James Randi and Objectivism

[The Norseman]

Who do you think rises to the top?

All humans, given the chance, will screw over other humans that they are not intimately acquainted with to get themselves, or their intimate acquaintances a better deal. Always.

What's your evidence for this statement?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What's your evidence for this statement?

Seriously?

 

[joesixpack]

I have a question for the Objectivists. What do you do with sociopaths? There have always been people who put their own welfare above that of others. How do they fare in an Objectivist "utopia"?

Well, Objectivists actually won't treat sociopaths any differently than we do now. They will will continue to be separated from society and confined to corporate boards of directors and elected office where they will do no harm.

Please, give me my taxes and regulations, since they seem to be the only things that protect me from human nature, which seems to me to be utterly contradictory to what Objectivists in this thread have described it as.

Actually, I agree with objectivists in regards to human nature. I think that for the most part, people behave in a cooperative manner without coercion or regulation. Human nature will return a lost wallet with the money still in it.

Where objectivists and I differ is in the belief that human nature will remain consistent as one rises from the working class, through the bourgeoisie and into the capital class. As the rewards for keeping the wallet, and our distance from the person losing that wallet increase, human nature is overtaken by self interest. A friend of mine once called it "The worst of you getting the better of you."

The problem isn't that objectivists are heartless capitalists, they aren't. The problem with objectivists is that they don't actually believe that heartless capitalists exist. Furthermore,they underestimate the ruthlessness with which the capital class will protect their own interests, and they greatly OVERestimate their own ability to influence the behavior of the capital class.

 

[The Norseman]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I am a person who does not screw people over and I personally know people who do not screw others over, even when "given the opportunity."

Even if you had said 'the vast majority of people do such and such' I still would want some evidence of it. As it stands, it's a rather ridiculous statement, which frankly surprises me coming from you especially in light of the fact that I have had a tremendous amount of respect for what you say since I joined JREF. Even when I (rarely) disagree with you, I still admire your way of presenting your side and evidence.

Anyway, take it as you will.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's why regulatory groups have to exist. Once the free market is left totally to itself, waste and bloating are an inevitable outcome, because all the people involved with the process will line their own pockets.

I'm not going to try to claim that an unregulated market was the cause of the 2008 GFC, but it was certainly a major contributing factor.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, seriously. I am a person who does not screw people over and I personally know people who do not screw others over, even when "given the opportunity."

Even if you had said 'the vast majority of people do such and such' I still would want some evidence of it. As it stands, it's a rather ridiculous statement, which frankly surprises me coming from you especially in light of the fact that I have had a tremendous amount of respect for what you say since I joined JREF. Even when I (rarely) disagree with you, I still admire your way of presenting your side and evidence.

Anyway, take it as you will.

I'll tell you what. You take a trip to Sudan, and come back and tell us how people don't screw others over.

 

[Gazpacho]

One day every knee shall bend and every head shall bow...

 

[joesixpack]

I'll tell you what. You take a trip to Sudan, and come back and tell us how people don't screw others over.

Even in Sudan, the overwhelming majority of people are cooperative if not altruistic. It doesn't take a majority of sociopaths to turn a nation into a Sudan. In fact, it only takes a few to take advantage of the desperation of people who aren't sociopathic. A warlord's army is filled with soldiers who are loyal to one another (though they aren't altruistic to those outside of their faction). If they weren't, there would be no possibility of coordinated effort.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Education. When a significant portion of the population of any particular nation rediscovers thinking and begins to recognize how much more civilized a society would be wherein coercion would be prohibited, policies would gradually change: those who want to be able to take from others and dictate their lives whenever they can manage to outnumber their victims will gradually be outnumbered by those who want to interact with their fellow man on a voluntary basis.

The progress of Ayn Rand's influence has been phenomenal from 1960 to now. If her ideas were not succeeding and threatening the old ways the commenters here cling to so desperately, this thread would not be 8 pages long. No one would pay attention to it.

