Introducing Liberalism to Objectivism
Mike Schneider
In article <0000...@noname.ix.netcom.com>, Charles Bell
<cbell58@.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Introducing Liberalism to Objectivism
I introduce the term "libertarian-Objectivist" to signify a particular kind of
Objectivist political thought that is indistinguishable from libertarian
political thought which is contrary to some tenets of Objectivism such as
anarchy and the axiomatic application of the non-initiation of force principle
to government. I would count nine out of ten Objectivists as
libertarian-Objectivists in spite of some their protestations against such an
appellation. Some of these Objectivists will hold that libertarians have evil
ideas while at the same agree point-by-point with all primary libertarian
political tenets. The libertarian-Objectivist believes in a rather faulty
pastiche of characteristics which he presumes is natural to men without
justification and deny characteristics which are undeniable. An example of the
latter is that a collective like society is an abstraction without an existing
referent and is merely a summation of individual actions, and an example of the
former is that an individual will act as a fully rational being fully cognizant
of ethical behavior derived from personal contemplation.
Why should anyone support a government for which he cannot give explicit
voluntary support? Why should anyone support a government financially or
otherwise which does not require all those receiving benefit of that
government to support it financially or otherwise?
A typical libertarian-Objectivist answer to these questions is of the form:
If a person does not want a particular government, and cannot, or will not,
financially support the government, then he should not submit to the
government.
What is government really? It is an organization of alliances among
individuals to use force to extract compliance from other individuals for a
single or a multitude of purposes. Persons supporting and creating such
alliances do not actually need forced compliance among themselves as they will
naturally do so of their own accord.
Among primates the most widespread form of collaboration is the alliance
formation: two or more individuals banding together to defeat a third.
Corollary to this is the alliance shifting which is a constant flux of
alliances among different individuals: parties A and B against C one day for
one purpose and then C and A against B the next for a different purpose. These
alliances are always for some kind of domination for domination sake and not so
much for tangible gains, though these latter will follow such domination.
The condition of egalitarianism -- a condition of absolute voluntary consent
-- can only exist when both a common need for cooperation coincides with the
freedom of the submissive to leave the domain of the dominant. These relate to
the conditions of the natural environment and not to anything else. The
existence of outside predators is the most common natural environment working
against egalitarianism -- creating both the need for cooperation and the
disincentive to leave. In the total absence of predators and the existence of
reliable paths to fruitful lives outside the domain of the dominant, the
dominant would be left without anyone to dominate. With the presence of adverse
natural conditions outside the domain of the dominant, including but not
exclusive to the existence of outside predators, the dominant can dominate
almost with impunity. This is true except for one condition, and that is the
formation of alliances. With alliances, the submissives will gather the
strength necessary to create a new dominant until another alliance is formed
against the new dominant.
The liberal's view of man in a social context is that reconciliation of all
ways under a single, harmonious, conflictless whole is impossible, and that
political institutions should regulate this conflict and facilitate the
toleration of different ways by drawing boundaries permitting coexistence.
There is no such thing a single method of obtaining individual happiness in a
social context that will not conflict with another man's method of obtaining
happiness. The libertarian-Objectivist view that it is possible for every man
to give consent (the actual degree of explicit consent is unmeasured) to the
political-social conditions in which he finds himself is a ruse to introduce a
significant amount of subjectivist worldview into an absolute (objective) world
with an absolute objective morality. The liberals and the libertarians will
agree that there is no absolute morality and that is what leads to the
conflicts between individuals. The libertarian-Objectivist worldview is
somewhat more complicated than this but it does coordinate (or at least tries
to coordinate) with contextual epistemology in that the absolutes like
morality are absolute but every man's understanding of an absolute morality by
an ethical code will vary so widely that conflicts will arise. If only people
would agree that there is a single ethical code then conflicts are so minimal
as to allow for such consent for every political decision.
