Peikoff on Hispanics

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell: A pretty good top-down, explicit assessment which also had to be said.

Not to neglect though, that collectivism 'starts at home', from each individual who renounces his independence of mind in favour of the greater number and 'good' (of one type or other, and to one degree, or other). As such, the complete "labelling" of the axis is really 'altruism-collectivism'.

Absolutely.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

Hmm. It seems we have different ways of looking at these topics, Darrell. Furthermore, it appears to me that it might be the definition that is bugging me; i.e., "the good of the group above the good of the individual". My objection is that "the good of the group" can only collapse into relations between people. I am prone to view it not as "the group" per se, but rather as "the social order".

It appears that your problem is not with "collectivism" so much as it is a problem with its referents, e.g., communism, socialist, Nazism, etc.

You might have more in common with Rand than you think. She states:

Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals.

Communism, itself, for example, is an incoherent, ill-defined term. That's because the notion of the "good of society" is an ill defined term. Communists take it to mean that all people should have equal access to material wealth, regardless of whether they have earned it or not. Hence, Marx's famous slogan from the Communist Manifesto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Clearly, any attempt to enforce such a credo will conflict with the interests of numerous individuals who would be better off earning and keeping their own wealth. But, the interests of such individuals are to be sacrificed to the (supposedly) greater good.

Clearly, an objection to the communist creed would be that following it isn't really good for the group (or society). But, what system that puts the good of society ahead of the rights of the individual is good for society in any meaningful sense? What is good for society? What is society?

The incoherency is not a function of the word "collectivism", per se. It is a function of all of the misguided creeds to which it refers. Yet, such creeds exist and some word is required to label them and thereby to refer to them.

Darrell

À la Wiki:

A society, or a human society, is a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

Bold mine. "The good of society" is then the maintenance/perpetuation/preservation of a desired pattern of socially constituted phenomenon.

But take one creed that isn't inherently "individualist" or "collectivist": the greatest good for the greatest number. What it is utilitarian. Would Ozymandias from Watchmen be a collectivist? No. What he is is an extreme utilitarian.

A state cannot be said to be a group, in my opinion. It is a political entity/institution. It's not the "same thing" as its constituency. But this is getting into ontology and I really don't want to go there.

I still doubt the coherence of the individualism-collectivism spectrum, especially its applicability to certain things. I'm unable to clearly formulate my objections to the use of those two terms. I'm sure it's partly semantic and partly conceptual.

[Samson Corwell]

A further problem is if "collectivism" is used to mean little more than anything that isn't "Western individualism", then the term is pretty vacuous.

When someone says "The rights of certain groups.", the use of the term "group" could mean a variety of things.

[Samson Corwell]

Darrell: A pretty good top-down, explicit assessment which also had to be said.

Not to neglect though, that collectivism 'starts at home', from each individual who renounces his independence of mind in favour of the greater number and 'good' (of one type or other, and to one degree, or other). As such, the complete "labelling" of the axis is really 'altruism-collectivism'.

I think this is bogus. To conflate "altruism" with "collectivism", well, I just can't see it.

[anthony]

"I'm sure it's partly semantic and partly conceptual"- Samson.

Ya, you have it, especially the "conceptual" bit. I.E. a hierarchy of concepts in which abstractions such as egalitarianism and utilitarianism are sub-concepts of collectivism. If you've already identified utilitarianism, as concept, you only have to follow through consistently.

"Western individualism" is in itself a redundancy (by its qualifier) and a dim memory, for most people. Like 'western capitalism' which is barely representative of the real, undiluted thing.

For the determinism-altruism-collectivism linkage, I think you'd have to go back to Aristotlian and Randian metaphysics. As opposed to mystical metaphysics -simply, men are a collective of souls in God's view (predetermined) waiting to be instantly suffused with His wisdom); or, the skeptical secular-humanist metaphysics -simply, men are a biological collective with better-developed brains, who share the tribal or herding instincts of lower mammals (predetermined), and who have no claim to personal knowledge... Objectivism identifies the nature of man by what are his most distinctively outstanding faculties and nature:

Rational, self-directing(volitional), autonomous.

Not "created", but 'self-created', by virtue of his conceptualization; unable to survive by instinct (and not for long, by brute force),but always in pursuit of his own knowledge, to his own ends (by moral choice, at every turn) as paramount, and- necessarily - selfish. The errors are his alone, and so must be the rewards.