GoogleAlerts sends me notifications of multiple threads about Ayn Rand and Objectivism every day. There are Objectivist scholars now with chairs in Universities, and school teachers request over a million copies of her books each year from the Ayn Rand Institute. Libertarian TV hosts like Judge Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel quote Rand and invite guests from the Ayn Rand Center think tank to appear on their shows frequently. Atlas Shrugged is now 50 years later still in the top of the Amazon best seller lists in its category, and on, and on....

And if pigs had wings, they still could not fly on this planet -- per the Square-Cube Law.

From Google:

l ron hubbard About 4,520,000 results

scientology About 16,500,000 results

ayn rand About 33,500,000 results

objectivism About 1,910,000 results

karl marx About 37,600,000 results

communism About 38,500,000 results

Do not underestimate the difference between the potential success of a philosophy that has to sell the public on the benefits of being a victim of coercion from that of a philosophy teaching them the benefits of freedom.

OK. If not pie today, then pie tomorrow.

Marx believed that labour was the key.

Rand believed that property was the key.

History shows that neither is correct.

 

[arthwollipot]

Even in Sudan, the overwhelming majority of people are cooperative if not altruistic. It doesn't take a majority of sociopaths to turn a nation into a Sudan. In fact, it only takes a few to take advantage of the desperation of people who aren't sociopathic. A warlord's army is filled with soldiers who are loyal to one another (though they aren't altruistic to those outside of their faction). If they weren't, there would be no possibility of coordinated effort.

Yes, which is pretty much my point. A very few sociopaths can screw things over for a huge number of people. I'd like to know what Objectivists would do about them.

 

[joesixpack]

And if pigs had wings, they still could not fly on this planet -- per the Square-Cube Law.

From Google:

ayn rand About 33,500,000 results

objectivism About 1,910,000 results

karl marx About 37,600,000 results

communism About 38,500,000 results

Looks like Karl's not serving pie to Ayn, he's serving up a little whup-ass.

Actually, as far as a descriptive perspective on history and social dynamics, Marx wins hands down. Rand doesn't even make the attempt to explain the motives of economic and social conflict.

As far as prescriptive, they're both falling short.

 

[joesixpack]

Yes, which is pretty much my point. A very few sociopaths can screw things over for a huge number of people. I'd like to know what Objectivists would do about them.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were agreeing with "the vast majority" part of MarkCorrigan's post.

 

[The Norseman]

I'll tell you what. You take a trip to Sudan, and come back and tell us how people don't screw others over.

Yes, which is pretty much my point. A very few sociopaths can screw things over for a huge number of people. I'd like to know what Objectivists would do about them.

I don't know what O'ists would do, so perhaps a person who knows more about that can comment.

You seem to be taking it as a truism that "All humans, given the chance, will screw over other humans that they are not intimately acquainted with to get themselves, or their intimate acquaintances a better deal. Always."

So first you seemed to agree and defend MarkCorrigan's generalization, then you said that a very few sociopaths can screw things over for a huge number of people. So which is it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. There are more than too many greedy selfish people in the world. But they are not in the majority. If they were things would be worse than they are.

I learned this lesson personally traveling in third world countries. Most people are decent. Maybe if you don't know that you should get out more.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll tell you what. You take a trip to Sudan, and come back and tell us how people don't screw others over.

You cite limited experience, I don't doubt you can find difficult areas in the world to travel in at any time in history. I suggest you travel to Rwanda currently and see how they've recovered from one of the worst genocides in history.

As a young traveler seeing the world for the first time, I'll always remember leaving my pack with a poor Guatemalan woman I paid to watch it. I returned much later than I had said I would seriously inconveniencing her. Yet there she was when I returned. She could have stolen my things or just left them. But she didn't.

In the Dominican Republic a family rented a room to me, a young woman traveling alone. When I came back one day after being out and about the mother of the house was concerned about my safety and reputation. It was remarkable, a stranger worried about my safety and reputation.

