Freedom and Virtue
Posted by JohnBrown 10 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
Is a high degree of responsibility necessary for the people to live in freedom? Do the people have to be responsible, honest, and hard-working—in a word, virtuous—before they can handle freedom? It can be a chicken-and-egg argument, certainly. Do the people lose their virtue and then lose their liberty? Or, do they gradually lose their liberty and then lose their virtue, in proportion? The cause and effect is important, because it provides a clue about how best to restore freedom. If the former, then the people must be taught virtue again, presumably by the State. But this approach is hopeless and absurd. Or, the people might somehow be drawn again to religion and absorb the moral teachings therein.
To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.
—James Madison
In any case, if the people lose their virtue and then lose their freedom, there would need to be a moral revival before we could return to freedom. But if the people lose their liberty and then their virtue, the approach is more straightforward: set them free. When people are free to face the full consequences of making poor or immoral choices; when sloth, greed, envy, lying, cheating, stealing, unreliability, and broken promises have real social and economic consequences, they will be induced to become more virtuous. When the State penalizes saving and investment, when it taxes incomes and wealth away, and when it provides unearned benefits for free, it not only discourages positive, productive behavior, it rewards bad character at the same time. It subsidizes bad behavior.
To reward responsibility and penalize irresponsibility, we don't need a moral revival first. Just set everyone free. Let people make mistakes, let them live by their own choices. Let them learn, let them experiment, let them cooperate. Wards of the State are not self-reliant, competent, independent individuals. In freedom, individuals build good character. In freedom, relationships are strengthened; societies become more virtuous. Harry Browne wrote an article on this topic that addresses the issue quite well.
To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.
—James Madison
In any case, if the people lose their virtue and then lose their freedom, there would need to be a moral revival before we could return to freedom. But if the people lose their liberty and then their virtue, the approach is more straightforward: set them free. When people are free to face the full consequences of making poor or immoral choices; when sloth, greed, envy, lying, cheating, stealing, unreliability, and broken promises have real social and economic consequences, they will be induced to become more virtuous. When the State penalizes saving and investment, when it taxes incomes and wealth away, and when it provides unearned benefits for free, it not only discourages positive, productive behavior, it rewards bad character at the same time. It subsidizes bad behavior.
To reward responsibility and penalize irresponsibility, we don't need a moral revival first. Just set everyone free. Let people make mistakes, let them live by their own choices. Let them learn, let them experiment, let them cooperate. Wards of the State are not self-reliant, competent, independent individuals. In freedom, individuals build good character. In freedom, relationships are strengthened; societies become more virtuous. Harry Browne wrote an article on this topic that addresses the issue quite well.
The desire to be free in men is easily illustrated by prisons. Even though all their needs are attended to except for freedom, most prisoners would give anything to be free. Free will and the exercise thereof is why repressive societies inevitably crumble, but the question yet to be answered is why do people fall for societies that go against their very nature? The problem is freedom requires self-reliance. At this point, I will need more space than would be feasible in order to cover the difference between true humans and those who have given up their humanity for the chimera of dependence.
You are also an advanced nail-hitter.
Sounds like something God might say.
Some people have wondered if Joan of Arc was an accident of history. I reply, depends on if you're looking at it from man's perspective or God's perspective.
But reason is not everything. There must also be faith. I think many choices are clear and obvious, but people lack the faith to pick the road with the better destination because the path may be difficult or somewhat nebulous. Stepping into the great unknown can be a terrifying thing when one is relying on only a vision for a guide.
Naturally, my first thought was, "what in the heck am I doing here?"
Who was it who said that man is the only animal who can blush, or needs to? The responsibility of choice boils down to think or not to think. At times it's more comfortable not to think. Not to move. To enter a state of nothingness as the Buddhists revere. Instead of blanking out, you must think and evaluate and act. Remember, you are not a tree.
Interviewer: If you were a hot dog, what kind would you be?
