James Randi and Objectivism

[stilicho]

Consumer Reports would launch a full investigation...

I think you're agreeing with me but, really, why would Consumer Reports launch an investigation if there were no external standards to be met? Critics of regulations should really look into why the Consumers Union exists. It's not as though consumers were aware of the potential problems with the products that were harming them and decided "Objectivistly" to form an investigative body. Not only was it a response to regulations (sometimes deemed insufficient to protect consumers rights) but it was decidedly "un-Objectivist" in its approach to consumer protection. It was so much so that organisations like the Consumers Union were widely believed to be subversive and Communist. Not without reason, either.

I'm about as pro-business as can be on this particular forum and I myself understand the need for public policy and regulation. For one thing, it helps protect my own investment of time and money because I know directly where I stand regarding any corporate innovation, new product roll-out, and even in merger and acquisition negotiations.

I would enjoy the fun times that complete deregulation of everything would entail but I happen to like a bit of chaos. I can't imagine how the true Objectivists would respond, however, as all the freshly unregulated and unpoliced individuals tricked them out of all their stuff and left them as beggars. They just don't think it would happen to them but, believe me, most of those I've met would be the easiest to fool.

 

[MichaelM]

it's laughable to propose that an objective morality was what guided the European settlers in the new world.

I did not propose such. I said that the homesteading of unowned land was a rational process, and that those who were there previously and did not claim land by the principle of owning added value had no legitimate claim to it.

Ownership does not derive from just being there.

 

[stilicho]

You're going to use violence to end violence?

Who will be these wielders of force?

I'll share one thing with you, tsig. In the Objectivist SuperHappyRandWorld nation, I'll quit my job in the bat of an eye and join the police force. Hopefully as a Commander or Captain or whatever the superior rank is called.

Ka-CHING!! Practically unfettered power.

 

[MichaelM]

Actually, because humans are tribal animals, we must act together to ensure our survival. We are genetically equipped to act for our sustenance. The specific genetic adaptation is social structure. Why else would we have such a well developed language? Humans can't and won't thrive on their own,

This is a gross underestimation of the capacity of men to survive alone and just as grossly irrelevant. Men are not tribal animals. We do not have to act together. We choose to act together to benefit from the efficiencies inherent in the division of labor. A group of human beings who choose to interact socio-economically is not a tribe.

We are genetically equipped with the tools necessary to act for our sustenance (reason and physical capacities) but unlike other animals, we are not genetically programmed to make the choices of how to use our tools.

For the record, there is nothing in Objectivism that advocates living alone. On the contrary, with a few exceptions, it would be an irrational choice to forsake the enormous value of living in a society of (rational) men.

 

[MichaelM]

I'll share one thing with you, tsig. In the Objectivist SuperHappyRandWorld nation, I'll quit my job in the bat of an eye and join the police force. Hopefully as a Commander or Captain or whatever the superior rank is called.

Ka-CHING!! Practically unfettered power.

Great more nonsense just to make a stupid joke. Just what part of "enumerated powers" and "checks and balances" have you not yet studied in school?

 

[MichaelM]

So you are opposed to inherited wealth? That's great because I'd like to see a much greater inheritance tax.

Inherited wealth is earned by being the kind of person that another person values so much that he wants you and not someone else to have his wealth. There may not be inheritance taxes in an Objectivist society because theft is an act of taking values owned by others by force.

Neither you nor any other person can substantiate a claim on the wealth of others or what they do with it. You condemn a mugger for stealing a wealthy persons wallet, then authorize the government to do it. Unadulterated hypocrisy.

 

[nelsondogg]

This is only applicable to a society in which there are no Objectivists or Libertarians. It does not apply in the society I am referring to, because in order to exist the dominant portion of the society would have to agree with Ayn Rand. Be very cautious about second guessing their behavior on your skimpy knowledge of the philosophy and its implications.

Yeah well communism would work if everyone in society believed in it too.

 

[MichaelM]

And what of the grifters and con men? Don't they live by their wits and their Reason/effort? What of Derivitive traders who sell worthless securities? Do they deserve the product of their labor?

Grifters and con men are guilty of fraud. Fraud is a use of physical force indirectly: one withholds a value promised another requiring defensive force to retrieve it.

So long as derivatives are traded in a voluntary exchange it is none of anyone's business whatever you think the value is. In voluntary exchanges, only the parties of the exchange may determine the just value of that which is traded. Each gives up what they value less to get something they value more. Only their standards of value matter.

