quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: How awesome would this be?!?!?!
Actually, it'd be horrendous. For one thing, I assume that Brad Pitt would be playing John Galt. But Galt needs to be played by an unknown. We see him in the book over and over before he's "unveiled", without knowing that it's him.
I'm gonna agree with Lisa on this one. I like Atlas Shrugged (the story and how it's presented; I don't subscribe to the philosophy behind it), but Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? What a couple of huge casting mistakes those would be!
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what I am, but I just want balance, middleground, a system that works with a lot of thought put into it that shifts with the times instead of getting stale and stagnant. I haven't really found what that is...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Your sort of liberalism stresses the idea that people are owned by society, which can dispose of them and theirs as it sees fit." Liberalism and humanism (the two are largely inseparable) require that citizens be responsible to society, yes, but they also control it. Rights and responsibilities are intwined, although not entirely inseparable (neither very young children nor the severely mentally ill have responsibilities, but both have rights.)
All societies of, all groups of all species, are collectives, the question is how much control is exerted.
The idvidual defines and is defined by society. It may be a marriage of convience, but divorce would be most unpleasent indeed, for it would kill our humanity.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Isn't it funny how adolescents speak about things they clearly know nothing about?" I understand just fine, but, like the vast majority of people, am moraly repulsed.
posted
Jon Stewart's America, The Book has a quote on the back attributed to Ayn Rand:
"This is similar to my works, in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an [bleep!] for at least a month afterword."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Your sort of liberalism stresses the idea that people are owned by society, which can dispose of them and theirs as it sees fit." Liberalism and humanism (the two are largely inseparable) require that citizens be responsible to society, yes, but they also control it. Rights and responsibilities are intwined, although not entirely inseparable (neither very young children nor the severely mentally ill have responsibilities, but both have rights.)
All societies of, all groups of all species, are collectives, the question is how much control is exerted.
The idvidual defines and is defined by society. It may be a marriage of convience, but divorce would be most unpleasent indeed, for it would kill our humanity.
No, it wouldn't. But it suits collectivists to use that as a scare tactic. It helps them maintain their power. Because ultimately, collectivism is about the control of many by the few. They claim that the control is for the good of the few. That's how they manage to avoid rebellion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be fascinated if someone could tell me what mechanism(s) a society could possibly use to enforce contracts and prevent the use of coervice force (against people who are compliant in their contracts and not themselves coercing others) that neither
1) obviously allows for some agents to break contracts without consequences nor
2) obviously allows for some agents to use coercive force without significant consequence against others for reasons other than enforcing contractual obligations/preventing other uses of coercive force nor
3) is essentially equivalent to government.
I await suggestions; I will be pleasantly surprised if one that meets those criteria is given.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa has often said that she supports just so much government as will enforce contracts and maintain security against foreign threats; and as I understand it, she is willing to tax enough for that purpose. How she squares this minimal taxation with the absolute right to the benefits of your own work, I don't know; it seems to me equivalent to being only a little bit pregnant.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I await suggestions; I will be pleasantly surprised if one that meets those criteria is given.
Ayn Rand attempted to reconcile the fundamental hangups by stating that she believed that taxation could and should be maintained, but that it should be "purely voluntary."
The theorycrafting as to how this would ever work is to be observed with morbid fascination.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Hominids has lived in a society since long before the development of homo sapiens.
We also had cannibalism, human sacrifice, and the divine right of kings. It'd be nice to think that we'd outgrown such things. The kind of collectivism you support is of a kind with those.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I would be fascinated if someone could tell me what mechanism(s) a society could possibly use to enforce contracts and prevent the use of coervice force (against people who are compliant in their contracts and not themselves coercing others) that neither
1) obviously allows for some agents to break contracts without consequences nor
2) obviously allows for some agents to use coercive force without significant consequence against others for reasons other than enforcing contractual obligations/preventing other uses of coercive force nor
3) is essentially equivalent to government.
I await suggestions; I will be pleasantly surprised if one that meets those criteria is given.
Why would anyone want there to be no government? I mean, other than anarchists. That's insane. Government is what stands between civilization and barbarism. But a government has no rights that its constituent members don't, at least in principle, have themselves.
In principle, every individual has the right to retaliate with force. No one has the right to initiate coercive force against another, but everyone, innately and as a matter of natural law, has a right to retaliate.
But since people, however rational they may be (and they so often are not) can disagree on "who started it", and what counts as initiating force and what counts as retaliatory force, the only way to avoid anarchy is for that right to the use of retaliatory force to be delegated to an objective body. That's the government.
The government can, and should, act coercively to prevent Tom from initiating force against Dick or Harry. And it should deal with the situation if Tom does such a thing. That's why we have police. And because the law of a country isn't something that people outside of the country consider themselves bound by, we need an army. And because, as I pointed out before, people of good will and rational mind can still disagree, there need to be courts to mediate disputes.