Zen Buddhist: I'd be one with everything.
One of the many lines attributed to the character Lazarus Long
The blush line, that is
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
Time Enough For Love.
One or more of the books where Lazarus Long appeared. It is a good line, and was used more than once.
What you describe as faith is nonsense. I've jumped out of a plane several times. Never did I expect God to spare my life (but the damned chute packer better have done the job right, or they would have had some 'splainin' to do).
The training you receive during Ground Week and Tower Week builds one's belief in your training, your equipment, and yourself. By the time you hit Jump Week, you're ready to go, and it seems perfectly right, and rational.
I was driving to work one day and it occurred to me that living in the 20th century and not knowing how to fly a plane was absurd. Flying lessons led to parachuting. I achieved soloing but got too busy earning a living to carry either endeavor any further.
I did a parachute jump once. It was fun. Never got around to a 2nd time and now my legs are shot. Don't think I'd like it as a profession, though.
A lesson in taking personal responsibility.
We are creatures of time and space. (Can't wait until someone tries to turn that sentence around!)
I reject that definition as wholly false. The dictionary doesn't try to pigeon-hole faith in this manner and I would ask that you not do so either. Faith is action towards an anticipated but not yet realized result. That's it. It is simple and not mystic. Faith isn't limited to the sphere of the divine - it is a product of man's inability to discern the reality of the future and instead forces man to speculate on the possibility instead.
The example about jumping out of a plane is pure hyperbole and especially ridiculous to anyone who believes in God. Faith would be jumping out WITH a parachute: you have full expectation that the parachute will open but until it actually does, you have only anticipation - not reality. Looking forward to a future event and acting to reach it is faith.
Faith becomes reality once the goal is achieved. It is when you prove that A = A. Until that happens, you only theorize it. You act with faith to put forth effort and expend the resources necessary to test the theory. A person under the influence of fear doesn't act to test the theory - regardless of how logical the idea is. A fearful person never opens his own business despite a great idea. A fearful person never climbs into the plane to go skydiving. A fearful person never takes risks - despite the logic that tells him that the payout is worth it. Fear stymies logic.
"Faith designates blind acceptance of certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of proof. - Leonard Peikoff
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only is a short-circuit destroying the mind.
--Ayn Rand
One can have faith that if they placed a single bet on Red, let it ride ten times, they would have enough for their entire family.
I'm pretty sure there is a faulty premise somewhere in the thought that an atheist is excluded from expert knowledge regarding faith—just because of their atheism. That kind of logic could eliminate knowledge of atheism by the faithful...an amusing thought, but not a fair one. :)
Can any human become an expert of the supernatural?
One is free to value her opinion on the matter or not. However, to assume that Rand speaks authoritatively on matters of faith would make her...
a prophet(ess). A person of faith. The same "faith" she derides and openly scorns. If she were here, I think even she would agree with me that that is not a role she pretends to.
Now, in order to create a hypothesis about something, one must begin by attempting to define the thing(s) in question. If a definition is invalid, no hypothesis formed or test created will verify the Reality of something that isn't real. I can't find anything in Rand's writings where she stops long enough to try to define the "god" she is looking to try to disprove. The YouTube videos of her conversations have her immediately dismissing God as irrational and moving on. Piekoff's work similarly spends about two sentences coming to the same conclusion. For a topic with such profound implications, that seems to me to be a grave and fundamentally flawed oversight.
As an example: "finds no proof in the test...both the hypothesis is valid and the test is valid and the test confirmed both hypothesis and conclusion", no wonder we can't communicate.
That's enough of this.
"Stepping into the great unknown can be a terrifying thing when one is relying on only a vision for a guide." That's why man makes plans. To carry out his visions. You can build a plan from your faith, but without reason, you might as well have no plan. Faith, in and of itself, will not see you delivered from a concentration camp, build a tidy retirement, flee a police state. Look to History to see this. Even Joan of Arc had goals and worked to achieve them. I think for the wrong reasons, but...
