From Foolishness To Rationality
Jim Klein
mentioned, my response is but a single word, but
I simply haven't time presently to explain /why/ my
response is but a single word.
But I have time to share what it is, that woke me the
hell up. I mean, technically it was everything I know,
everything I understand, everything I /identify/. But
I just mean, this is what instantly slapped me out
of my foolishness, and caused me, in but a moment's
fleeting time, to realize that it's anything /but/ a
hallmark of rationality that causes one to try and
find out if, "Maybe contradictions exist."
-------------------------------------
"So long as men believe that the /initiation/ of physical
force by some men against others is a proper part of
an organized society---hatred, violence, brutality,
destruction, slaughter and the savage gang warfare
of group against group are all they can or will achieve.
When physical force is the ultimate arbiter, men are
driven to connive, conspire and gang up on one
another in order to destroy rather than be destroyed;
the best perish, but the Atillas rise to the top. It might
be understandable that primitive, savage tribes could
not conceive of a way of life without resort to physcial
violence---and the bloody chaos of tribal warfare was
all that they achieved, as those who remained on that
level still demonstrate today. But when men propose
to live in an industrial civilization by the moral concepts
of those jungle savages, with nuclear missiles and H-
bombs at their disposal---they deserve the catastrophes
they ask for. Let no man posture as an advocate of
peace if he proposes or supports any social system
that initiates the use of physical force against individual
men, in any form whatsoever. Let no man posture as
an advocate of freedom if he claims the right to
establish /his/ version of a good society where
individuals dissenters are to be suppressed by means
of physical force. Let no man posture as an intellectual
if he proposes to elevate a thug into the position of
final authority over the intellect---or if he equates the
power of physical compulsion with the power of
persuasion--or if he equates the power of muscles
with the power of ideas.
"No advocate of reason can claim the right to force
his ideas on others. No advocate of the free mind
can claim the right to force the minds of others. No
rational society, no co-operation, no agreement, no
understanding, no discussion are possible among
men who propose to substitute guns for rational
persuasion."
Rand, "For the New Intellectual" in
_For the New Intellectual_ [emphasis hers]
---------------------------------
Like I say, woke me the hell up.
For me, the hallmark of rationality is moving
forward, learning, growing, /deciding/ not to
make the same mistake twice.
See if I make this one again. I'll offer my brief
response to Jim Prescott, along with my
explanation of that response, when I have
the time to do it properly.
jk
James E. Prescott
> [...quoting from Ayn Rand's FTNI:]
> -------------------------------------
> "So long as men believe that the /initiation/ of physical
> force by some men against others is a proper part of
> an organized society---hatred, violence, brutality,
> destruction, slaughter and the savage gang warfare
> of group against group are all they can or will achieve.
Ayn Rand knew well this important truth, and she
expressed it better than I, of course. My way of
speaking is usually less colorful, more repetitive.
Yet I say always on this point exactly what she said.
We must ban the use of force from human relationships
to prevent the vicious cycle of force, retaliation and
violence that otherwise ruins the peace, security,
health, wealth, freedom and happiness that reason-
guided beings ought to attain and enjoy. Anyone who
will not accept the outlawing of the use of force, and
who reserves to himself the option to apply brute
force to take what he wants or to impose his view
of right and wrong upon the minds of others, and
who behaves in such a manner, is an outlaw, an
animal to caged as he so richly deserves. As John
Galt said, "I do not share his evil or sink to his concept
of morality: I merely grant him his choice. He uses
force to seize a value. I use force to destroy destruction."
> [...]
> [...] I'll offer my brief response to Jim Prescott, along
> with my explanation of that response, when I have
> the time to do it properly.
I'm looking forward to it! I hope it is something original.
Too often in this forum (well, it used to be true for half
or more of the regular posters, I think; now I think it's
somewhat less), losing on the arguments provokes
a personal attack on the arguer. But I'm confident that's
not the case here. The idea that that's an easier
argument to make is only an illusion, of course.