 

[Gazpacho]

Read Ayn Rand.

Read 1491, and when you're done with that, read basically any book on the history of enclosure in Britain.

Rand practiced, and therefore encouraged, an approach to "hostile" sources that scans the text for some hook on which one can hang a chain of syllogisms that proves the author is anti-life. So you might decide that by recommending these readings I am advocating primitivism. That would be wrong. The point is that the origins and progress of capitalism as it really is should be understood by studying them, not by assuming whatever must be true in order to consider capitalism a moral system.

 

[Bluto]

What amazes me about the 6 pages of posts that I've just slogged through, is the absolute cocksurity of the Rand supporters about the veracity of their (mostly) untried philosophy.

When basic tenets of Objectivism have been instituted to some extent - the lack of oversight in industrial safety, meat processing, child labor, or (most recently) deregulation of the financial sector, the results didn't read quite the same at "The Fountainhead". How can you be so certain that Rand had any clue as to what actually worked in the real world?

The occasional appeals to authority notwithstanding, what is it about Objectivism that garners such loyalty in the face of such a lack of evidence?

How do you paper over the unreinforced nuclear plants that meltdown next to the nursery school? "Medicines" that cause permanent harm? Or the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each generation? Isn't it just that belief that it won't happen to you, so, who cares?

 

[Darat]

You've consistently ignored that the specific arguments being made are merely a side-issue of my original point. However, for the sake of my sanity: Dr. Hsieh argued that marriage provides an objective means of determining who's in the dating pool and who's outside of it. A person in a marriage is saying, in effect, that they are unavailable in a much more definitive fashion than, say, a person who's merely dating someone.

I would go further. Marriages are contracts between individuals, and deeply rooted, historically and legally, in finances. Marriages amount to the assumption that two people share financial burdens, operating fiscally as a single unit (obviously not entirely--they can still act individually if they so choose, after all--but the assumption can be made that things like houses or cars are the result of a mutual decision). This is particularly important when it comes to such matters as responsibility for children--after all, a parent assumes the responsibility of the child when they agree to give birth to it (and if they do not relinquish said control to someone else, which is always possible).

Rand argued that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and Piekoff continues that line of argument. Hsieh, on the other hand, is a bit more open about things. My view is, an individual can enter into whatever contracts they like, and marriage is no different. The government, because it cannot initiate force (nothing can), cannot force people to enter into only one kind of contract, nor can they dictate who can enter into it.

...snip...

Thank you for that I'll have to read it a few times before I respond but it looks an interesting starting point.

 

[Darat]

This is only applicable to a society in which there are no Objectivists or Libertarians. It does not apply in the society I am referring to, because in order to exist the dominant portion of the society would have to agree with Ayn Rand. Be very cautious about second guessing their behavior on your skimpy knowledge of the philosophy and its implications.

So your arguments have no bearing on the real world. You are talking about what many science fiction and fantasy writers do that is called world building.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

So I've quoted one person demonstrating that they are unfamiliar with basic arguments made by Rand, and now have your own words saying that you don't know what's happening in modern Objectivism. Thus, we can now conclude that TWO peopel don't know enough about Objectivism to criticize it (you're more honest, in that you at least can criticize SOME of Objectivism).

As that's my main point, and always has been, I consider that vastly more important than any discussion of specific O'ist ideas in this conversation.

Well no one can say I didn't try to initiate a friendly discussion, since you've simply hand-waved away anyone that does not meet your criteria as being worthy of discussing Objectivism I'll leave it at that. It's a shame.

 

[Darat]

I don't trust people to be rational. I hardly trust myself to be.
Is Objectivism meant for humans or only fictional characters?

It is all based on how one person thought other people should be rather than how people actually are, so yes it is really only useful for fictional characters. Really can recommend Beggars in Spain if you want to see how well it can be used in fiction.

 

[tsig]

Objectivism recognizes one single fundamental alternative operative in every principle regarding moral human interrelationships: freedom v. force.

Slavery is the epitome of a use of force to coerce the actions of an otherwise free (autonomous) person—i.e. it violates a person's absolute right to his life and thus is a crime.

If I have enough force I can take away your freedom, so far your only solution is to apply more force to me so that I can't take your freedom. This looks remarkably like the world as it is now.