The liberal's view of humanity, perhaps deriving from Hobbes, is the most
conforming to man's nature. It is not natural for every individual to consider
ab initio his every act as conforming to an ethical code, much less to an
underlying metaphyscial reality of the exact consequences of moral or immoral
action. A man will act according his need to be submissive or dominant given
the circumstances. If his perceived ability to thrive outside the domain of the
dominant is greater than his ability to thrive within the domain, he will
either fight for domination through ad-hoc alliance-formation or flee the
domain. There is effectively no such thing as a formation of government ab
initio because there is no such thing as fixed and immutable political
alliances, and there certainly was no such thing as a single event in the
creation of the society of mankind. There can be no such thing as explicit
voluntary consent under any government including one that does not purportedly
initiate the use of force because there is no such thing as a political
alliance that does not somewhere at some time initate the use of force to
circumvent or overthrow the power of the dominant of the ancien rＨime and then
to continue circumscribe the boundaries of the submissive.
-----------------------------
Charles Bell
What's REALLY right with Objectivism?
http://www.netcom.com/~cbell58/aynrand.htm/#best
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The College Board * Boynton Beach FL * 561.364.9249 * Interent Gateway
+
+ User email address: cbell58@.ix.netcom.com
+ User FidoNet address: 1:3609/80
+
+ Disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you
must replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.
Surviving without a Slave Number: http://www.ime.net/none/
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
A Military Action: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum
Ian Goddard's TWA-800 site: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm
They screwed people left and right. http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt
Scott Erb
In article <mike1-27039...@ppp-67-16.dialup.winternet.com>,
mi...@WXYZwinternet.com says...
>
>In article <0000...@noname.ix.netcom.com>, Charles Bell
><cbell58@.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Introducing Liberalism to Objectivism
Objectivism is a cult, similar to hard core Marxists, they have their God (in
this case Rand), and a set of beliefs which they define as the only true,
objective set of beliefs (some are more tolerant, as in any religion). One
sees the behavior of some objectivists in talk.politics.misc. Any
philosopher or scholar who defined an alternative school (Marx, Keynes, etc.)
is personally attacked, and any person who argues differently is attacked as
well. They must defend their faith.
Objectivism, like religion, holds the promise of clarity. You find yourself
faced with an explanation for the world, a guide for behavior, and in this
case a rationalization for any benefits or advantage you happen to have. It
can, like religion, be inspiring. In the case of objectivism, a benefit can
be to inspire people to do what everyone should do: take control of and
responsibility for their own lives. Unfortunately, objectivists see this bit
of common sense as only part of the picture.
Luckily, like most such cults, objectivism is marginalized. It appeals most
to young men in college age, but as people learn about the sophistication of
the world, they usually reject it over time. It isn't very wide spread, and
like religious cults, tend to meet in small groups to discuss dogma and the
like. It is, at base, an attempt to deal with the problem of modernism -- if
you eliminate God or spirituality, then you have to deal with the fact that
there is no grounding for a set of morals or beliefs which is certain. These
become human constructs. Rejecting the uncertainty that entails,
objectivists try to make a certain type of logic and reason -- based on
tautological assumptions -- to be the replacement for "god," and thus to
regain the certainty lost in modernism. It is an understandable goal.
But contrary to reality.
Tim Starr
In article <6fga7e$7li$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <mike1-27039...@ppp-67-16.dialup.winternet.com>,
>mi...@WXYZwinternet.com says...
>>
>><cbell58@.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Introducing Liberalism to Objectivism
>
>this case Rand), and a set of beliefs which they define as the only true,
>objective set of beliefs (some are more tolerant, as in any religion). One
>sees the behavior of some objectivists in talk.politics.misc. Any
>philosopher or scholar who defined an alternative school (Marx, Keynes, etc.)
>is personally attacked, and any person who argues differently is attacked as
>well. They must defend their faith.