And I'd add that aside from criminals and external threats, there's also the threat of infectious disease. So there's a need for a centralized body there as well. But other than police, army, courts, and something like the CDC, pretty much anything else a government does is inappropriate. Everything else should be left to individuals and voluntary associations of individuals.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Lisa has often said that she supports just so much government as will enforce contracts and maintain security against foreign threats; and as I understand it, she is willing to tax enough for that purpose. How she squares this minimal taxation with the absolute right to the benefits of your own work, I don't know; it seems to me equivalent to being only a little bit pregnant.
It's a matter of short term. In principle, there shouldn't be any taxation. And yet, the government has to fulfill these responsibilities. So until another solution is found, some taxation is necessary. The issue isn't taxation as such. It's taxation for purposes other than those for which a government is necessary.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I await suggestions; I will be pleasantly surprised if one that meets those criteria is given.
Ayn Rand attempted to reconcile the fundamental hangups by stating that she believed that taxation could and should be maintained, but that it should be "purely voluntary."
The theorycrafting as to how this would ever work is to be observed with morbid fascination.
posted
"Why would anyone want there to be no government?" You say we need a government, and yet you deny we need a society? The one must surely proceed the other.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Why would anyone want there to be no government?" You say we need a government, and yet you deny we need a society? The one must surely proceed the other.
Why? And society is nothing but an aggregate of individuals. The issue is that you pretend that there's a thing called society that has rights that the individuals making it up don't have themselves. I don't have the right to mug you and give your money to someone I think needs it more or deserves it more. No one has that right. But you arrogate such a pretend "right" to something you call "society". It's that invented construct that I deny exists.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: you've given the government a right you don't seem to acknowledge individuals have, the right to coerce people who might be innocent to appear in court (it gets even better if the courts can compel testimony, which one would hope they have for them to work).
And many of the actions against infectious disease are actions against the effects of infectious disease (much as many of the actions in war are actions against the effects of war, et cetera); similarly, one can act against the effects of natural disasters (including preventing them from happen, such as by evacuating areas where a disaster will shortly occur).
Some natural disasters may even be preventable (we know of a few situations that are likely to cause tsunamis at some point in the future, in ways that could theoretically be remedied, for instance).
You're willing to accept a government that can use coercive taxes (albeit you'd prefer another solution, but you're willing to live with that one for now) to fund a program that could be funded through private dollars and contracts to directly aid a subset of the people in a country (not everyone gets sick) at the expense of everyone (who pays taxes).
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we've established you're willing to tax for programs you deem sufficiently important, we're only haggling over which programs.
quote:But since people, however rational they may be (and they so often are not) can disagree on "who started it", and what counts as initiating force and what counts as retaliatory force, the only way to avoid anarchy is for that right to the use of retaliatory force to be delegated to an objective body. That's the government.
Emphasis mine, of course. Here's the problem that so many people miss. The government is not an objective body, in the sense that it cannot have a "God's eye view" of the world. Any government - of any flavour - will always be fundementally oriented to the interests of a particular group.
If a government subscribes to your views, Star, than it is not objective - it just happens to serve your interests.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why? And society is nothing but an aggregate of individuals. The issue is that you pretend that there's a thing called society that has rights that the individuals making it up don't have themselves."
Actually, I believe what I have said is more along the lines that the "rights of society" are based on the rights of individuals. Thus, society has no actual rights except the "right" to serve its inhabitants.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Lisa: you've given the government a right you don't seem to acknowledge individuals have, the right to coerce people who might be innocent to appear in court (it gets even better if the courts can compel testimony, which one would hope they have for them to work).
And many of the actions against infectious disease are actions against the effects of infectious disease (much as many of the actions in war are actions against the effects of war, et cetera); similarly, one can act against the effects of natural disasters (including preventing them from happen, such as by evacuating areas where a disaster will shortly occur).
Some natural disasters may even be preventable (we know of a few situations that are likely to cause tsunamis at some point in the future, in ways that could theoretically be remedied, for instance).
You're willing to accept a government that can use coercive taxes (albeit you'd prefer another solution, but you're willing to live with that one for now) to fund a program that could be funded through private dollars and contracts to directly aid a subset of the people in a country (not everyone gets sick) at the expense of everyone (who pays taxes).
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we've established you're willing to tax for programs you deem sufficiently important, we're only haggling over which programs.
No. You're starting from the POV that government exists. I'm not. I'm saying that there are certain functions which are necessary to protect individuals from other individuals. In truth, I'm not even so sure about the addition I put in there of the CDC. I'm still debating that.
But in terms of natural disasters... if someone wants to live in New Orleans, knowing that it has the vulnerabilities it has, there's really no reason why the rest of the country should have to stand as their guarantors.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Why? And society is nothing but an aggregate of individuals. The issue is that you pretend that there's a thing called society that has rights that the individuals making it up don't have themselves."
Actually, I believe what I have said is more along the lines that the "rights of society" are based on the rights of individuals. Thus, society has no actual rights except the "right" to serve its inhabitants.