Any and all collectivism is the forerunner to some sort of service (or slavery) to others.

[Samson Corwell]

"I'm sure it's partly semantic and partly conceptual"- Samson.

Ya, you have it, especially the "conceptual". I.E. the hierarchy of concepts, in which abstractions such as egalitarianism and utilitarianism are sub-concepts of collectivism. If you've already identified utilitarianism, as concept, you only have to follow through consistently.

Incorrect. Utilitarianism is neither "individualist" or "collectivist". You're committing a category error here. Neither is egalitarianism a sub-concept; it's an all together different concept.

"Western individualism" is in itself a redundancy (by its qualifier) and a dim memory, for most people. Like 'western capitalism' which is barely representative of the real, undiluted thing.

I disagree.

For the determinism-altruism-collectivism link, I think you'd have to back to Aristotlian and Randian metaphysics.

I doubt the concepts are linked at all.

As opposed to mystical metaphysics (simply, men are a collective of souls in God's view, instantly suffused with His wisdom)

What? This isn't even wrong. It's so bizarre that I don't even know how to explain how it isn't even wrong. Collective of souls? What? That has nothing to do Christianity. This is like a category error or context drop or something. You're using a word where it doesn't even fit into. I can't parse it.

and secular-humanist (sceptical) metaphysics (simply, men are a biological collective with better-developed brains, and who share the tribal or herding instincts of lower mammals)

Proof?

[anthony]

Samson: You make no effort to understand the concept, and I can't transfer the intact concept direct to you.

Utilitarianism: "The doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the sole end of public action". [C.O.D.]

You don't note the connection to collectivism? ("Greatest number"?)

Similarly with egalitarianism?

If your senses alone can't show you, and your induction of those observations can't convince you of the fundaments of collectivism (and individualism) then I recommend Rand's ItOE and VoS. Your approach is entirely ~philosophically~ skeptical and there's nothing more for me to say.

[Samson Corwell]

Samson: You make no effort to understand the concept, and I can't transfer the intact concept direct to you.

I'm attempting to figure out why I disagree with the notion of collectivism.

(Utilitarianism: "The doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the sole end of public action". [C.O.D.]

You don't note the connection to collectivism? "Greatest number"?

Similarly with egalitarianism?)

"Greatest number" and not "the thing over and above those who comprise it."

If your senses alone can't show you, and your induction of those observations can't convince you of the fundaments of collectivism (and individualism) then I recommend Rand's ItOE and VoS. Your approach is entirely skeptical and there's nothing more for me to say.

My apprach isn't skeptical; something is just nagging at me in the back of my brain that I'm having difficulty verbalizing.

[anthony]

"Nagging...of my brain" - is absolutely fine. No one is asking that you merely accept his -or Rand's - word for it.

Only give the notion a fair chance, don't ask for substantiation - I can't "prove" the concept as such, it has to be personally formed, ground up - then see if anything about the Objectivist concept of collectivism rings true in your experience and thought, and you may be surprised.

[Samson Corwell]

"Nagging...of my brain" - is absolutely fine. No one is asking that you merely accept his -or Rand's - word for it.

Only give the notion a fair chance, don't ask for substantiation - I can't "prove" the concept as such, it has to be personally formed, ground up - then see if anything about the Objectivist concept of collectivism rings true in your experience and thought, and you may be surprised.

I understand the referents (sort of), but I disagree on the expanations of them and what is actually happening in them.

[Samson Corwell]

What you call "group rights", Tony, I call "mob rule". The statement "the group has rights over the individual" should be translated into "others members of the group have the right to demand that dissidents conform", so this notion of collectivity disappears again entirely.

[anthony]

What you call "group rights", Tony, I call "mob rule". The statement "the group has rights over the individual" should be translated into "others members of the group have the right to demand that dissidents conform", so this notion of collectivity disappears again entirely.

Look at the reality of the group and the individual (your "dissident").

We see that members of a "group" are identified by the State - or identify themselves - as possessing certain, distinguishing features: Say: the 'Hispanic group'; the 'mothers' group'; the 'handicapped group' (for the hell of it: the 'handicapped-Hispanic-mothers' group' ).

