are fatalistic about the possibility that they could ever have any input.

The absence of a specific regulation of a problem in a government regulated market is tantamount to a certification of no problem. But in a world without government regulation, management trembles with fear of the will of their customers. In a capitalist society one of the most profitable businesses would be warning customers of dangers and giving them a voice and a weapon to rectify them.

 

[Dinwar]

Just repeating an assertion or extending it as you have done above is not the same as providing evidence for a claim.

The evidence for my claim is in the first quote I posted. Refusing to deal with evidence doesn't make it go away.

Objectivism is one of the more simplistic ideologies to understand so I do rather doubt that people "don't get the philosophy", I suspect it is that they simple don't agree with it.

You've yet to show any understanding of the theory, or even what I'm saying, so you'll have to excuse me if I go ahead and ignore your assessment of the philosophy until you demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand it. After all, EVERYTHING is simple when you don't know anything about it.

However, the historical record has indicated that the airline industry has never voluntarily reduced risk because these things cost money.

Other industries have. And if you don't think flying would be safe, you'd be free to not fly.

but I think you can see that a simple declaration of BB v iPhone = Objectivist Victory should not be taken at face value.

I have to ask, where on Earth did this come from? I've never discussed Blackberries or iPhones.

What if my main concern is that your plane will crash into my home?

That I don't know. But I'm pretty sure being allowed to dictate what others do with their property because of the off chance that something bad may happen is wrong. After all, there's an off chance that you may harm me one day--would it be appropriate to imprisson you to prevent that? You may stab me--would it be appropriate to take your property on that off chance, or to dictate how you cut your steak? The principle doesn't change just because it's an airplane and a corporation.

 

[joesixpack]

...
The reaction of a society would be dramatically different if there were no regulations. For one thing, a giant chunk of the populace trusts that the government is taking care of everything on the one hand, and are fatalistic about the possibility that they could ever have any input.

So your version of objectivism sounds remarkably like a call for more public involvement in government. Hell, I'm all for that.

...The absence of a specific regulation of a problem in a government regulated market is tantamount to a certification of no problem. But in a world without government regulation, management trembles with fear of the will of their customers. In a capitalist society one of the most profitable businesses would be warning customers of dangers and giving them a voice and a weapon to rectify them.

No, we can plainly see what makes management tremble by where their PAC money goes. They tremble at the thought of more government regulation. They fear more public scrutiny of their practices. They loath being held accountable for their actions.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The reaction of a society would be dramatically different if there were no regulations.

...snip...

As I mentioned a little bit back we can know what such a society will look like, both from history and societies that exist right now.

...snip...
The absence of a specific regulation of a problem in a government regulated market is tantamount to a certification of no problem. But in a world without government regulation, management trembles with fear of the will of their customers.

No they didn't. They carried on killing their customers until "regulations at a gun point" stopped them doing so. And even with the regulations we have today customer safety is not their priority. (Yes there were some exceptions but as a generalisation it is more true than false.)

...snip...
In a capitalist society one of the most profitable businesses would be warning customers of dangers and giving them a voice and a weapon to rectify them.

Yet that did not happen.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Freedom means freedom from the fallibility of others.

It seems to me that Rand was more interested in freedom from any responsibility to others.

 

[MichaelM]

What you are saying is that if I don't accept your tenets about coercive violence to others then you will use coercive violence against me ...

Yes. I will coerce you to refrain from using violence or the threat thereof against your fellow man to get what you and the majority gang want for your own benefit.

That is to say, I will use force to make sure you cannot use it against others, as you appear to want to continue to do. Unfortunately, of course, that will also mean that they cannot use it against you— the price one has to pay for being logical.

 

[MichaelM]

Pragmatism in the sense I was using it means that you deal with the world as it is not as you would like it to be.

You have the wrong definition of pragmatism. Look it up.

 

[joesixpack]

Yet that did not happen.

Well, it actually did, we call it "government".


Oh SNAP!

 

[Dinwar]

Of course she does - most folk who say they follow any -ism or ideology seem to be able to find justification for whatever they want to do within that ideology, yet what they seem to end up doing is the exact same thing as the rest of their society and culture. You'd almost think they were a social animal!

So your counter-argument to my argument that marriage would make perfect sense in an Objectivist society is that my argument is an Objectivist argument. I have to ask: are you familiar with Dr. Hsieh's work? If not, are you willing to admit you're judging this woman's arguments based on knowing absolutely nothing about them? If you are familiar with her work, would you care to provide some discussion of her points on this issue?

But in a world without government regulation, management trembles with fear of the will of their customers.

Uh, no. Rearden didn't "tremble with fear of the will of his customers"--in fact, he specifically acted AGAINST the wishes of the general public. Management, like all individuals, would act in their own rational best interests. Businessmen and customers need one another, and to talk of either group "trembling in fear" of the other is to imply the opposite. In an O'ist society businessmen would be responsive to their customers, ONLY IF their customers' demands were rational.

Take Ohio's ban on smoking in bars. If the customers wanted it, they'd frequent bars that didn't allow smoking (went to a few, so I know they existed). Businessmen would realize that banning smoking was good, and would do so--because it doesn't impact their main business objectives. If, however, some customers demanded that they stop selling alcohol, that would be irrational for a bar, so it wouldn't happen. The business would lose those customers.

 

[joesixpack]

You have the wrong definition of pragmatism. Look it up.

As there are several definitions and uses of the word, I think you should trust him on what he actually meant. Or are you exercising your freedom to interpret his words any way you like? If that's a case, see how far the conversation gets. It's funny how social norms allow for communication when they're followed, eh? It seems like people are social animals.