It's very interesting that you mention Joan d'Arc, as she was a quintessential example of faith. She saw a vision and moved forward with the intent to carry it out. She had faith that she could accomplish the goal and dispelled the fear that prevents many from doing the same. Faith is the opposite of fear.
I see people all the time who despite rationally acknowledging that one path is better, lack the drive or motivation (I call it faith) to change - to take the path. They are _afraid_. Reason is critical to identifying the path, but faith gets you moving down it.
And perhaps her being burned at the stake was the motivation for the French to drive the English from France. How could the Maid of Orleans intuit the need for national identity after a millenium of constant attempts at power grabbing?
Anyway, you should read her story, it is well-documented. Try to view her success within the context of the last 1,000 years of European history.
How do YOU explain Joan of Arc? Again, before answering, read up on it.--Her trial, and subsequent Reconciliation.
Yes, there are many religions that present very obvious contradictions, as I pointed out with the Nicean Creed. But one should be aware of two potential fallacies with declaring ALL religions to be absurd: 1) that you have categorically studied all religions and 2) that because they are called a religion they must be false. One is a fallacy of inclusion and the other is a fallacy of association.
The only way to test the validity of any proposed philosophy (or religion - which is philosophy by another name) is to test its tenets or principles. Speculation must be followed up with action.
religion |riˈlijən| noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods:
philosophy |fəˈläsəfē| noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. See also natural philosophy.
While I can understand the natural desire to lend some gravitas to your faith and the extent of your belief in it, religion and philosophy are in no way the same or share in definition. That is not an insignificant matter, it only adds to the complications of an objectivist attempting to carry on a discussion with the religious or vice versa.
It would seem to me that it's an obvious matter, that in order to carry on a conversation with another, that the use of a common language is essential. Speaking only as a participant on this site, I personally have no difficulty with the religious also wanting to participate, but since it is not the objectivist going to the religious to initiate the conversation, it's in fact the opposite, the onus appears to be on the religious to learn the language necessary to converse here. IMHO
For it to be wholly inclusive, a philosophy can not be complete without solid answers to the questions of man's existence, purpose, and ultimate disposition. These are questions that are part of the whole of truth - whether you call them religion or philosophy.
According to my conversations here, the Objectivist is concerned with Reality and the study of what constitutes Reality. That is Definition at its very heart. Understanding of the true nature of a thing means being able to Define something in abject detail so that there is no ambiguity, no sliver of doubt as to what a thing IS. Definitions are critical, and are the underpinning for EVERY rational or logical construct. The very simplest way to invalidate a theory is to show the definition to be flawed. Thus it should be of the utmost concern to every philosopher - especially Objectivists - to ensure that the definitions they employ are accurate and logically sound. We did not pigeon-hole the description of the atom to Niels Bohr's model, but delved deeper until we found quarks, and then strings. So too should we be willing to revisit definitions when called upon. To do anything else would be to render Rand's pronouncements equivalent to Bible verse, making her the "god" of the Objectivists - a title she would surely repudiate.
Regardless of your opinion on the validity of my assertion, do you agree that the statement thus formed is rational and logical, and that barring the precedent being proven to be invalid, that the conclusion would in fact be valid?
Enough, until you're willing to accept a common language and proper applications of logic. Until then we're only babbling.
I think the thing that may be confusing to many who don't believe in God is the idea that God is controlling you - that you are only an automaton if you choose to believe and follow the dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth. This life is an understudy to prepare for the next. There are rules that govern it and we are given this probationary period in order to test our abilities to live them - or not. Call them the ultimate in natural law. How we fare on the test will determine our level of freedom in the next life - those who can not (or will not) live the principles of a free society will by those very choices live in a place not afforded all the freedoms of one who did. We build our own prisons - or mansions - through our actions here. The principles of God don't force me to live a certain way, they just tell me what I will have to do in order to secure the greatest amount of freedom hereafter.