One way or other, the upshot is that a specific 'collective' of people require (purportedly), or demand, special attention.

Yes, mob rule, but by State-backed special treatment, with which an individual who has no power (i.e. is not a member of any 'recognized' group) has no choice but to comply. Therefore, force - and by force, he's the one who has to pay for the rising number of collectives.

Rand: "What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that "Anything I do is right because ~ I ~ chose to do it" is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality--so the notion that "Anything society does is right because ~society~ chose to do it," is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues".

[...]

"Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression "individual rights" is a redundancy... but the expression "collective rights" is a contradiction in terms... A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members."

[Collectivized "Rights", VoS]

[BaalChatzaf]

"group rights"???? Do I smell the fallacy of composition here?

[9thdoctor]

Yaron Brook voices his disagreement with Peikoff on immigration in the podcast today.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/09/23/ybrook-should-objectivists-disassociate-from-tea-party-groups-because-they-oppose-immigration-reform/

[ginny]

I just saw this. I think Peikoff could benefit from good mental health treatment. Shall someone recommend Branden as a good doctor?

[9thdoctor]

Peikoff and Brook have started a debate on the topic, moderated by Amy Peikoff.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/10/07/a-debate-between-leonard-peikoff-and-yaron-brook-on-the-question-who-should-or-should-not-be-allowed-to-immigrate-into-the-us-moderated-by-amy-peikoff-part-1-of-2-2/

Peikoff admits he was wrong about voting Democratic (2006). He says Germans should have been kept out in the 19th century, since they brought their bad philosophy with them (this doesn't stand up to scrutiny even within the confines of the debate). They disagree quite a bit over statistics, but neither cites sources. This was only part one, stay tuned for part two.

[caroljane]

What should the ||Germans have been kept out of? The US? Philosophical debate? Poland?

[caroljane]

Peikoff and \Brook, moderated by the ex Mrs Peikoff? Billed as a debate! I want my money back.

[caroljane]

I just cannot listen to the Lisper and the Giggler for any stretch, but I do know something about the German refugees from the 1848 revolution which is apparently more than they do.

[Neil Parille]

Peikoff is correct that Hispanics will vote overwhelmingly Democratic as far as the eye can see. And it really doesn't have much to do with the supposed anti-immigration of the Republicans. Bush got at most 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and they have been doing worse ever since.

Texas is the last big state that is reliably Republican and if it becomes Hispanic it too will become Democratic.

[Jonathan]

Peikoff and Brook have started a debate on the topic, moderated by Amy Peikoff.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/10/07/a-debate-between-leonard-peikoff-and-yaron-brook-on-the-question-who-should-or-should-not-be-allowed-to-immigrate-into-the-us-moderated-by-amy-peikoff-part-1-of-2-2/

Peikoff admits he was wrong about voting Democratic (2006).

At the time, didn't he say that anyone who disagreed with him wasn't a true Objectivst, or some such? Wasn't his theory on voting Democratic based on his DIMwit Hypothesis? If so, would his admission of error about voting have some ramifications on his DIMwit theory?

J

[Guyau]

Neil,

Because of your Catholic persuasion, I'd be especially interested to hear your own view on the immigration quotas from Mexico and on what to do with respect to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. I'm for pretty free immigration to and from the US by peaceful people.*

Also, I've wanted to mention for some time that I have really appreciated that even though you disagree with many of Rand's ideas, and so, with many ideas endorsed here, you have not through all these years engaged in obscenity, insult, or personal invective against other participants in these forums. Thank you for being you.

Stephen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I fully endorse what you say about Neil is if it came from me.

Michael

[ginny]

Being an immigrant, I fully endorse.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Peikoff admits he was wrong about voting Democratic (2006).

At the time, didn't he say that anyone who disagreed with him wasn't a true Objectivst, or some such? Wasn't his theory on voting Democratic based on his DIMwit Hypothesis? If so, would his admission of error about voting have some ramifications on his DIMwit theory?

J

I think what Peikoff said was that anyone who didn't see it his way "doesn't understand Objectivism."

I don't recall if he supposedly used his DIM hypothesis in arriving at his opinion, and I don't know where to find the statement without some hefty searching. It was posted on SOLO, but trying to find something there is an ordeal.

Ellen