If that's really what you're saying, then we're in agreement. But since me and a friend don't have a right to mug a rich guy on the street so that we can give some of his money to a homeless guy in an alley, then what you're saying is basically that you agree with me that the government has no right to tax us to pay for social programs.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are natural disasters in every part of the country, only the frequency and variety change. For instance, while my part of the midwest is usually relatively calm, during US history there has already been one megaquake that reversed the courses of rivers for a time, and it is moderately likely to recur at some point in my lifetime.
I am not starting from the POV that government exists. I do think that a government should exist given various practical considerations, but you apparently do too.
And you seem to not have addressed the issue of court orders, which are most definitely a power that a government with courts must have in order to function, yet fall nowhere in any of the powers you claim individuals have rights to.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But since people, however rational they may be (and they so often are not) can disagree on "who started it", and what counts as initiating force and what counts as retaliatory force, the only way to avoid anarchy is for that right to the use of retaliatory force to be delegated to an objective body. That's the government.
Emphasis mine, of course. Here's the problem that so many people miss. The government is not an objective body, in the sense that it cannot have a "God's eye view" of the world. Any government - of any flavour - will always be fundementally oriented to the interests of a particular group.
If a government subscribes to your views, Star, than it is not objective - it just happens to serve your interests.
My name is not Star. It is not sL or starLisa or StarLisa. It is Lisa.
Second of all, what you are saying is only true in the context of the corrupt thing you know as government. If the government doesn't control the cash, then it's not true at all. And it should not control the cash.
As much as I hate to quote directly from Rand's books, because usually, I find it's better to phrase things my own way (she had a very different style of speaking), I agree with this quote:
quote:"[T]here should be (but historically has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church"
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There are natural disasters in every part of the country, only the frequency and variety change. For instance, while my part of the midwest is usually relatively calm, during US history there has already been one megaquake that reversed the courses of rivers for a time, and it is moderately likely to recur at some point in my lifetime.
I am not starting from the POV that government exists. I do think that a government should exist given various practical considerations, but you apparently do too.
And you seem to not have addressed the issue of court orders, which are most definitely a power that a government with courts must have in order to function, yet fall nowhere in any of the powers you claim individuals have rights to.
I haven't addressed them, because that's too wide a claim on your part. Even if you're talking about the right of subpoena alone, I'd say "sometimes yes and sometimes no".
If Tom and Dick are resolving a dispute in court, I'm not convinced that the court should be entitled to subpoena me as a witness to support or refute the claims of one or the other or both Tom and Dick. But since government, by its nature, must prevent and punish crime (where crime is defined as the initiation of coercive force against against another person or persons, including fraud), then yes, it should be able to subpoena individuals for the purpose of establishing the truth of the matter.
If you mean court orders, such as a court order mandating the searching of an individual's residence, I support that as well, so long as it does not fall under the category of unreasonable search and seizure. And in practice, I think that the boundaries of what is "reasonable" have been stretched pretty close to their breaking point of late.
If the Army requires roads in order to move along, it's legitimate for them to build them at government expense, but beyond that, it's not reasonable for the government to be in the street building and owning business. If the government requires a building to house a courtroom, it should acquire one at government expense. But that doesn't mean the government has a right to build malls or apartment buildings or hospitals.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know Lisa, if you're that concerned that people not call you starLisa you ought to change your username. I can see asking people not to shorten it in unapproved ways, but asking people not to call you by the name you've chosen to attach to all of your posts seems kind of futile.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"then what you're saying is basically that you agree with me that the government has no right to tax us to pay for social programs."
Not at all, the government has that right. But taxation is already voluntary under a legitimate government, in that anyone and everyone may vote against it. But, should the majority decide in its favor, then it is the right, the duty of the government to carry out the wished of the majority. As for me, I am in favor of certain forms of taxation, but not of others.
The system of liberal democracy is far from perfect, but no one has yet come closer to perfection than we have. Look at the other systems that have been tried:—
Dictatorship is an excellent system, if you happen to be the dictator. Fascism, Leninist and post-Leninist Communism are dictatorships thinly veiled by ideology. Anarchy and true Communism may work fairly well, in populations of fewer than 100 like minded individuals, but, even is such instances, too many problems arise during times of peace and plenty that one has to wonder what might happen in a crises.
Tyranny is our only option, let it be the tyranny of a majority, limited by a Constitution and an independent judiciary, rather than any other tyranny.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, glad to know at least most of the interstate highway system is okay (a primary justification for its construction was national defense).
Returning to the courts, I never said the extent of the power to issue court orders, merely that some such power must clearly exist for courts to function, and that it would constitute a coercive power over individual members not one possessed of individual members conceded to the government. How do you argue such a capability is not, even minimally, collectivist?
The fundamental difference between me and you is not the assumption of government (which neither of us makes), but your assumption that there is one fundamental principle of human existence which all others should mold themselves to in the organization of individuals. I long ago grew suspicious of single overriding principles.