But then again, since you probably don't believe in the hereafter, all this to you is moot. But if we both live the principles of natural law here, why such animosity because I claim knowledge of something greater?
_______________________________
Your "claim" is derived from a contradiction to those natural laws. I know you likely don't believe it a contradiction. However, that logical error tries to place Consciousness (god or man's) in the position of creating Existence. Existence ceases to axiomatic because what it _is_, depends on who is telling the story. So, A doesn't equal A sometimes; other times it might; and other times it morphs back and forth in your mind.
That crucial difference in whether reality IS, or was created, is not taken lightly in Objectivism. When someone asserts there is not any logical problem which has primacy, then that assertion must be challenged. If not, then the day will come when someone has enough power to try and force me to bow to his revelation/interpretation of reality.
I don't claim that. If you read the Hebrew account of Genesis and the creation of this world, the word used is more appropriately rendered "organized". "Creation" never meant something from nothing. It is a straw man fallacy.
What I hold is that intelligence existed before this life and will exist after this life. It merely changes in form. You assume that there is a contradiction when there is none.
How is it you acquired knowledge of this "intelligence"?
Where you see life as a straight line with fences of your faith from birth to death, I see it as a tree starting at birth with all kinds of branches to be explored in a limited amount of time. Some of those branches may lead to something I don't like, so I back up -- some may lead to a great experience, and some may just be so-so. There's even some that won't support me if I go to far out on it, so I back up or jump to another. But they're all there as a part of the one life I have on this earth and this reality.
The argument I have with the religious is their attempts to equate rational reasoning and life experience with faith, particularly on a site that supports AR, AS, and rational reasoning. Until and unless you can demonstrate a factual relationship between the two, why bring it up? You should know by now what response you're going to get.
If a principle is ageless, time matters not, would you not agree? If the principles are ones of natural law, they would have been in effect before we were born and would exist after we are gone.
" I see it as a tree starting at birth..."
I will use the analogy of a road instead. I am not a parallel being able to explore multiple branches of decisions simultaneously. There are certainly many side roads and exits we may take. As pointed out by Lewis Carroll's Cheshire Cat: if you don't know where you're headed, it really doesn't matter what road you choose.
I have a goal in mind, however: to live my life in such a way that the consequences of my actions will promote me rather than hold me back in the next life. Some choices in this life very literally hold me back from opportunities in the hereafter. What you see as fences I view as reminders that if I stray, I may not reach my goal.
"The argument I have with the religious is their attempts to equate rational reasoning and life experience with faith, particularly on a site that supports AR, AS, and rational reasoning."
What I find highly ironic is that you place your faith in a definition of faith invented by a person who didn't believe in faith in the first place. The contradiction between logic and faith only exists because Rand created it. It is a straw man argument. If we toss out her definition and look at faith as I have explained, suddenly reason and faith are companions - not competitors. Fear is the true antagonist of reason. Fear is the basis of prejudice. Fear prevents change and opposes risk. I see the enemy of reason not to be faith, but fear.
I put forth my alternative hypothesis in the hopes that even one person might seriously consider it. In my view, we all existed together before this life and agreed to work together to make it through. Why should I care? That's another definitional debate: the meaning of love.
Virtue is a hard-earned state, denying self-indulgence and requiring sacrifice. American minorities poured their blood in military service to secure the freedoms promised in our Constitution.
Freedom is contextual. It does not mean a freaking jungle. It is freedom to live and thrive as the type of beings we are with gives rise to ethics. They are not a free floating abstraction.
It does not require "sacrifice". That is exactly what is NOT required. [Re]read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and get back to us. :)
Historically, civilized societies grew from barbarian roots. A sense of ethical behavior developed that established rules by which everyone understood the bounds of freedom. The concept of freedom as we understand it is the result of a long evolution from the uncontrolled, no rules "freedom" of the wild to civilized society. Ethics have to evolve in order for freedom to have a firm existence.
