Libertarians Need Objectivism

[merjet]

What in the hell does global, socialized central banking and its effects have to do with laissez-faire capitalism?

Maybe because she is confused: "Laissez-faire capitalism" means to her anybody can do anything they want, not constrained by rules or codes of conduct. People in government doing anything they want must be "laissez faire", too.

[BaalChatzaf]

You can't actually do induction without using logic as the standard to determine whether your various generalizations actually make any sense. Like a computer, you may be able to describe, but without logic, you will never understand.

Shayne

Generalization to a positive universal (a proposition of the form all A are B) from a particular is impossible with syllogistic logic, yet this is exactly what induction does.

Do YOU understand?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

A debate on whether Rand was a philosopher is actually an ad hominem attack on her person

Actually no, it's a defense of the concept "philosopher."

as opposed to a discussion of her ideas. I've spent 48 years of my life considering her ideas in the implicit then explicit context of her as a philosopher. No way was I going to let you core me like an apple with your moronic proposition.

Here is what you need to understand Brant. *I* do not believe she qualifies as a philosopher in the highest, most professional sense of the word (and yes Brant, words can have multiple senses). I think considering her as a professional, competent philosopher is an insult to philosophy. You don't care whether I have reasons; you don't care what standards I'm using to make my judgement; in your mind I am simply a heretic. And this is the irony -- your behavior is pure Randianism, it is precisely what I am talking about when I say she was no philosopher. There are areas of discussion where you refuse to tread, just as Rand dogmatically refused to tread in many areas as well. This is an attitude problem, and it is antithetical to philosophy. True philosophy dares tread anywhere; it loves truth foremost, not cherished heroes or pseudo-self-esteem.

It's been said already that you're acting more like a religious zealot than a rational man. And you are among the least zealous Objectivists in existence. This alone is some evidence that Rand has done harm to the concept of philosophy. Almost anyone else who would call himself one is probably far worse than you.

All you've done is irreparably antagonize me.

Reason antagonizes you. And like I said, you've given me no reason why I should tip-toe around your foolishness.

Shayne

[sjw]

You can't actually do induction without using logic as the standard to determine whether your various generalizations actually make any sense. Like a computer, you may be able to describe, but without logic, you will never understand.

Shayne

Generalization to a positive universal (a proposition of the form all A are B) from a particular is impossible with syllogistic logic, yet this is exactly what induction does.

Do YOU understand?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You miss the point, which is: once you're done with your inductions, whatever system you come up with has to withstand the test of logic. Logic should therefore be used all along, constantly testing and validating and integrating your new propositions with respect to the rest of your knowledge. Logic is an indispensable tool of induction.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

You miss the point, which is: once you're done with your inductions, whatever system you come up with has to withstand the test of logic. Logic should therefore be used all along, constantly testing and validating and integrating your new propositions with respect to the rest of your knowledge. Logic is an indispensable tool of induction.

Shayne

When it comes to logic I NEVER miss a point. EVER. Logic is and was my business. I was paid for doing logic for over 40 years and I did it well. I am telling you how the rules for syllogisms work. If you don't believe me get any one of many logic text books on the classical syllogistic form of logic. One cannot infer a universal from a particular. Period. Yet this is what induction does. Induction is useful, but it is not deductively valid.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

When it comes to logic I NEVER miss a point. EVER.

Well, you just did, twice.

Shayne

[syrakusos]

Here is what you need to understand Brant. *I* do not believe she qualifies as a philosopher in the highest, most professional sense of the word (and yes Brant, words can have multiple senses). I think considering her as a professional, competent philosopher is an insult to philosophy.

Shayne, the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan come to mind: "You have a right to your own opinion. You do not have a right to your own facts."

Ayn Rand's held a bachelor's degree in philosophy and history from the University of Petrograd. Her non-fiction were books of philosophy and about philosophy. She earned an income from their sale. She was truly a professional philosopher, rather than an academic philosopher.

• The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
  
• Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
  
• Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology
  
• Philosophy: Who Needs It
  
• The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature
  

Her works are widely recognized within university education.