So I look forward to an original line of thought from
Mr. Klein, something that will be interesting and
challenging.
My own "line of attack," as it were, is sometimes just
too boringly easy. Be right and /know/ you are right;
speak the truth always, plainly and simply. This is a
formula that just can't lose, whether you are defending
lofty ideals or your own character. I only wish it were
more of a challenge now and then!
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Charles Bell
> Ayn Rand knew well this important truth, and she
> expressed it better than I, of course.
Rand expressed Everything entirely differently than you do because you
what you express is opposed to what Rand expressed.
> My way of
> speaking is usually less colorful,
Less colorful, as as in utterly false.
> more repetitive.
Indeed.
> Yet I say always on this point exactly what she said.
>
> We must ban the use of force from human relationships
No. Rand would say: an individual may choose, as a recognition of the
moral right to life of every other individual, social relationships
that are organized in such a way as to prohibit the initiation of
force.
Oh, but, you choose the word "we" now don't you? WE WILL! WE MUST!
What Klein has been saying over and over again is that there is no
such entity as "we" that "must" do anything.
> of right and wrong upon the minds of others, and
> who behaves in such a manner, is an outlaw, an
> animal to caged as he so richly deserves.
"The difficulty which the mere thought of this problem puts before our
eyes is this. Man is an animal which, if it lives among others of its
kind, requires a master. For he certainly abuses his freedom with
respect to other men, and although as, a reasonable being he wishes to
have a law which limits the freedom of all, his selfish animal
impulses tempt him, where possible, to exempt himself from them. He
thus requires a master, who will break his will and force him to obey
a will that is universally valid, under which each can be free." -
Immanuel Kant
James E. Prescott
> [...]�Rand would say: an individual may choose, as a
> recognition of the moral right to life of every other individual,
> social relationships that are organized in such a way as to
> prohibit the initiation of force.
Ayn Rand didn't say, "may." She said, must.
"No rational society, no co-operation, no agreement,
no understanding, no discussion are possible among
men who propose to substitute guns for rational
persuasion."
> Oh, but, you choose the word "we" now don't you?
>�WE WILL! �WE MUST!
The word "we" appears more than 60 times in Galt's
Speech. "Atlas Shrugged," Ayn Rand once wrote, "is
not a prophecy of our unavoidable destruction, but a
manifesto of our power to avoid it, if we choose to
change our course."
> What Klein has been saying over and over again is
> that there is no such entity as "we" that "must" do
> anything.
Ayn Rand wrote, "every man /must/ be judged for what
he is and treated accordingly." I agree with that, and I
find the imperative particularly relevant here.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 3, 5:27�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]�Rand would say: an individual may choose, as a
> > recognition of the moral right to life of every other individual,
> > social relationships that are organized in such a way as to
> > prohibit the initiation of force.
>
> Ayn Rand didn't say, "may." She said, must.
Whenever Rand used "must" it was a conditional "must", and she
explicitly said so several times. As a generality, for any condition
that does not yet exist but *may* exist is in the subjunctive mood.
Though there is conditional-causation to everything, there is no
determinism in human action (as there is freewill), and therefore a
man *may* choose but cannot be said to ever *must* choose without
there being a conditional attached to it. Rand elaborates on this in
several places.
In the above: if a man does recognize . . . (but there is nothing
deterministically forcing him to do so) . . . that every individual,
just like himself, has a moral right to life then he may . . . (or
may not, as there is nothing deterministically forcing him to do
so) . . . choose society without the initiation of force as to his
benefit. Causation demands a conditional. Your quasi-deontological
"must" ignores causation.
> The word "we" appears more than 60 times in Galt's
> Speech. "Atlas Shrugged,"
And it certainly appears a lot in /Anthem/ as well, and we all know on
which side you place yourself in that scenario.
Jim Klein
> > Ayn Rand didn't say, "may." She said, must.
>
> Whenever Rand used "must" it was a conditional "must", and she
> explicitly said so several times.
From memory, "Mister, there's nothing I /have/ to do, but die."