People are free because freedom is required for human beings, individually, to be the best they can be. Responsibility, honesty, productivity require freedom. So asking whether people have enough of these qualities to be free rather entirely misses the point.
There is no such thing as virtue where there is no freedom to choose and act upon one's choice.
Granted, there are radicals from each of those countries, but there are enough people who are virtuous that their societies will grow in stature over the next generation. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Lebanon are not stable enough to improve any time soon.
Read
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Di...
It is a reasonable evolution of AR philosophy.
1. Providing knowledge of technologies or science
2. Taking actions to generally affect a society's overall development
3. Taking actions which support one faction within a society over another
4. Helping a society escape the negative consequences of its own actions
5. Helping a society escape a natural disaster known to the society, even if inaction would result in a society's extinction.
6. Subverting or avoiding the application of a society's laws
7. Interfering in the internal affairs of a society
Several of these, particularly 4 and 7 could have come right out of AS.
I don't get where you brought up slavery from. It has nothing to do with what I was discussing.
My point is the expense of the military power was a mistake. Iraq and Afghanistan are not developed enough countries. Our interactions with them could not have resulted in good for them. The virtue must come first.
By the way, no US president has followed these principles since Calvin Coolidge, my favorite president.
#1. Business
#2 As a result of #1
#3 No problem
#4 No problem except as a result of #1
#5 Unless in self interest from #1
#6 Don't understand why one shouldn't avoid the application of other's laws.
#7 No problem except as a result of #1
Personally, I get uncomfortable with including the NAP under the heading of Objectivism. AR talked of not using force or coercion instead of your own productivity and as a response to others that attempted to use such against you or your property. But I still contend that pre-emptive action is allowable when it is obvious that some other has the means and intent to start such action. Nor do I necessarily agree that responsive force be strictly limited to some form of equitable force. If you're in a situation where you have to respond with force to get someone to stop or prevent them from using force against yourself, the rules are out the window. If you insist on only equitable force, you've obviously never been in an actual fight initiated by another intent on harming you.
As it applies to attacking Al Quaida directly and their supporters, Taliban. We were right. As to Iraq, I'll never agree that we had any business there, but once the reality of being there is brought in, then we should have stayed and finished it.
The US has subtly enslaved much of the rest of the world (including itself) via debt.
Period.
You and I will disagree where national treasure was used in a war. no choice. heck, as we showed in Germany, we'll help you rebuild. We like stable governments to trade with. No stable government was put into place in the hot wars over there.
Maybe it happens like this. A few people don't rise to the occasion. Well-meaning people see we could easily force them to make a few better decisions and improve their lives. They sell these programs, though, as being for everyone. Once they're in place, people don't need to rise to the occasion. They start thinking, "if this investment, food, drug, or whatever were a bad idea for me, the gov't would stop me from using it." People's thinking shifts from what "what should we allow the gov't to do?" to "what should the gov't allow people to do?".
I strongly agree with what you say: "Just set everyone free. Let people make mistakes, let them live by their own choices. Let them learn, let them experiment, let them cooperate." Yes!!!
And why does the economy grow at a rate slightly above stagnation? It's like every time you step outside to do something you see state made tornadoes, floods and lighting...You step back inside.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthashar...
And that is after years of the Fed started forcing ZIRP.
I didn't expect this to happen. I think it's deleveraging, but I really don't get it.
However, Galt's Gulch is is dedicated to Atlas Shrugged, the movie based on the book by Ayn Rand which is her philosophy in novel form. She was, and it is expressed in her writings, a non-militant atheist. So, there is always going to be some friction as far as the believers in any form of faith is concerned. She completely rejected faith to the point of hatred.