I met Gregory M. Browne at Eastern Michigan University. I mentioned his book, Necessary Factual Truth, here on Objectivist Living. I named my blog for his book and there, I explained why. Twice because more needed to be said.

There's the guys on EconoLog from George Mason University, and the entire Von Mises Institute, and lonely Mark J. Perry teaching at the U of M Flint campus. These people are all over the world in ones. That is appropriate to individualists, of course.

You complain that Brant never asked about what standard you apply to form your opinion. You did once speculate that if you asked people whom you do consider professional philosophers, 10% of them might think that it was worth arguing about whether or not Ayn Rand was one of them. But that is not any kind of standard. So, let me ask: What standard do you apply?

[Xray]

Does anyone really believe that Rand's advocating "full, pure uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" (TVOS; p. 37) is the solution to the problems the world is facing?

.. things like people being greedy for more and more? And wasn't the recent collapsing of the banks also ...

It also occurred in a highly regulated and controlled market ... not with their own money, either).

I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - to discover inconsistent premises applied without context.

I agree with Merlin on this and more.

<....>

As for capitalism and greed and all that, I am disappointed that Xray only revealed the common - not the cogent - understanding.

Michael,

My philosophical intention is to dig deeper into the "greed" thing to get to the root of the issue.

The term "greed" has a negative connotation to it, but if one, observing our animal relatives, watches the omnipresence of so-called greed, one may well interpret this greed as a strong drive existing because of a living entity's biologocical program: "survival".

Throw a piece of bread toward a swarm of swimming ducks and they will all rush toward it.

Throw a banana into the ape cage of a zoo and they will all try to snatch it.

Watch customers in a department store rummaging through a heap of clothing together with their 'competitors' in the search of a good bargain.

There is no difference whatsoever between us humans and the apes and ducks regarding the biological root of the impulse which is often called "greed".

But as opposed to animals, we humans don't have strictly determined rules anymore as to who is to get the lion's share.

The philosophical interest I have in this discussion lies in exploring how we humans deal with the fact that the urge to survive makes us 'greedy'.

In case of objections to using the term greedy here: which other term could one use instead? TIA for suggestions.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

You did once speculate that if you asked people whom you do consider professional philosophers, 10% of them might think that it was worth arguing about whether or not Ayn Rand was one of them. But that is not any kind of standard. So, let me ask: What standard do you apply?

Indeed, it's not a standard, I was just trying to underscore the fact that many professional philosophers (probably) deal with controversy in an adult manner, even permitting debate as to whether they themselves ought to be regarded as a philosopher. As opposed to foaming at the mouth as Brant is doing.

I don't say that Rand didn't do philosophy. I don't claim she didn't write a lot on philosophical topics. Obviously she did. So the books you list are beside the point. Certainly they are philosophical and deserve to be mentioned in the history of ideas. And also, I think Rand had genius-level insights on the subject of philosophy; her works are rich with important issues to think about, much of the time she was right. She clearly could have been a great philosopher if she were so inclined.

But she was not so inclined. She did not approach the subject in a serious, professional manner. She contradicted herself, blatantly. She advocated tyrannical, individual-crushing ideas while also thinking that she stood for the individual (her support of patents is Ayn Rand at her absolute worst as a political philosopher -- the entire essay on IP is laughable, as indeed many followers of Rothbard have laughed at her for). She refused to dirty her precious hands and deal with anarchists in the serious manner which many of them deserved, instead dismissing the whole lot of them as being "concrete-bound". You can't get past page 1 of ITOE without running into a bizarre and blatant contradiction. She fostered an entire degenerate culture of Objectivists who were really just religious zealots, not truly being for "reason as the only absolute."

In other words, she was a bumbling incompetent when it came to philosophy. This was by her own choice, not by her ability. She could have been a genius at philosophy, instead she focused her energies on her partly misguided and partly epochal vision of the "Man the Heroic Being." Would I grant the respectful term, "philosopher", to someone who didn't really care about it? No. Ayn Rand was no philosopher, not in my book.