Interestingly, you don't seem at all to be arguing for a separation of state and economics. Indeed, your scheme seems to rely on the state (largely through the courts) to ensure the operation of the system of economics, via contract enforcement, preventing forcefully coercive measures, et cetera. Most of what you argue for are a separation of government from the traditional parts of governing (amusingly enough). To an extent I agree with that aim, but only to an extent.
I would not support my society being organized in your manner. I would support the revision of the federal government to not much more than what its part would be in what you lay out, allowing states to be basically organized in your manner if desired by their populace.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Ah, glad to know at least most of the interstate highway system is okay (a primary justification for its construction was national defense).
Returning to the courts, I never said the extent of the power to issue court orders, merely that some such power must clearly exist for courts to function, and that it would constitute a coercive power over individual members not one possessed of individual members conceded to the government. How do you argue such a capability is not, even minimally, collectivist?
You know, that's a good question. And one I hadn't thought of. I think I'll pass it on to some people who've spent a lot more time on Objectivism than I have. Perhaps I'm wrong about such orders being acceptable ever. Or maybe I'm not, and maybe it is something that individuals would be entitled to do, in principle, but delegate to the government.
How about that? An Objectivist who isn't claiming to have all the answers. Don't tell anyone.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The fundamental difference between me and you is not the assumption of government (which neither of us makes), but your assumption that there is one fundamental principle of human existence which all others should mold themselves to in the organization of individuals. I long ago grew suspicious of single overriding principles.
I bet you'd be willing to agree that all people need to eat. This isn't all that different. You can make any decisions you want, but when you let your decisions turn into an excuse to force me to do your will, you've stepped outside the bounds of any legitimacy.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Interestingly, you don't seem at all to be arguing for a separation of state and economics.
Certainly, I am.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Indeed, your scheme seems to rely on the state (largely through the courts) to ensure the operation of the system of economics, via contract enforcement, preventing forcefully coercive measures, et cetera.
No. That has nothing to do, directly, with economics. It has to do with human freedom. The fact that human beings who are free can then engage in trade is secondary.
I own my life. You aren't entitled to it. You aren't entitled to shorten my life or to enslave me. If I engage in activity for trade, which means that I agree with someone else to trade my activity and my time and essentially a piece of my life for recompense, that recompense is mine every bit as much as the time and life I've traded for it. If you try and take it away from me against my will, that's stealing, but more importantly, it's a violation of my basic ownership of my life. If you enter into an agreement with me where you get something of mine in exchange for me getting something of yours, and you don't live up to your side, you have, again, stolen from me that which is mine. To wit: a portion of my life.
This isn't about greasing the wheels of industry. Government has no role in facilitating business any more than it has a role in facilitating education or welfare or housing.
Government is about making sure that no one violates the life of another. That any time someone gets something from someone else, it's voluntary.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Most of what you argue for are a separation of government from the traditional parts of governing (amusingly enough). To an extent I agree with that aim, but only to an extent.
The traditional parts of governing are paying fealty to the king. I think separating from such things is a good idea. I'm not sure why I should be concerned about what is "traditional" in this area.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I would not support my society being organized in your manner.
So you'd continue to insist that some people are entitled to take away the product of other people's lives? That's just wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read Atlas Shrugged about a decade ago. I found myself agreeing with many of the ideas.
I got over it.
I think most people do.
The biggest (of many) problems I have with Ayn Rand's philosophy (as expressed in Atlas as well as in the odd bits I've read of hers on Objectivist philosophy) is that she expects us to grant the premise that there are (or rather would be) sufficient numbers of excellent men (of the John Galt stamp) that a society free of government would actually work.
She (rightly) deplores the industrialists who twist government into giving them hand outs and who basically ruin their own businesses in the attempt to make sure government works to their favor instead of just getting on and doing a good job.
Yes! YES! She's absolutely right about that.
What she is wrong about, it seems to me, is that there are ever going to be sufficient industrialists/businessmen around who would NOT act that way.
And one of the other functions of government is to keep the powerful from just running roughshod over everyone else, twisting things to their advantage, and hogging all the resources and access to power, etc., etc.
Of course, that's not to say that our current government works well to make sure that powerful evil men aren't getting away with too much...
I think Objectivist philosophy suffers from expecting that everyone would just naturally see that a meritocracy would be the best possible form of "government" -- that we all simply would agree to be led by the people who have the best thoughts about how to use resources, and can keep the most people employed, and so on.
I think that meritocracies cannot survive alongside democracy and even basic freedoms. And I value democracy more than I value being "THE BEST" as measured against any standard -- even an "objective" one. I'll be fine with "good enough" as long as freedoms are preserved.
NOTE: Again, this is not to say that our current system is better than the one proposed by Rand. But I prefer a different one than what she proposes because I think hers is doomed to fail for simple and stupid reasons.
What makes a Randian world fall apart is the same thing that makes it so appealing -- selfishness. The individual's belief that his personal code is more important and valid than anyone else's works fine on paper, but it is not possible to have it function long term if human beings are involved. If John Galt were the norm, rather than a fictional ideal, maybe it'd work.