A couple in New Zealand took us home for lunch. A couple in Japan went miles out of their way to take us to our destination when we missed the bus. A family in Fiji let us camp in their backyard and invited us to dinner, no money was ever exchanged. These are the kinds of things I've experienced all over the world again and again.

I'll take my many anecdotes over your single citation of a crappy place to be at the moment any day.


None of this, BTW, makes Ayn Rand's assumptions about people valid.

 

[arthwollipot]

So first you seemed to agree and defend MarkCorrigan's generalization, then you said that a very few sociopaths can screw things over for a huge number of people. So which is it?

It's kinda both. There are good people in the world and there are bad people. Objectivism seems to be based on the idea that there are only good people.

I'll take my many anecdotes over your single citation of a crappy place to be at the moment any day.

I could cite more, but you're right - there wouldn't be much point because there will be counterexamples. I'm not as cynical as MarkCorrigan in suggesting that all people will always be crappy to each other (even though I don't believe that was what he was suggesting anyway) but I'm certainly not going along with MichaelM's assertion that when properly educated about Objectivist philosophy, all people will always be good to each other.

Anyway, my original question was directed at MichaelM and dinwar: how does Objectivism deal with sociopaths?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes, seriously. I am a person who does not screw people over and I personally know people who do not screw others over, even when "given the opportunity."

Even if you had said 'the vast majority of people do such and such' I still would want some evidence of it. As it stands, it's a rather ridiculous statement, which frankly surprises me coming from you especially in light of the fact that I have had a tremendous amount of respect for what you say since I joined JREF. Even when I (rarely) disagree with you, I still admire your way of presenting your side and evidence.

Anyway, take it as you will.

Look back at history. I will admit my statement was a tad sweeping, but throughout history people have been screwing one another over for the slightest advantage. Take for example the 2008 crash. The bankers, unless they had recently hit their heads very forcefully, knew that sub-prime mortgages were bound to eventually collapse and take everyone else down but they did it anyway.

Look at various corporations. They cause mass deforestation, they charge entire cities above odds for their own water supply because they bought it, and in China where regulators are far less powerful and far more influenced by corporate pressure, they lowered the dairy standards to the point where they are potentially dangerous and among the lowest in the world.

Look at the Blitz in the 1940's. Forget all the propaganda about Brits coming together and all being a force for good. There was widespread crime, especially looting. Link. Link. Link.

Look at The Soviet Union. What started out as a mass revolution by the stamped on lowest classes turned into a monster of a state, rife with kickbacks, fraud, mass murder and oppression of those it claimed to be there to help on a scale potentially worse than that of the Tsarist system it replaced.

Look at the Milgram experiment. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. Hell, look at the Asch conformity experiments.

When put in a situation where it would benefit those nearest and dearest, people can turn on their own, and willingly do. Sure, I might have been hyperbolic (it was late and I was tired, after all) but human nature conspires against itself. Whenever there is an absence of regulatory systems, those with the money call the shots. In those situations, they are more likely to use their influence against those complaining, and most "regular" people are more likely to conform.

 

[Leumas]

Whenever there is an absence of regulatory systems, those with the money call the shots. In those situations, they are more likely to use their influence against those complaining, and most "regular" people are more likely to conform.

Even with the presence of regulation.... the ones with the money will eventually change said regulations to enable them to do a lot more than just call the shots...... in the USA it is called lobbyists and CONGRESS.

How else can a family, earning $200K end up paying over 25% taxes while a person earning $45M pays only 13.5%?

If you rob a $10M from a bank and are caught you will go to jail for eons. If you rob $10B from a bank you will OWN it and the government will give you more just so that you keep on doing it.

I cannot think of ANYTHING that man has done and started out for the general good that has not eventually been USURPED by dastardly psychopaths and turned into an instrument for exploitation in one way or another.

Seriously…. I would really love to have someone on this forum think about ONE THING that has been invented for the good of humans and has not eventually been used for exploitation.

Maybe I should start a separate thread for that?

 

[joesixpack]

I both agree and disagree with this whole post.