 

[tsig]

I think you're agreeing with me but, really, why would Consumer Reports launch an investigation if there were no external standards to be met? Critics of regulations should really look into why the Consumers Union exists. It's not as though consumers were aware of the potential problems with the products that were harming them and decided "Objectivistly" to form an investigative body. Not only was it a response to regulations (sometimes deemed insufficient to protect consumers rights) but it was decidedly "un-Objectivist" in its approach to consumer protection. It was so much so that organisations like the Consumers Union were widely believed to be subversive and Communist. Not without reason, either.

I'm about as pro-business as can be on this particular forum and I myself understand the need for public policy and regulation. For one thing, it helps protect my own investment of time and money because I know directly where I stand regarding any corporate innovation, new product roll-out, and even in merger and acquisition negotiations.

I would enjoy the fun times that complete deregulation of everything would entail but I happen to like a bit of chaos. I can't imagine how the true Objectivists would respond, however, as all the freshly unregulated and unpoliced individuals tricked them out of all their stuff and left them as beggars. They just don't think it would happen to them but, believe me, most of those I've met would be the easiest to fool.

Why bother to fool them, just tell them that you can make better use of their assets than they can and take them.

 

[tsig]

I did not propose such. I said that the homesteading of unowned land was a rational process, and that those who were there previously and did not claim land by the principle of owning added value had no legitimate claim to it.

Ownership does not derive from just being there.

Do you own where you live and how are you adding value to it right now? Can I claim it if you're not utilizing it to my standards?

 

[tsig]

I'll share one thing with you, tsig. In the Objectivist SuperHappyRandWorld nation, I'll quit my job in the bat of an eye and join the police force. Hopefully as a Commander or Captain or whatever the superior rank is called.

Ka-CHING!! Practically unfettered power.

I think I'll join at a lower level since there's going to be unlimited loot and if a counter revolution happens you're more likely to get the chop.


Ain't O'ism fun?

(personally if someone is not using their property as a whorehouse or crack warehouse I think they're under-utilizing it so we better confiscate it.)

 

[stilicho]

Great more nonsense just to make a stupid joke. Just what part of "enumerated powers" and "checks and balances" have you not yet studied in school?

Not nonsense. Not a joke. Not stupid. Although I'm replying to tsig, there, it's a commentary on your own words just last page:

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.

You say "enumerated powers" on this page but exactly how is "enumerated powers" not a form of coercion? How are the police to know exactly whose property rights are being violated and how?

We can go back to the illustration of the aviation industry. There are no flight paths, no investigative body, no CVRs or FDRs, no non-smoking regulations on aircraft. There is essentially a huge void that the police fill by arbitrarily choosing among the rights of the property owner upon whom the flaming wreckage lands and the rights of the property owner upon whose aircraft the lit cigarette caused the damage.

However, nobody would even know that's what happened unless Anti-Business Reports wrote an article about it. They wouldn't, of course, since the air carrier could be the one publishing the ABR anyhow.

And don't forget the property rights of each and every passenger and the rights of their insurance companies and the shareholders of those companies who are protecting their own assets by filing claims all over the map because they clearly wouldn't know which one of the passengers had violated all the others' rights.

None of these claims would be based on any regulation whatsoever so it would be pretty easy to accept the evidence produced by the party with the fattest wallet. The only other option (assuming nobody in the Objectivist world could possibly justify being corrupt) is that the case would slowly work its way through a jungle of property rights claims and counter-claims, each side shouting down the other as "savages" or anything else that comes to mind that might limit personal liability.

This isn't a fantasy or a "stupid joke". It's exactly how it would work in an Objectivist world without regulation.

 

[Foster Zygote]

How do you paper over the unreinforced nuclear plants that meltdown next to the nursery school? "Medicines" that cause permanent harm? Or the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each generation? Isn't it just that belief that it won't happen to you, so, who cares?

In a nutshell, yes.

From the link in post #7:

In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

In her early notes for The Fountainhead: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" (Journals, p. 78.)

In the original version of her first novel We the Living: "What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" (This declaration is made by the heroine Kira, Rand's stand-in; it is quoted in The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ronald Merrill, pp. 38 - 39; the passage was altered when the book was reissued years after its original publication.)

On the value of human life: Man "is man only so long as he functions in accordance with the nature of a rational being. When he chooses to function otherwise, he is no longer man. There is no proper name for the thing which he then becomes ... When a man chooses to act in a sub-human manner, it is no longer proper for him to survive nor to be happy." (Journals, pp. 253-254, 288.)