But...there's too much opportunity to be a cheat on the system. It's too easy to get to the point where instead of the honorable and smart getting power, the powerful decide what they do is obviously honorable...and smart.
And who's to tell the difference? Objectivists like Rand don't really say. She claims there's an external objective standard for honor and merit, but she can no more define it than anyone. It's little wonder that her fiction (especially Atlas) is so popular while her philosophy is simply rejected as unrealistic.
How many people here think they know a John Galt?
How many people here think they ARE or could eventually BE a John Galt?
I don't know a single person who is LIKE John Galt.
I know some people who probably think they are like him, but based on their behavior, I'd say they fall far short of it.
And that brings me to Rand's other failing. Her truly great people have to be perfect at it. A John Galt who cut one corner, ever, would be the death of her system. A guy who built exactly to specs rather than caring enough to improve on the design would be a failure. Heck, a John Galt who fought in court rather than just taking all his marbles and leaving would be an utter disaster in her world.
The only way for her system to survive is to go somewhere and form an exclusive club.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are willing to let some people take away the product of other people's lives, too, you just have a minimal set of purposes you're willing to accept it for. What else are these taxes funding the military and police force (until a better way is found, of course)? Don't say I'm just wrong when you're willing to accept the same thing under certain criteria.
I don't think you need to be concerned with what the traditional parts of governing are, but the actions you're talking about are traditional parts of governing. Money and fealty to the king are only one part of what (some) monarchies involved; monarchs also had duties (albeit unenforceable) to the people. I'm just somewhat amused by it, as I noted.
Those certainly are government interventions in economics. Economics happens whether or not there are contracts and whether or not force can be employed. It just happens very awkwardly without those guarantees. It doesn't matter if the intention has nothing to do with economics, government most certainly is intervening in the economic system by enforcing contracts and preventing coercive force.
You misunderstand me. That people need to eat is not an overriding principle. It certainly isn't to you, for instance, you're willing to accept some people starving if they lack means to attain food and no individual remedies that, so I'm not sure why you think it would be an overriding principle for me. The key word is overriding -- something to which all other considerations bend.
And one of the things I like about you is that you understand you don't know all the answers (which is good, as nobody does) .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I read Atlas Shrugged about a decade ago. I found myself agreeing with many of the ideas.
I got over it.
I think most people do.
Most of the time, that happens because the person first gloms onto Objectivism as an adolescent. Nineteen, twenty years old at most. All piss and vinegar and wanting to be independent. Rand's stuff feeds into that, big time. But of course, they miss most of the point, because all they really see is the "I don't owe anyone anything", and they miss the part about being rational. So when they grow out of the adolescent rebellion and independence, they toss the Galt out with the bathwater.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The biggest (of many) problems I have with Ayn Rand's philosophy (as expressed in Atlas as well as in the odd bits I've read of hers on Objectivist philosophy) is that she expects us to grant the premise that there are (or rather would be) sufficient numbers of excellent men (of the John Galt stamp) that a society free of government would actually work.
She (rightly) deplores the industrialists who twist government into giving them hand outs and who basically ruin their own businesses in the attempt to make sure government works to their favor instead of just getting on and doing a good job.
Yes! YES! She's absolutely right about that.
What she is wrong about, it seems to me, is that there are ever going to be sufficient industrialists/businessmen around who would NOT act that way.
I think, Bob, that the point is not to allow the government to be able to give such favors. After all, while it may be deplorable that so many industrialists use this leverage, it's hardly surprising that they'd use it when it's so obviously available to them. Make it unavailable, and then it doesn't matter whether they're the type to take advantage of it or not.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And one of the other functions of government is to keep the powerful from just running roughshod over everyone else, twisting things to their advantage, and hogging all the resources and access to power, etc., etc.
That's not true. Not in the slightest. There's absolutely no reason why laws should be enforced more for one sector than another. If what you call "running roughshod" involves actual theft or fraud or violence, simply enforcing the law is good enough. If what you mean is them having the temerity to set prices as they choose, then who died and made you, or anyone else, God?
I've heard the nonsensical concept of "economic violence" a million times. Tell me you're too honest to buy into that.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Of course, that's not to say that our current government works well to make sure that powerful evil men aren't getting away with too much...
The root of political corruption is the ability of politicians to meddle in the economy. The vast, vast majority of political promises which are made in order to get elected are economic in nature. When you offer someone economic benefit in exchange for their vote, there's a technical term for it. Bribery. You can hardly have political corruption without political bribery.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think Objectivist philosophy suffers from expecting that everyone would just naturally see that a meritocracy would be the best possible form of "government" -- that we all simply would agree to be led by the people who have the best thoughts about how to use resources, and can keep the most people employed, and so on.
Keeping people employed is not a governmental function. Neither is dictating how resources are to be used. A government may legitimately oversee the acquisition of resources in order to prevent fights over them. Homesteading, for example. Apportioning radio frequencies. But once they are apportioned, they belong to whoever they belong to, and it's up to them to decide how to use those resources.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think that meritocracies cannot survive alongside democracy and even basic freedoms.