> As a generality, for any condition
> that does not yet exist but *may* exist is in the subjunctive mood.
> Though there is conditional-causation to everything, there is no
> determinism in human action (as there is freewill), and therefore a
> man *may* choose but cannot be said to ever *must* choose without
> there being a conditional attached to it. Rand elaborates on this in
> several places.
>
> In the above: if a man does recognize . . . (but there is nothing
> deterministically forcing him to do so) . . . that every individual,
> just like himself, has a moral right to life then he may . . . (or
> may not, as there is nothing deterministically forcing him to do
> so) . . . choose society without the initiation of force as to his
> benefit.
This is all exactly right, and not just because Rand said so.
Here's the thing. When Prescott says "must," he really means
"must." As a simple matter of fact, as you explain here, there
just is no "must" for a willful person. The only way to reach
"must," with regard to the actions of an intentional being, is
to outright, literally /force/ the action.
And this, no matter how well couched in verbiage or
"arguments," is the proposal of a thug. And of course,
it's hardly a "proposal," even if it's worded that way.
Nor is it persuasion, nor is rational, nor is it civil, nor is it
an agreement, a contract, an obligation or anything like
those. Each of those are /subsets/ of "willful action," and
willful action is /exclusive/ of forced behavior. That is what
these things are, and all the "arguments" in the universe
can't change it a bit.
It's tempting to call his argument "interesting," and in fact
I've even believed that very notion. But even interesting
arguments are within the realm of intentional cognition,
whereas outright thuggery is not. I mean, from the POV
of the thug, they are...they're both intentional and ultimately
cognitively driven. But that's just a POV, and a person may
convince himself of nearly anything.
The relevant point is that as a matter of /fact/, the actions of
a thug are thuggery and in a social context, there's nothing
whatsoever "cognitive" nor "intentional" about them, with
respect to the sorts of means they are, driving human action.
This is WHY, as Rand so clearly noted, "No
rational society, no co-operation, no agreement, no
understanding, no discussion are possible among
men who propose to substitute guns for rational
persuasion."
A person may call it what he wishes; he may convince
himself with whatever words or arguments he chooses,
but at the end of the day, a thug is a thug is a thug.
And at the end of that day, there is nothing to say to a
thug except, "Noted." Even that's more than he
deserves technically, but something must be uttered
to distinguish "I hear you" from "Blank-out."
I've now written two extensive posts about both Prescott
and his /imposed/ "Rule of Law." The first got dumped
on a crash and the second was simply too powerful IMO,
that I chose not to post it.
Maybe one day, but not too soon. I call 'em like I see
'em, but I don't seek to cause trouble. There seems
to be quite enough of that without my help.
Both were explanations of /why/ there's nothing to be
"argued" with a thug, but I suppose Rand said it well
enough for these purposes. Meanwhile you say well
enough that Prescott's contrived excuses amount to
nothing more than that...the excuses of a petty, or
perhaps major, thug that have nothing whatsoever to
do with civility, rationality or even for that matter, "Rule
of Law," even assuming such a thing can exist.
A thug is a thug is a thug. All the rationalizations in the
universe can never change that. If the thug can speak,
as Prescott can so eloquently, then IMO there's nothing
to be said but, "Noted."
jk
James E. Prescott
> [...] The only way to reach "must," with regard to the
> actions of an intentional being, is to outright, literally
> /force/ the action.
Must is a conditional imperative, as, if you wish to reach
New York from Chicago you /must/ travel East.
That is what Ayn Rand meant when she said that to
have cooperation men /must/ renounce force and settle
all disputes under objective law.
And that is what I have meant, and what I have said.
There is, though, another must. You must obey the law if
you want to stay out of jail. I say, that, too. It makes
me a thug in the minds only of those Ayn Rand rightly
condemned as having reached the end of the road to moral
and intellectual bankruptcy -- those who equate the
defenders of right with the perpetrators of wrong.
> [...]
> I've now written two extensive posts about both Prescott
> and his /imposed/ "Rule of Law."
