Determinism and Liberty

[Mike Renzulli]

This year not only marks the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks but also the anniversary of a somewhat forgotten scandal that helped perpetuate the rebirth of the American left: the Enron scandal. Liberal groups latched on to the Enron scandal like bees on honey using the company as a scapegoat to point out the evils of capitalism.

However, the events surrounding the scandal itself were not only misrepresented by the media but conspiracists on the left were able to conjure up a mythological tale worthy of a B-grade film for a grindhouse movie theater.

In addition to the typical right-wing conspriacy theories (such as the New World Order), you've probably heard conspiracy theories from the left before: The Military Industrial Complex, the American Empire, multinational corporations and conglomerates, and the vast right wing conspiracy started by Hilary Clinton.

At the time liberal spin-doctors labored night and day to make Enron out to be a typical cabal of free marketers. On the one hand leftists claimed the company was in bed with President George W. Bush to profit from its political connections with the White House. When it was revealed that the President turned down requests for help from Enron executives they then scolded Bush for not having done more to protect shareholders and Enron employees.

There were also other conspiracies based on outright lies too. For example, despite not pointing out a singe rule to which Enron was immune New York Times columnist Paul Krugman stated politicians with ties to the company helped exempt Enron from regulations. One Newsweek columnist reeled against Enron brass alleging they pocketed stock options to benefit from an artifically inflated stock price while running the company into the ground. He also pointed out Wall Street brokers were the victims of being seduced by Enron's inflated stock price due to false bookkeeping kept silent by the company's accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Some even claimed Enron profited from California's electricity market deregulation despite the fact that the state's deregulation was done with hundreds of pages of new rules.

To this day, none of this makes any sense. If any of the aforementioned groups stood to profit from Enron's demise why would Wall Street investment and prestigious accounting firms want to destroy their long-established reputations? At best the facts reveal that the only conspiracy was an unsuccessful attempt by Enron managers attempting to hide their incompetence.

What explains conspiracy theories are not facts but a flawed philosophical outlook if not some semblance of paranoia. In the case of the Enron scandal conspriacies they are based on the Marxist theory of exploitation. According to Marx the bourgeoisie (i.e. Enron executives) conspired to exploit the proletariat (i.e. Enron shareholders and employees). Marx also went on to point out that ideas other than his (such as those that further capitalism) are part of the conspiracy to exploit the little guy as well.

The overall underpinnings of conspiracy theories are a strand of faith influenced by Kantian skepticism and Plato's Theory of the Forms. Plato theorized that people's lives are predetermined by some hidden, unknown entity or group beyond man's ability to comprehend or understand while Kant stated that man's knowledge is always in doubt therefore reality or the truth can never be known.

In terms of Plato, fortunately, his student Aristotle put his teacher's theory to bed. I love Plato, Aristotle said. but I love the truth more. Unfortunately, Kant and Plato's influence are still seen to this day in various forms of cultural and political movements. The most stark examples are religion, political correctness, multiculturalism, philosophical skepticism, environmentalism, subjectivism, pragmatism, and intelligent design.

If central planning occurs as a result of plans from powers behind the thrones, then, consequently, people do not have free will since a person's freedom is negated by deterministic plans made without their knowledge by powers they cannot know or comprehend. This being the case one cannot claim to be a freedom lover yet purport determinism as the explanation for events like the Enron scandal and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I suggest following Aristotle's (or better yet Ayn Rand's) lead instead. The events surrounding alleged conspiracies are better explained by reality and not determinism or even mysticism. In the case of Enron and other economic disasters they are the result of bad policies and outright incompetence either on the part of politicians or corporate executives and not out of some vast conspiracy of cloistered rule.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Reidy]

Plato was not a determinist. The question didn't come up until almost two thousand years after he died.

Aristotle did not say "I love Plato, but I love truth more." Paste the quote into Google and see what you get.

Kant was not a skeptic.

[Mike Renzulli]

His theory of the forms and philosophy gave the basis for determinism. Neoplatonists took his ideas further to culminate the concept of the divine including the existence of God.

I didn't say Kant was a skeptic. However, Kant's skepticism as revealed in his ethics has been the basis for some awful ideas. The falsification theories as articulated by Karl Popper (who was an admitted Kantian skeptic) immediately come to mind.

On the Aristotle quote I stand corrected.

Plato was not a determinist. The question didn't come up until almost two thousand years after he died.

Aristotle did not say "I love Plato, but I love truth more." Paste the quote into Google and see what you get.

Kant was not a skeptic.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

I didn't say Kant was a skeptic. However, Kant's skepticism as revealed in his ethics has been the basis for some awful ideas. The falsification theories as articulated by Karl Popper (who was an admitted Kantian skeptic) immediately come to mind.

It is impossible to verify a general statement (about the world) that has indefinite number of instances empirically. To do so would require that the statement be tested everywhere and everywhen. It cannot be done. One can only refute a general statement with an empirically observed contrary fact.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

But it is not impossible to come up with or form concepts based on reality to explain certain things. A concept, idea, or conclusion can be changed if new evidence is discovered which allows someone to change their minds of conclusions they originally held but it is valid only if it is based on reality. In terms of Popperian falsification or even Kantian skepticism, their absurd logic entails that even if someone discovers a black swan that invalidates someone's conclusion that all swans are white ultimate knowledge or reality can never be known since according to both Kant and Popper, no one can really be certain about anything but they can make up their reality as they go along.

I didn't say Kant was a skeptic. However, Kant's skepticism as revealed in his ethics has been the basis for some awful ideas. The falsification theories as articulated by Karl Popper (who was an admitted Kantian skeptic) immediately come to mind.

It is impossible to verify a general statement (about the world) that has indefinite number of instances empirically. To do so would require that the statement be tested everywhere and everywhen. It cannot be done. One can only refute a general statement with an empirically observed contrary fact.

Ba'al Chatzaf