Look back at history. I will admit my statement was a tad sweeping, but throughout history people have been screwing one another over for the slightest advantage. Take for example the 2008 crash. The bankers, unless they had recently hit their heads very forcefully, knew that sub-prime mortgages were bound to eventually collapse and take everyone else down but they did it anyway.

Yes, it is a tad sweeping, and yes, bankers are part of the minority of sociopaths.

Look at various corporations. They cause mass deforestation, they charge entire cities above odds for their own water supply because they bought it, and in China where regulators are far less powerful and far more influenced by corporate pressure, they lowered the dairy standards to the point where they are potentially dangerous and among the lowest in the world.

In spite of what various politicians on the right (especially here in the US) tell us, Corporations are not People. If corporations are people, then they're sociopaths.

Corporations are a social constructions that are operated by rational people. In a sense, because they seek to accomplish a goal and go about it in a rational manner, they are "conscious" entities. But because they don't actually have any emotional motivations or needs (the structure of decision making is designed to limit the influence of emotion) they have no 'conscience'. Consciousness without conscience is "sociopathy" as far as I'm concerned.

Corporations feel no shame, they have no sense of guilt, they have no social drives, or empathy. No nagging conscience keeps them awake at night. They will do whatever they can get away with.

Normal people are not like this.

Look at the Blitz in the 1940's. Forget all the propaganda about Brits coming together and all being a force for good. There was widespread crime, especially looting. Link. Link. Link.

Your links actually demonstrate the opposite, that only a very small minority take advantage of their neighbors. And remember, the nation was under wartime rationing, so most people were short on things as it was. So even among a population facing deprivation, only a very small percentage actually took part in looting. Most figures I've seen place sociopaths at about 4% of the population.

Look at The Soviet Union. What started out as a mass revolution by the stamped on lowest classes turned into a monster of a state, rife with kickbacks, fraud, mass murder and oppression of those it claimed to be there to help on a scale potentially worse than that of the Tsarist system it replaced.

The Soviet Union is an excellent example of what happens when a sociopath gets loose among the earnest revolutionaries. Stalin is the ultimate bogyman of the objectivist. Unfortunately they seem to think that granting corporations total deregulation will prevent despotism.

Look at the Milgram experiment. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. Hell, look at the Asch conformity experiments.

These experiments demonstrate how social pressures actually reinforce conformity. I think the wrong lesson to take from this is that human nature is cynical and self serving. The principal which they clearly demonstrate is that humans are social animals and that their behavior will conform to social norms. If those norms are altruistic and fair, then they will tend to behave in that way.

My own opinion (for which I have no study or data to back up) is that people are naturally altruistic, and members of a society that reinforces altruism will all benefit (so long as we figure out a way of identifying and ostracising the sociopaths)

When put in a situation where it would benefit those nearest and dearest, people can turn on their own, and willingly do. Sure, I might have been hyperbolic (it was late and I was tired, after all) but human nature conspires against itself. Whenever there is an absence of regulatory systems, those with the money call the shots. In those situations, they are more likely to use their influence against those complaining, and most "regular" people are more likely to conform.

Altruism is a complex human behavior. I don't think such sweeping statements can be made about it. I can (and sometimes do) behave very selfishly, but I can also be quite altruistic. Most people who consider themselves good and trustworthy will still profit from the crimes of others if those crimes are sufficiently adjudicated. For example, we may complain about the actions of a particular corporation, yet we often profit as shareholders (through mutual fund investments and retirement accounts) from those very actions. We may decry child labor, yet without a second thought we buy cheap clothes off the rack at Walmart.

As a general rule, the more removed we are from another individual (geographically or socially), the less likely we are to be altruistic towards that individual..

 

[Leumas]

Your links actually demonstrate the opposite, that only a very small minority take advantage of their neighbors. And remember, the nation was under wartime rationing, so most people were short on things as it was. So even among a population facing deprivation, only a very small percentage actually took part in looting. Most figures I've seen place sociopaths at about 4% of the population.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/ThomasShippAbramSmith.jpg


- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg

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