Erbism is a cult, similar to religious fundamentalism. It has its Gods, and
a set of beliefs which are considered to be the only correct ones. Anyone
who dissents from the orthodoxy is subject to vicious personal attacks,
immediately followed by insincere apologies & promises not to do it again.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Mike Schneider
In article <351bab78...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
> laissezfaire@usa*nospam*.net (Freedom) wrote:
>
> ><199803271123...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, rein...@aol.com 's
> >computer exploded - leaving a pile of letters in the following pattern
>
> >> I was about to make out a check to the Institute for Objectivist
Studies for
> >> their summer program which looked interesting and it has been such a long
> >> time....
> >>
> >> Then I read your post and thought, "Can I survive a week of
objectispeak?" I
> >> think not.
>
> >Charles Bell is an example of the worst of objectivism.
>
> I'll say. I've gotta wonder why Mike brought us that thing.
> Personally, I haven't thought about Bell even once in the past year or
> so, and I used to blow his posts out of my HPO downloads with gleeful
> routine. The guy's a clown.
Compared to the likes infesting the group lately (and old hands like
Aisa on a real fascist streak), the mere "clowns" are starting to look
good. (I freely admit that I do not often visit HPO anymore, and that the
name of Charles Bell did not ring any past bells). Maybe the guy's bought
a few clues since you paid attention to him. It's been known to happen.
As to why I posted it, again, its conclusion:
> > There can be no such thing as explicit voluntary consent under any
> > government including one that does not purportedly initiate the use of
> > force because there is no such thing as a political alliance that does
> > not somewhere at some time initate the use of force to circumvent or
> > overthrow the power of the dominant of the ancient regime and then
> > to continue circumscribe the boundaries of the submissive.
That last bit had my eyebrows crawling sideways, but anything that puts
Brad's tit in a wringer is good enough for me. Regardless, it looked
supportive of A-C to me, and I got the impression that "liberal
objectivist" was being introduced as a *derogatory* term.
Mike Schneider
In article <MPG.f85ecca4...@news.bcsupernet.com>,
laissezfaire@usa*nospam*.net (Freedom) wrote:
> So you figured Rand was full of horseshit when she tried to make you
> chose between your lover and her.
>
> I was somewhat more fortunate - I was able to dispense with her
> conclusions on politics - after thinking through her position on the
> issue of the consent of the governed.
Right. Wrote Charles Bell:
"There can be no such thing as explicit voluntary consent under any
government including one that does not purportedly initiate the use of
force..."
(BTW, for those heading off the HPO for a look-see, pay close attention
to a new fella named "Alex". He's doing a bang-up job.)
Pistol
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:50:28 GMT, tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
wrote:
>In article <6fga7e$7li$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>In article <mike1-27039...@ppp-67-16.dialup.winternet.com>,
>>mi...@WXYZwinternet.com says...
>>>
>>>In article <0000...@noname.ix.netcom.com>, Charles Bell
>>><cbell58@.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Introducing Liberalism to Objectivism
>>
>>Objectivism is a cult, similar to hard core Marxists, they have their God (in
>>this case Rand),
A strange cult, since many if not most "members" question and disagree
with some things their leader says. This is in direct conflict to the
definition of a cult, and far more like the behavior of political
parties.
>>and a set of beliefs which they define
No, they demonstrate and argue, just like any group,
>>as the only true, objective set of beliefs
As anyone who is intellectually honest does.
>>(some are more tolerant, as in any religion).
Or any other group.
>>One
>>sees the behavior of some objectivists in talk.politics.misc. Any
>>philosopher or scholar who defined an alternative school (Marx, Keynes, etc.)
>>is personally attacked, and any person who argues differently is attacked as
>>well.
Sort of like this post of yours right? Not a bit of substance, but
lots of vitriol. What religion are YOU defending?
>They must defend their faith.
It seems as though you have Objectivists confused with yourself.
Thanks Erb. It brings a great sense of stability to my universe to
know that you'll always be a hypocritical pompous ass.
Scott D. Erb
In article <351e89b5...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
says...
>
>Thanks Erb. It brings a great sense of stability to my universe to
>know that you'll always be a hypocritical pompous ass.
Pistol, like all religious zealots, can't stand having his faith questioned or
criticized.