The folks in "Harrison Bergeron" would agree with you.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And I value democracy more than I value being "THE BEST" as measured against any standard -- even an "objective" one. I'll be fine with "good enough" as long as freedoms are preserved.
Where do you see freedom of any kind being preserved when you get to tell other people what they may or may not do with their own property?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: NOTE: Again, this is not to say that our current system is better than the one proposed by Rand. But I prefer a different one than what she proposes because I think hers is doomed to fail for simple and stupid reasons.
What makes a Randian world fall apart is the same thing that makes it so appealing -- selfishness. The individual's belief that his personal code is more important and valid than anyone else's works fine on paper, but it is not possible to have it function long term if human beings are involved.
Sure it is. See, one bald assertion in exchange for another.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If John Galt were the norm, rather than a fictional ideal, maybe it'd work.
But...there's too much opportunity to be a cheat on the system.
Only if the system is built to allow it. Or, like our current one, is built to foster it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It's too easy to get to the point where instead of the honorable and smart getting power, the powerful decide what they do is obviously honorable...and smart.
What would they have to gain by such a thing? If the government isn't capable of giving goodies, what do the boogiemen of your nightmares have to gain by what you're describing?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And who's to tell the difference? Objectivists like Rand don't really say. She claims there's an external objective standard for honor and merit, but she can no more define it than anyone.
Yes she can. And does. Again, I could elaborate, but one bald assertion deserves another. At least I can defend mine. Yours is simply opinion that's not based on anything other than... opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It's little wonder that her fiction (especially Atlas) is so popular while her philosophy is simply rejected as unrealistic.
How many people here think they know a John Galt?
Do you think John Galt could have pulled off what he did in the book all by himself? I don't. How many John Galts were there in the book? One. Dagny was no John Galt. Francisco? No John Galt. Reardon? Definitely no John Galt. John Galt is an ideal. To poo-poo working towards an ideal because most people won't fully reach it is pathetic. And you don't even mean it. Not in any real situation. You'd never actually suggest such a thing in real life. You do so here merely as rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: How many people here think they ARE or could eventually BE a John Galt?
I don't know a single person who is LIKE John Galt.
Rhetorical jibber-jabber, Bob. For any quality I have, I can probably name someone who is better at it than I am. Not being the best is no reason not to strive to be better.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I know some people who probably think they are like him, but based on their behavior, I'd say they fall far short of it.
I suspect you don't really know some people who probably think they are like him. I suspect that you are guessing as to their thoughts in the matter, and that you're probably quite wrong. Assuming that such people actually exist in the real world, and not only in the world of Scopatzian theoretical examples.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And that brings me to Rand's other failing. Her truly great people have to be perfect at it.
Dagny spent most of the book utterly unable to make the jump that lesser talents had made before her. Even after her little vacation in Galt's Gulch, she went back with the intent of working against what Galt was trying to do. Perfect? Hardly.
Hank Reardon signed the rights to Reardon Metal away, sacrificing the fruits of his mind and labor for the sake of someone else. Without even checking to see how that person would feel about the sacrifice. Perfect? Perfect what?
But in any case, you're confusing Atlas Shrugged with Objectivism. That book was a book of archetypes. They are intended to illustrate points. Cherryl Brooks and Eddie Willers are representations of good people who lack the extraordinary qualities of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, and they both die. But the book makes it clear that they die because of the extremity of the situation, and not simply because they aren't Dagny Taggart.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: A John Galt who cut one corner, ever, would be the death of her system.
Wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: A guy who built exactly to specs rather than caring enough to improve on the design would be a failure.
Wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Heck, a John Galt who fought in court rather than just taking all his marbles and leaving would be an utter disaster in her world.
Wrong. The story simply wouldn't have happened. Where do you come up with these whoppers?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The only way for her system to survive is to go somewhere and form an exclusive club.
Nope. The book was about them withdrawing from society while it ate itself alive. And then returning.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The root of political corruption is the ability of politicians to meddle in the economy.
I agree with you. Where we part ways, though, is your apparent belief that, given a government somehow unable to meddle in the economy, businessmen will not become their own government.
Because here's the thing: people will always attempt to use force to guarantee their positions. If government is carefully established to deny this use through governmental means, extra-governmental force will be applied -- through deception, through direct violence, through economic terrorism, and through straightforward deceit. The government can attempt to fight back against this force, but in so doing will almost certainly have to retain enough power to be an effective economic and legal "combatant" -- and once that is permitted, the government again becomes a potential tool of corruption.
This is why I think most such situations are ultimately cyclic. The objectivist dream turns into socialism in a hundred years, and spins back again in another hundred.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think John Galt could have pulled off what he did in the book all by himself? I don't. How many John Galts were there in the book? One. Dagny was no John Galt. Francisco? No John Galt. Reardon? Definitely no John Galt. John Galt is an ideal. To poo-poo working towards an ideal because most people won't fully reach it is pathetic. And you don't even mean it. Not in any real situation. You'd never actually suggest such a thing in real life. You do so here merely as rhetoric.