Pray tell. Posts, or rants, or whatever you claim to
have written are not arguments if you don't make them.
A true man of reason has the courage and integrity to
express his views openly and honestly, even when they
are unpopular and provoke ridicule and name-calling.
> The first got dumped on a crash [...]
What a pity.
> [...] and the second was simply too powerful IMO,
> that I chose not to post it.
Yeah, right.
> Maybe one day, but not too soon. I call 'em like I see
> 'em, but I don't seek to cause trouble. There seems
> to be quite enough of that without my help.
Let me see if I got this straight. You have a powerful
argument for why swindlers and scofflaws should not be
put in prisons, but you keep silent about this argument
because you don't seek to cause trouble. Yeah, sure.
And I'm Superman and but I happen to have this dreadful
fear of heights -- and, by the way, I'm just not too good
with confrontations, either.
> Both were explanations of /why/ there's nothing to be
> "argued" with a thug, but I suppose Rand said it well
> enough for these purposes.
Ayn Rand said you meet force with force. She said you deal
with thugs by physical force, not argument, you /destroy/
them, granting them their own choice, the only destruction
they had a right to choose, their own.
That is what I say, too, and for that you call me a thug.
Fine. Call me whatever names you want. If you believe the
proper response to a reasoned argument, to say nothing of
thuggery, is to run off and hide, go already! I won't bother
you or bully you, or do anything but sincerely wish you well.
That's because I'm not a thug.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Dan Lind
[...]
If you'll allow me, let me for the purpose of my questions define a
government as, loosely, a monopolist of force. Perhaps you'll also
allow me to, pretty much along with Rand, claim that legitimate
government exercises defensive force on behalf of its citizens who
have given government legitimacy by delegating to it their right to
use defensive force.
Question One. Are you claiming that government as I've described it
is just an institution populated by individuals who are thugs?
Question Two. Are you claiming that individuals, the collection of
whom we call a "society," are thugs in so far as the monopolist of
force, the government to which they've delegated their right of
defensive force, exercises force?
Dan Lind
James E. Prescott
> On Feb 4, 10:25�pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
> If you'll allow me, let me for the purpose of my questions define a
Dan,
For what it's worth, phrased that way -- loosely as you say --
I believe Jim can easily win the argument!
What I mean is, if government is viewed as a particular
agency selected from among and/or successfully suppressing
all others agencies ("a" monopolist, "an" agency that has
managed for the time being to succeed in monopolizing the
use of force, by force) then what /ought/ to be the true and proper
moral authority of government is undermined, and one is left
with the concept of "competing governments," of perpetual
warfare "de jure" no matter how successful this particular
agency happens to be in driving competitors from its territory.
Jim can argue -- whether he will or not I don't know -- that
if you begin with the premise that using force against a
man or group of men who hasn't/haven't /initiated/ the use
of force is /evil/, then it is /evil/ for your government to
initiate force against men and women who haven't used
force themselves but who have only opted not to recognize
your self-proclaimed government's authority to resolve their
disputes for them.
Why should they have to answer a subpoena issued by
a court of "your government" if they have not used force
against anyone? Demanding they appear to answer
unfounded charges or to give testimony in "your court,"
a court whose authority they never agreed to recognize,
is obviously an initiation, by you, of force, against them,
and there is no other way to characterize it.
Best Wishes,
Jim P.
Charles Bell
> [...]
>
> If you'll allow me, let me for the purpose of my questions define a
> government as, loosely, a monopolist of force.
The problem with this line of argument is that it concedes to Prescott
the premise that there MUST be a government to which one MUST obey. I
am certainly no anarchist, but if there is no unconditional "must" in
reality, then that means there is no "must" for obediance to
government; and that which is being obeyed is simply an opposing force
against which ones chooses not to fight, and Prescott ought to well
recognize that.
>
> Question One. �Are you claiming that government as I've described it
> is just an institution populated by individuals who are thugs?
>
Presumably, if paid well enough, they are to be one's thugs against
their thugs.