 

[Foster Zygote]

tsig

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

How magnanimous of you.

 

[Dinwar]

As there are several definitions and uses of the word, I think you should trust him on what he actually meant. Or are you exercising your freedom to interpret his words any way you like?

"Pragmatism" refers to a specific philosophical school of thought. If what Darat is using doesn't fit that definition, it's something else, NOT pragmatism. This is a discussion about philosophy--we should use the names of philosophical theories properly, or else the conversation will halt pretty quickly as well.

And yes, we're social animals. We get that. Rand herself even says that. You and I differ greatly on the implications of that, however. You seem to think that the individual should be subordinate to "society", whever THAT is (and that's one definition that's impossible to pin down for more than about five minutes). I think it merely means that being with people offers more value than being alone, and people generally like to be around other people--provided those other people accept the rights of individuals. If they don't, it won't remain a society for long.

 

[Darat]

The evidence for my claim is in the first quote I posted. Refusing to deal with evidence doesn't make it go away.

An opinion is not evidence (in this case) - you merely asserted the same claim again but in a longer form.

You've yet to show any understanding of the theory,

...snip...

You do realise that this "accusation" can just as easily been made back to you? Indeed even more so as when asked about marriage all you said was (to paraphrase) "oh someone has explained how that can be justified", you presented no actual argument or even an indication that you know on what grounds it was being justified, just an assertion that it doesn't present any problem because someone has justified it. That is hardly demonstrating a familiarity with the ideology is it? Let me remind you what you said of others earlier - your words were:

"...they know a few talking points, they've heard someone say something, and they think that's what O'ism is...."


Now I am more than happy to take your word that you are actually what you claim to be and do have the depth of knowledge and understanding you claim so why not stop discussing what other folk may or may not know and discuss the meat of the subject? Show us why we are wrong when we are wrong, show us why we are misinformed or have misunderstand something when we've got the wrong end of the stick.

I certainly can not claim I am an expert of her ideology (I have read her works and listened to her speaking and have been discussing her ideology since I first came across it as a teenager - what can I say I've always read crap science fiction ) Surely that is a much more valuable use of all of our time?

ETA: And I do have to apologise to you and MichaelM, I've gone back to the start of my interaction with you both and is has been rather abrupt and snarky so sorry about getting off on the wrong foot and all that.

 

[MichaelM]

The bulk of capitalism consists of a large number of people working to produce as great a profit as possible for a very small group.

Yeah, like which is the greater benefit, the wealth Sergey Brin and Larry Page reaped, or the benefit to mankind that they and only they were able to inspire their exploited and downtrodden workers to produce?

Sam Walton died the richest man in America after having raised the standard of living of the poorest in this land more than all the government welfare and private charity during his lifetime—starting out with an Arkansas five-and-dime.

 

[stilicho]

....

Other industries have. And if you don't think flying would be safe, you'd be free to not fly.

....

Broadcasters didn't self-regulate to establish property rights over specific bands. The airline industry didn't self-regulate in the example I provided. Which industry do you feel is entirely self-regulating?

The question is not whether I think flying is safe or not. The question is whether the risk is, was, or even could have been voluntarily reduced. As you move forward in time from the innovation of powered aircraft you'll see that few if any of these regulations came from the operators.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your interpretation of Objectivism. The Objectivist says that a rational individual will not want to die in an air crash. The Objectivist likewise says that a property owner (the airline) will not want his customers to die in an air crash. Therefore, as these rational desires connect, organically, the property owner will develop CVRs and FDRs on his own, flight path agreements on his own, investigation and security processes on his own, and so on. If he does not then the rational individual will not use his services, will choose a competitor, or will stay home.

However, this isn't how aviation safety developed at all. The property owners did whatever they wanted until the appropriate regulations and institutions were put into place and (apparently) rational people kept boarding aircraft in spite of the risks.

That's only a solitary example that's well-documented because the technology allowing powered flight is so new. We could go through each sector with a fine toothed comb and likely discover that the rule is that rational individuals with unfettered property rights will make calamitous decisions until otherwise "coerced".

 

[MichaelM]

As there are several definitions and uses of the word, I think you should trust him on what he actually meant.

Words have specific meanings in each of their possible specific contexts. In the present philosophical context of political principles that definition is not valid.

 

[joesixpack]

"Pragmatism" refers to a specific philosophical school of thought. If what Darat is using doesn't fit that definition, it's something else, NOT pragmatism. This is a discussion about philosophy--we should use the names of philosophical theories properly, or else the conversation will halt pretty quickly as well.

Pragmatism may refer to a specific school of thought, but there are other uses of the word. You may be surprised to learn that the word "pragmatic" predates the philosophical use of the word by over 200 years. I think we can give people some leeway on it's use.

 

[Darat]

Yes. I will coerce you to refrain from using violence or the threat thereof against your fellow man to get what you and the majority gang want for your own benefit.

That is to say, I will use force to make sure you cannot use it against others, as you appear to want to continue to do. Unfortunately, of course, that will also mean that they cannot use it against you— the price one has to pay for being logical.

Which means that you are going against one of your own stated principles. That is why it is contradictory.

You have the wrong definition of pragmatism. Look it up.

It was a case of talking past one another - you assumed I meant pragmatism as in the sense of "philosophical school of pragmatism" when I was using it in the common English sense which is defined as:

1. way of thinking about results: a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
​

 

[MichaelM]

So your version of objectivism sounds remarkably like a call for more public involvement in government. Hell, I'm all for that.

Not exactly. The public will take over the role of regulation of all non coercive acts. But they may not be involved with the use of force against force other than, as is now the case, in emergencies that call for self defense.