No, Lisa, it's not rhetoric. It's the point of her book and it makes the book so flawed as to be meaningless except as a work of fiction. In other words, her philosophy carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. As soon as people realize that the John Galts of "real life" are screwed up selfish bastards who don't play by any set of rules but the ones they made up, the whole thing falls apart.
John Galt in the real world could not have hidden away waiting for society to fall apart so he could come back and do whatever. He might be able to hide, but not set up his own little utopia somewhere.
btw, most of the people I know who glommed onto Rand did so as adults and got over it. It's not the missing of the rational bit that makes people ultimately reject her philosophy. It's that her philosophy doesn't fit the real world and the more people think about John Galt, the less they'd want to know such a person in real life.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd quite like to get back to the topic of 'thinking with your brain'. Can we have this defined?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Objectivism is about the basic fact that you aren't entitled to my life or my property or my earnings just because you're a corporation and have political friends. And that you aren't entitled to my life or my property or my earnings just because you're poor and don't have health insurance.
What makes something "your property"?
Is it your property because "the Law" says its yours? If so, I will point out that laws are made by men, they are arbitrary and can be changed. It is entirely possible to make a Law that says 50% of your property, is now the property of the poor. And objectively, if the Law is what makes it your property, then the law can unmake it your property.
Is it because you "made" it? If so what did you make it from and how did you obtain the right to use those material. If you used tools that were made by others, then they in fact also "made" your property and should have some right to it. Did you use any knowledge that was taught to you be someone else in making this "property"? Did you use any resources of nature to make your property? If so, do all people have equal unfettered access to those resources? If not, how did you obtain the right to use those resources? If a law gave you the right to use certain resources and denied that right to others, why is that any more just than a law which would require you to give your property to others?
Did you purchase that property? If so did, did you pay a fair price for the item? How did you determine that what a fair price was for the item? Any economist will confirm that the market price for an item has little if any relation to its intrinsic worth. Can every individual obtain the same property for the same effort that you expended? If not, how much of the difference is the result of your personal virtues or failings as opposed to accidents of birth. If you purchased the object, but paid less for it than its intrinsic worth, you obtained your property by cheating others. Can you complain about others cheating you out of the use of your property, when you have cheated to obtain your property?
If you have benefitted from knowledge, wealth, tools, labor, laws or any other product of your society, then any property you "own" you owe in part to the society which enabled you to obtain it. To say it is "yours" and society has no right to demand you share it, indicates an utter ignorance of humanity, society and justice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, Pixiest, you could be so kind as to explain the flaws in my reasoning. If not, I will just chalk this up to another "Pixiest" post.
Perhaps I should explain. I have on numerous occasions put in a great deal of effort to construct a post built on logical arguments and/or empirical scientific evidence. If such a post happens to disagree with your preconcieved notions, you follow my post with some glib statement that blows it off.
I find this to be extraordinarily rude. When anyone takes the time to carefully explain their reasoning on a subject at hatrack, they deserve to have their ideas intelligently critiqued and not blown off as a joke. I have come to understand, that you will not grant that kind of respect to my posts. I am uncertain whether this is because you can't logically address the points I make, or if you are just to arrogant to condescend to rational discussion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something is "my property" because I made it or traded something for it. The law exists to protect that. Before there was law, one could still have property, just someone stronger than you could take it. Law defends your rights, it doesn't give them to you.
You could change the law (as has been done too often) to say that what is yours belongs to someone else. someone who NEEDS it more. But that changes the purpose of the law. Instead of protecting you, it takes from you by force. And we're back to where we started. Someone stronger than you taking from you.
Material, tools, real estate, raw resources. These are all paid for by a form of portable work we call Money. When you take someone's work without their consent, it's called Slavery. That is why I'd rather die than live under your rule.
Life is unfair. You can't balance it. You can't make everyone as talented and lucky as everyone else. It's just not possible.
However, that doesn't mean that simply because someone is less talented and lucky than someone else that the more talented and lucky person owes them anything.
Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. That is how you define what's a fair price.
We all contribute (well, except those living off the contributions of others) and get the aforementioned portal work "Money." It is with this you buy whatever you need. It is as if you made whatever you bought yourself because your portable work was what you traded for it. Just as the person you buy from will take that portable work and buy whatever they need.
Society has no right to demand your money from you because you kicked in your part in earning the it. To take yet another share is, as I said, Slavery.
Your philosophy is the one of tyrants everywhere. That people are just part of the machine of their empire.
posted
I assume you refuse all benefits of taxation, then, beyond the value contributed by yourself, because you believe that they are the fruits of slavery? Your inability to recognize middle grounds, even if you also don't like that middle ground, is one of your biggest weaknesses. Of course, you might consider slavery less of an evil than I do, and be comfortable reaping its benefits.