Julian Sanchez
Pistol wrote in message <351e89b5...@newshost.cyberramp.net>...
<snip>
>
>>>One
>>>sees the behavior of some objectivists in talk.politics.misc. Any
>>>philosopher or scholar who defined an alternative school (Marx, Keynes,
etc.)
>>>is personally attacked, and any person who argues differently is attacked
as
>>>well.
>
>Sort of like this post of yours right? Not a bit of substance, but
>lots of vitriol. What religion are YOU defending?
>
>>They must defend their faith.
>
>It seems as though you have Objectivists confused with yourself.
>
>Thanks Erb. It brings a great sense of stability to my universe to
>know that you'll always be a hypocritical pompous ass.
Ok, I'll jump in here- I'm very fond of Rand's work, but Leonard Peikoff is
a damn lunatic; allow me to cite, for example, the expulsion of David Kelley
from the Ayn Rand Institute after he dared to give a speech before a group
of non-objectivist libertarians. And videos of conferences released by
Second Renaissance Books under the auspices of the ARI have had speeches by
Nathaniel or Barbara Branden just plain edited out (rather like some of the
stalinist purges). In the recent documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life,
Peikoff would only agree to give the filmmakers access to their archives if
the Brandens, for years Ayn's best friends, were not interviewed, and indeed
the long period during which Ayn worked through the Nathaniel Branden
Institute was conflated to about 3 minutes. This is HIGHLY cultlike
behaviour as far as I'm concerned. The crowd at the IOS (David Kelley's
splinter group) is far more tolerant, but the ARI true believers make
Scientologists look like bastions of toleration.
-JS
LQuest
On 29 Mar 1998 22:25:24 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
>In article <351e89b5...@newshost.cyberramp.net>, pis...@cyberramp.net
>says...
>>
>
>>Thanks Erb. It brings a great sense of stability to my universe to
>>know that you'll always be a hypocritical pompous ass.
>
>Pistol, like all religious zealots, can't stand having his faith questioned or
>criticized.
You might be right (err.. correct) Scott. Why not post some actual
criticism. Then maybe we'll all see how he reacts. So far all you've
posted is a bunch of useless generalizations. Here's a good start: I
dare you to actually THINK (uuuhhg I know it's a strain) and give a
well considered answer to the following question and its logical
corollaries:
Do human beings NEED, really NEED any, repeat ANY kind of moral code
as a standard of behavior in order to survive and/or prosper? Yes
or no is the only answer required.
If yes, why?
If no, why?
--Mike
Scott Erb
In article
<A370391F19259A17.2E16CB2E...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net says...
>You might be right (err.. correct) Scott. Why not post some actual
>criticism.
I did. The result was that I frustrated Pistol into claiming he put me in a
killfile (he still responds now and then so I doubt he really did). My
arguments against objectivism were part of a long thread about a year ago, I
think last summer. They are probably still in deja news. To be sure, I
wouldn't put all objectivists in the same camp as Pistol -- just a few seem
to be dogmatists, and they seem to be the ones posting to talk.politics.misc.
>Do human beings NEED, really NEED any, repeat ANY kind of moral code
>as a standard of behavior in order to survive and/or prosper? Yes
>or no is the only answer required.
If you mean individual human beings, the answer is no. An individual can
survive and prosper with no moral code. However, a society will not without
some kind of moral code. Usually the development of some kind of socially
constructed notion of morality is a prerequisite for the development of a
society (a society will not develop without one). The problem then is a
collective action problem -- to the extent that individuals do not share that
moral code and thus act in a way contrary to it, the bond that keeps society
together is weakened. If enough do not hold the moral code (or hold
competing moral codes), then society can be threatened.
Note the irony here when applied to a radical individualism: an individual
only needs a moral code when in a society. Thus if one argues for a moral
code, one is taking a societal rather than individualist perspective on the
issue. Basing such a moral code on individualism alone is thus illogical.
The biggest issue is whether any objectively "right" moral code exists.