The people lose their virtue as the state gains power and corrupts them with cronyism, graft and re-education through state controlled education. For a people to remove the shackles and regain their virtue they must apparently feel the lash, find a few virtuous unrelenting leaders who inspire and once again... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson
A truly free man doesn't need such a word or concept since he measures his life and achievements with rationally applied logic. It is a word that only applies to those wishing to be accepted by others, that relies on his image as reflected in the eyes of others to determine his worth, rather than his own happiness. That type of person, rather than the free man, never leaves his home without his mask of 'virtue' and lives in constant fear of being 'found out'.
The free man lives his life without concern or regard for the moral definition of others, confident in his own decisions and actions. Be mistrustful of any man that describes himself as virtuous and search behind his mask.
Is that the same as living without concern or regard for others? It sounds like it isn't; the distinction being in how others define morality. A free person wouldn't care how others define morality. But his own concept of morality could include concern and regard for others. Do I have that right?
Thus, as you identify, the solution is readily apparent.
I was thinking of the Russian peasants, who so much wanted nothing to do with the "collective"
that they ate their seed grain and slaughtered their animals; then were sent to the Gulag.
Listen to Rachmaninoff's Variations on a Theme of Paganini; the feelings are written into the music.
As a Native American about to be hanged by the British was supposed to have said:
Hang me quickly before I say something unworthy of myself.
(In fact, most immigrants to the US in the 19th and 20th century were tired of the paternalism prevalent in Europe. Although I had heard the Irish brought with them the idea that gov't should take care of people, but I don't know if that is true!--My Italian grandparents were given a book by Customs, stating that the streets in America were not paved with gold, as they might believe, but if they worked hard and saved for the future, they would do well)
Anyway, it's obvious the French Revolution degenerated in "The Terror" and "The Paris Mob" (Mob Rule) and eventually a takeover by someone who was needed to establish order out of chaos. The fact that he then set out to conquer the rest of the world might teach us something of the psychology of those whose dominance is at the same time necessary but can lead to a concentration of power.
Our founders were perplexed at the difference between the two revolutions, Madison thinking it might be that individuals, acting alone, can show restraint, whereas people acting as a group--mob, do not have the same restraints
After good and evil are clearly delineated, then we must have a society that values the good and encourages the good.
Refusal to make judgments over right/wrong, good/evil is pro-chaos stagnation. A stagnant society is a dying society. The chaos becomes more and more prevalent as a society's order comes unravelled.
If life is what we want to achieve (long range) for ourselves than it is the source we must secure and it must be our focus; to hell with the would be tyrants and the unvirtuous if it is the source of life they wish to cut off as their means of short range survival.
With respect to JohnBrown's question, it may be a matter of custom rather than virtue. We have lost the custom of independence and the methods of coping with personal freedom (which our parents' generation had). This is what was has been wrong in Somalia (per DrZarkhov) - they have no custom of civilization. Obama's brother, Malik, wondered out loud (in "2016") if it would have been better for the British to have retained their Imperial Empires in Africa for a couple of generations longer - develop an expectation of civilization (as opposed to tribalization) in the people - before they left. (Though I will note that this did not work in Yugo.) As it is, many countries are trying to leap from the barely Neolithic to the 21st century in a generation...and they have not had time to develop the skills to cope with civilization.
Similarly, if Americans suddenly became free of restraints, they would not behave well. People (and companies) are not inherently benign and polite. It is only after seeing the repercussions of bad decisions that we develop internal guidelines. I would therefore expect a generation (or several) of opportunism (as in Russia) before we got back to the cultural customs of the first quarter of the 20th century.
This could probably be mitigated by making specific laws (Amendment?) that pointedly made an individual (corporation) responsible for the direct consequences of their actions (but not implausible - no Hot Coffee! - or collateral) before releasing all of the tens of thousands of burdensome regulations with which we are beset.
Jan
Americans included.
Jan
I do think that responsibility gets in the way of profit unless your Sea World. Then, you have to come up with a clever way to make up for your irresponsible behavior.