Some other comments on your post:
Things are not just worth what their purchasers will pay for them. Even if you assume that worth is determined by sale price (and economists are pretty darn sure that marginal worth is what is determined by selling price, not any sort of average or typical worth for that good), that selling price is a combination of the value the buyer and the seller place on the item, not just the buyer. Also, some items do not sell, yet it makes little sense to call them worthless, when what seems to be the case is they have greater value to the owner than the price anyone is willing to pay.
Nobody I've run into wants to make everybody as talented or lucky as anybody else. Far more popular desire to, for instance, have fewer people die.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu: Taxation is a necessary evil (VERY evil)to pay for law enforcement, military and courts. I also have no problem with a user fee (gas tax) to pay for roads. The more you drive on the roads, the more you pay.
I don't think a voluntary tax would work. I, unfortunately, think it has to be manditory, but kept as low as we possibly can get it. The more we pile on to it the more evil/slavery we have and the more possibilities for governmental abuse we have. Remember, the goverment is just another giant corporation... with Guns.
The seller tries to get as much as the buyer will pay. If the buyer won't pay that much, it won't sell. I really don't see how what you're saying contridicts me.
And a key part of Rabbit's argument was equal access to the resources that gained your property. ie: luck and talent.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One last note. While the following would be arguably true in a society without a government, we do have a government, and it is almost certainly not true. Some of the goods and services used in earning money (notably roads) are provided on a noncompetitive basis, meaning that 'your part' of the price was not necessarily 'kicked in' by those (such as yourself) who take advantage of those roads. In fact, since we have progressive taxation, its almost certainly not true in your case .
quote:Society has no right to demand your money from you because you kicked in your part in earning the it.
posted
Roads are primarily paid for by the gas tax. I pay as much as I use. As I said in my post above, it's one of the few taxes I have no problem with. It's not a tax, it's a user fee.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm saying contradicts you in several ways, even in your amended version. One, items that do not sell still appear to have value (and in fact, greater value than if they had sold in one of the attemted transactions). Two, as I note, price only determines marginal value of an item, not, say, mean value, which explains why trade generally makes both people happier/better off. That is, trade routinely seems to result in more value for both parties, which is not possible if the items traded only had value equal to the transaction price.
Thank you for addressing some of the questions I had addressed to lisa, btw .
BTW, despite both of you mentioning the comparison, iirc, neither you nor lisa seems to have formulated a government where that government is much like a 'corporation . . . with Guns'. Shares are not bought and sold, governance rules tend to be radically different, the actions the government can take are significantly constrained (where a corporation's wouldn't be), the government can commit 'evil' acts in the pursuit of the greater good at least sometimes (such as taxation for national defense), et cetera.
Rabbit's argument is based on luck and talent, but not on making everybody have the same luck and talent. Of course, I also think Rabbit's argument is necessarily flawed, mainly because I reject the notion that any good or service has an 'intrinsic worth' (a view generally held by economists).
Part of her argument is interesting -- the question of how land use rights are acquired. All land on this planet has coercive acquisition at some point in its past. Clearly the coercive acquirer had no right to the land or product of the land (we'll ignore what might or might have derived from the product), but what about the person who acquired the land from that entity through a transaction? Do transactions involving the sale of something acquired illegitimately wipe away the illegitimacy? If not, is there a point the taint goes away?
I think its an interesting academic question, but my notions about how government should be set up (which, as noted in the past, aren't actually all that far from your own) are not derived from a singular notion about the moral legitimacy of trade (edit: and personal property, et cetera), and instead dependent on notions of what I think make people better off in their own estimation (which I think necessarily leads to an extremely laissez faire preference), so its answer will have no impact on my own views.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to die in WoW becuase I keep shelling out to post...
Things that don't sell still have value? well, sure. maybe the seller is holding out for a better buyer. Maybe it has sentemental value. Maybe it's beyond value. There's lots of ways to be valuable rather than monitary worth.
And of course the government is a corporation. We are all very diluted share holders with a very diluted voice. Whatever the masses vote for, the government comes and takes by force. This corporation's only limiting force is how the courts interpret the constitution and they've made some doozy jumps in logic over the years.
They can do anything and they'll prolly get away with it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being able to take by force isn't a part of being a corporation. Also, the limiting force cannot be the courts, because the courts have no power of coercion -- the limiting force in that case is what the people would do were the courts sufficiently violated. I suspect there are other limiting forces in place, too, though they likely all boil down to the will of the people. One reason I strongly suspect this is the extensive material evidence of what governments with truly small limits on power do around the world. Given that our government, even at its worse (which isn't now, btw), hasn't been much like those governments, I can only assume something limits it considerably.
Call a government a corporation all you want, but I suspect you consider certain behaviors by it to be immoral that you would not in a corporation (such as adopting any voting structure other than oner person/share, one vote), and certain actions to be (barely) acceptable for it that you would in no way accept out of a corporation. Those two differences seem to make it significantly structurally and capability-wise different from a corporation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