There is very little if any evidence that one does (those who believe so are,
in my opinion, putting faith in a religion). Even if one thinks there might
be a correct moral code, the idea that any one of us knows what it is, is
very unlikely. Indeed, people who make such claims rely on unfalsifiable
assumptions which can easily be questioned by others.
cheers, scott
Pistol
>Ok, I'll jump in here- I'm very fond of Rand's work, but Leonard Peikoff is
>a damn lunatic; allow me to cite, for example, the expulsion of David Kelley
>from the Ayn Rand Institute after he dared to give a speech before a group
>of non-objectivist libertarians.
Granted. Kelley may be the best thng to ever happen to Objectivism,
as his appearence on Stossel's special on greed attests.
>And videos of conferences released by
>Second Renaissance Books under the auspices of the ARI have had speeches by
>Nathaniel or Barbara Branden just plain edited out (rather like some of the
>stalinist purges). In the recent documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life,
>Peikoff would only agree to give the filmmakers access to their archives if
>the Brandens, for years Ayn's best friends, were not interviewed, and indeed
>the long period during which Ayn worked through the Nathaniel Branden
>Institute was conflated to about 3 minutes. This is HIGHLY cultlike
>behaviour as far as I'm concerned.
Now THIS sort of stuff is what most political party activity is like.
Recall the infamous editing of Jefferson's seperatist comments when
his memorial was built. And then of course, there is Stalin, as you
pointed out. Applying the term "cult" to such activities is just too
broad a brush, for it would include most corporate boardrooms, as well
as the current occupants of the white house (and perhaps all that
preceded them). Mind-control, NOT censorship, is the trait of cults.
>The crowd at the IOS (David Kelley's
>splinter group) is far more tolerant, but the ARI true believers make
>Scientologists look like bastions of toleration.
I agree. But intolerance is NOT specific to cults.
Pistol
>You might be right (err.. correct) Scott. Why not post some actual
>criticism.
Because to offer a substative criticism of a topic, one must actually
have studied the topic, and Erb's posts to date suggest that he has
not even taken the first baby steps at attempting to understand
objectivist arguments.
>Then maybe we'll all see how he reacts.
We went through that a great deal long ago. Once one tosses aside
Erb's subtle insults ("oh well...", "this is really basic stuff"), and
well-memorized platitudes there is little to merit commentary. But I
welcome you to engage him in debate. Watch how long it takes him to
start calling you names and insulting you.
>So far all you've
>posted is a bunch of useless generalizations.
And that's all you'll get too - oh, except for the insults.
>Here's a good start: I
>dare you to actually THINK (uuuhhg I know it's a strain) and give a
>well considered answer to the following question and its logical
>corollaries:
>
>Do human beings NEED, really NEED any, repeat ANY kind of moral code
>as a standard of behavior in order to survive and/or prosper? Yes
>or no is the only answer required.
>
>If yes, why?
>If no, why?
Heh. Good luck. And while you are at it, see if you can get Erb to
comment on any SPECIFIC view stated in any of Rand's, Branden's,
Peikoff's or Kelley's writings. Watch his dance.
LQuest
Thanks for the warning Pistol. I was actually contemplating a serious
debate. But given his very first response to my serious question I
can see he'll need a bit more life experience (20 years or so) before
he'll be in a receptive mindset.
--Mike
Scott Erb
In article
<3133C8E2868D07D5.A8CF2F77...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net says...
>Thanks for the warning Pistol. I was actually contemplating a serious
>debate. But given his very first response to my serious question I
>can see he'll need a bit more life experience (20 years or so) before
>he'll be in a receptive mindset.
In other words, my response overwhelmed you, and you don't know how to
respond, so therefore you decided a simple insult (sort of like how Pistol
responds) is in order. That's fine. However, my life experience includes
assembly line work, restaurant management, living in two foreign countries
and traveling to over 20, teaching, working my way through college and
graduate school, working in Washington DC for a Senator, and much more. How
much more experience would you like me to get before I'm worthy of debate
with someone like your esteemed self?