Business will be responsible if consumers vote with their dollars. However, when it comes to things like oil, we're pretty much screwed. I can't teleport to work.
But your question as to cause and effect is interesting, and decidedly hard to answer.
Perhaps if we compare the American Revolution (unique in the history of mankind) and the French or Russian Revolutions, we can at least obtain some of the understanding needed to add focus to your question.
France had a large population of dependent people, unused to self-reliance, and choice-making.
(To Be Continued)
We see these effects in the degree of recovery in the Communists nations. Those that were taken over at the end of WWII, but had a good measure of freedom before that, have much more freedom now in general (Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) than is found in countries with a longer history of communist control, such as Russia, Belorussia, and Ukraine. Even many Russians who have come to the USA have a very hard time with truly respecting the property rights of others in my experience as an example of the moral conditioning they had living under communism. It is not that they thought that communism was right so much as that there was no reason to respect the value of property when all of it was owned by the state.
people would beget a free society* is about 50%,,,
and that *a free people would beget a virtuous
society* is about 10%;;;;;
thus, we should value our virtue as we sustain freedom,
for freedom -- at any cost -- is an illusion like the utopia
sought by the left. -- j
https://www.facebook.com/groups/tolfa/
"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." AR, The Virtue of Selfishness
>> Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction; <<
Of course it is. Why? Because it is NOT a political concept. Anarchy is a state of nature. For something to be a political concept, it must be a concept of government, the absolute opposite of anarchy. So anarchy as a political concept is not only a floating abstraction, it is complete and utter nonsense.
>> a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along <<
You appear to be making a rather startling assumption. Where do you get the idea that in anarchy people will somehow remain unarmed and incapable of self defense, incapable of evolving market driven arbitration and dispute settlement mechanisms and more. What silly assumptions.
There is much more, but I just don’t have the time to regurgitate the same tired old minarchist platitudes. I have read ALL of Ayn Rand’s work and intensively studied much of it. Have you read even one chapter of “The Online Freedom Academy” found at http://www.tolfa.us? Or are you just making assumptions about its content? If you wish to argue specifics of the tolfa.us curriculum after studying it, I’ll be happy to oblige. Until then, “Ciao”.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/79...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/7e...
"Your comments are so full of assumptions and personal opinions that I don’t know where to begin. But let me try to deal with just a couple of them."
SHOW me do not LABEL me. I quoted Ayn Rand. You want to shunt me to a website. That's a bit propagandist. People come of their own free will to this site to learn more about Ayn Rand's ideas. You are using this site to springboard to push your propaganda. I'm challenging you to offer your OWN thoughts and and reasoning to the posts here or make your own. shunting people to a FB page continuously shows that you have no interest int eh ideas of AR
I continue to be very interested in Ms. Rand's writing, both fiction and scholarly. A few months ago I read Atlas Shrugged again; for the 4th or 5th time? I visit Galt's Gulch and other sites, read and listen to other philosophers, economist and commentators to expand my understanding of this crazy world we live in.
Rest assured that when I express an opinion, it is my own; one arrived at from decades of study and contemplation, not just a dogmatic repetition of of something I read. Shown an unfamiliar concept, I will attempt first of all to examine its merits, not to get into dead end arguments with others so I can hang on to old beliefs, but for the pure pleasure of intellectual discovery. Hey, even at my ripe old age, I might learn something! LOL
With that, I wish you all the best, keeping in mind not our differences over petty semantics, but the fact that we are traveling the same road, driven by our shared desire for freedom and a better world.
Your assertions not withstanding, I am NOT an anarchist as you would apparently define that word. I am a student of "anarchology", a word which I carefully define as "The study of why and how spontaneous order arises in societies without coercive rulers." This is a most fascinating subject for which much empirical data is available in addition to the many scholarly works by Rand and numerous equally worthy thinkers such as von Mises to name just one.