> Question Two. �Are you claiming that individuals, the collection of
> whom we call a "society," are thugs in so far as the monopolist of
> force, the government to which they've delegated their right of
> defensive force, exercises force?
Actually, the concept of "defensive force" is suspect. Force is
force. There is truth to the best defense is a good offense. Picture
soldiers in a theatre of war who are allowed to engage the enemy if
and only if they are fired upon and only against those specifically
firing at them. Sound familiar? That is Afghanistan being pacified by
libertarians. But that is another topic.
Charles Bell
> On Feb 4, 10:25 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > [...] The only way to reach "must," with regard to the
> > actions of an intentional being, is to outright, literally
> > /force/ the action.
>
> Must is a conditional imperative,
You are trying to adapt O'ist lingo for your purposes and it does not
wash.
> as, if you wish to reach
> New York from Chicago you /must/ travel East.
. . . and you cannot even get the facts straight. One *can* travel
west from Chicago to get to NYC. Get it?
>
> That is what Ayn Rand meant when she said that to
> have cooperation men /must/ renounce force and settle
> all disputes under objective law.
>
> And that is what I have meant, and what I have said.
And what you mean and and what you have said is wrong on the facts.
Jim Klein
> If you'll allow me, let me for the purpose of my questions define a
> government as, loosely, a monopolist of force.
That's pretty loose. So who are all those thugs that are
in prison...and I mean the ones properly caged. Who
are all the litigants and defendants in all the untold
courtrooms? Aren't they, supposedly, those who have
engaged force against others? So sorry, I don't know
what this means..."monopolist of force." Force users
are those who choose to engage force. Do I have
something wrong about that IYO?
I think your definition is closer to, "that which I wish
were a monopolist of force." That's right, isn't it?
For whatever it's worth, my wishes and your wishes
are very closely aligned. If we take those and each
add a dollar, we can have a cup of coffee.
> Perhaps you'll also
> allow me to, pretty much along with Rand, claim that legitimate
> government exercises defensive force on behalf of its citizens who
> have given government legitimacy by delegating to it their right to
> use defensive force.
Sounds great, Dan. So does Heaven. And if you really
want to compare wishes and fantasies, the standard
Islamic terrorist fantasy of Heaven sounds at least as
good as the standard Christian one. Does that somehow
legitimize them IYO?
> Question One. Are you claiming that government as I've described it
> is just an institution populated by individuals who are thugs?
Do you mean the government defined as you wish it were
so, or the government as it is?
Though I suppose in either case, the answer is "No." The
vast majority of those who "populate government" are
just regular Joes like you and me, who are genuinely
seeking to do the right thing, live a good life and be
happy. Personally I think that's the case for just about
any institution you could name.
Does that answer your question?
> Question Two. Are you claiming that individuals, the collection of
> whom we call a "society," are thugs in so far as the monopolist of
> force, the government to which they've delegated their right of
> defensive force, exercises force?
My answer would be the same, or at least very similar. I'm not
sure if you're asking me about their intent or about their
actions.
I'd say the same about Churchgoers too, or even altruists in
general. Take any vile organization, however you determine
it as vile...do you really think its individual members are each
and every one as vile as the organization to which they belong?
You've read _Ominous Parallels_, I'm sure. Germany was the
most "cultured" society in history. MOST of the chaps who
ended up committing whatever atrocities they committed,
didn't start out seeking to commit atrocities. They were
seeking honorable work, just like you and I, and what
could be more honorable--especially given the reigning
philosophy of the last few thousand years--than wanting
to protect their neighbors, their country, their way of life?
How innocent are the young children that crazy regimes like
Pol Pot's snatch and turn into murderous maniacs--basically
on the basis of saving their own lives, of engaging Rand's
imagined "ultimate value" of survival?
For the most part, "completely" is how innocent they were,
before being snatched. Do you disagree?
I have a hunch none of this gets to what you are asking,
so please feel free to clarify the questions and I'll be
very willing to answer them.
jk