You apparently lump both coercive and non-coercive governance (the latter also frequently being referred to as voluntary cooperation) under one moniker - "government". Both I and Wikipedia would disagree, but hey, if that works for you, knock yourself out.
So, in the hope of finding some common ground, let me be clear about this. I have no objections to voluntary governance (let's just call it "objectivist government", if you will). It is only the coercive kind which I object to on the basis of both reason and the seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of its abject failure.
All property rights are the same in principle. Differentiating "intellectual" as a special class is a red herring. If I make a painting, that is a priori my property. If I choose to let you take a photo of it without attaching any conditions, then the painting remains my property and the photo of it is yours. If, before allowing you to photograph it, I obtain your agreement to refrain from showing the photo to anybody else or to distribute copies of it to your friends, then I have an enforceable contract, voluntarily (not coerced) entered into by you. If you subsequently break your promise, then you are committing a fraud upon me in violation of the LONA and my subsequent enforcement efforts are therefore defensive in nature, not a violation of the LONA.
This is no different from me letting you stay in my cottage for the weekend on condition that you refrain from bringing strangers or throwing a party.
It is your own assertion which, if not entirely wrong, is certainly incomplete. Yes, what you create, you initially own exclusively. That however changes dramatically the moment you share even so much as the knowledge of its existence with another person. From then on, your ownership is no longer absolute. As far as having exclusive ownership under natural law of the idea or thought behind your creation, that’s just plain silly. There have been many documented occasions in history where at roughly the same time two or more individuals invented and created similar things based on virtually indistinguishable ideas, but completely separate from and unaware of one another.
How would you propose to solve that little conflict under natural law? And please don't yell "patents" because that would be circular reasoning now, wouldn't it.
What would inspire someone to develop new things, if they can be simply copied the day after they are developed? The sole driver for success would be to be the best manufacturer, and advancement would end in a few business cycles.
I find for the most part that the anarchist, in their reliance on the NAP and voluntary association, neglect to consider that the reality of resolving the issue that might arise between two free individuals, requires that the two not only agree to submit to an arbiter but must actually do so. It may be and probably will be, that one party just refuses to attend the arbitration, or refuses to comply with the results of the arbitration. So, what happens then? What happens when someone murders or rapes?
At the other hand, the objectivist recognizes by relying on the protection of property rights (on the basis that the individual owns himself and the fruits of his productive activities, both physically and mentally) provides for a minimalist governmental enforcement of those rights. The only difficulty that I find with the objectivist (including the founders) is that they neglect to provide for the iniquity (in a realistic manner) of those that gravitate to filling the positions of government and of those in the population that are gullible or self centered enough to support that iniquity.
This site is intended for those that support the art, writings, and philosophy of Ayn Rand which allows for discussion and debate of the parts or whole of the subject matter, but arguing for other ideals or principles without discussing or detailing why that is relative to AR's ideas or concepts is non-productive for this site. IMHO
I don't pretend to be the voice of objectivism, I'm just an individual that finds that for the most part, that objectivism fits who and what I am.
I totally grok that you seek a comfort zone and if objectivism gives you that, good for you. For my part I am not a follower of any *ism. I have concluded that my comfort zone is found in adhering to the NAP before all else. This means that I have no choice but to figure out - by my own capacity to reason - how to make that work as opposed to trying to argue it out of the way so I can remain true to the "one true faith". That is who and what I am.
For your adherence to the NAP and the ideas of tolfa, I wish you well in your endeavors.
whatever anarchology means
anarchists come in all stripes. they come from a socialist point of view to a Rothbard point of view. How can they be for property rights, because they don't ultimately support enforcement. I know this well. I argue with them all the time about intellectual property rights.
, he sees an opportunity. To assume people will behave rationally and morally in all cases would be naive. Heck, even locks on doors don 't keep thieves away, they just deter
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...
..