It is now our problem to untangle the mess, and only by doing so can we truly honor what was the best within Ayn Rand. This is why I am more an "Objectivist" than Brant, in my opinion.

Shayne

Edited June 25, 2011 by sjw

[syrakusos]

But with us being so closely intervowen globally, we often are dramatically affected by the problems which those individuals have created by their wrong decisions. Bankers who failed to correctly assess reality made horrible mistakes which then resulted in the collapse, and that collapse has affected us too. Companies who e. g. invested in Greek government bonds have encountered huge losses, losses which in turn will affect those who have invested their money in those firms.

You are right; and that is why politics and economics rest on moral philosophy. When the Visigoths sacked Rome, it was not laissez faire. Investment in government bonds is not (ncessarily) laissez faire. It could be if governments did not have taxation and had to raise money by non-coercive means. Generations of business school graduates learned only statist, keynesian, marxist nonsense, baloney, and lies. Only now in some undegraduate economics textbooks does F. A. Hayek replace Marx on the margins as Milton Friedman replaced Keynes in the main text. Others mention von Mises or other Austrians. But too many who entered corporations with master degrees in business administration learned nonsense. They invested in government bonds. They followed government incentives. it looks like self interest and greed, but it is only second-hand thinking.

What on Earth could ever convince any rational person to invest in Greek government bonds?

Basically, the investments in government bonds do not come from the accumulated savings of ordinary working people piled up into banks which roll them up into funds that amass into leverages. Really, the only people who invest in government bonds are other governmentalist entities such as the Federal Reserve Bank, the Bank of England, etc.

Besides, as Peter Reidy points out, laissez faire is a personal philosophy. None of the economic turmoil needs to affect you. There's always ups and downs, droughts and floods. The economy here in Ann Arbor has gotten worse and worse over the last five years. We're moving. That's life.

There is no difference whatsoever between us humans and the apes and ducks regarding the biological root of the impulse which is often called "greed".

But as opposed to animals, we humans don't have strictly determined rules anymore as to who is to get the lion's share. ... In case of objections to using the term greedy here: which other term could one use instead? TIA for suggestions.

We do not have a good vocabulary. Egoism versus egotism is about as far as it goes. I usually take "greed" to mean short-sighted selfishness, rather than rational self-interest.

Here is an example from John Stossel's program, "Greed." He had four people around a bowl of money and told them they could take as much as they wanted and he would match whatever was left until the bowl was empty. Twice the people grabbed all they could emptying the bowl right away. You don't see this part but I am pretty sure that someone hit them on head with a board, got their attention, and explained the rules again. The third time, they got it, taking out only enough to let the pile grow faster than they depleted it, each watching the others while being watched.

Our brother-lover moralisms prevent us from learning rational self-interest, the same way that quack medicines shove aside read treatments. You can't take both at the same time.

We are much better off than animals by virtue of our ability to reason. We only need to use it. The marketplace does reward people properly and in proportion to their service to others. But that marketplace must be free and open, not under political control.

One theory for the decline in business which led to the panic of 1929, was the invention of tax-free municipal bonds which drained capital from productive enterprises based on invention. In the summer of 1929, RCA adverstised on the back of Scientific American, a radio set that included a socket for television (as soon as it is available). Technically, it was possible. But it had to wait.

Get the government out of the marketplace and something better than animal greed will raise the level of human achievement.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[sjw]

‎"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." - Thomas Paine

Shayne

[sjw]

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Ho, hum. I am willing to discuss Ayn Rand's ideas in any particular in any respect I feel I have some competence to speak. Shayne claimed she wasn't a philosopher. Since that initial outburst he's been qualifiying all over the map, but won't let go of the Tar Baby he stuck himself to in the first place. Now I'm a "Randroid." Philosophy, generally speaking, is a garbage dump. He wants to dump the garbage and put the dump on a hill for our consideration and admiration. In that sense he's a Drumproid. It's no credit to be called a philosopher. It's no real credit to Rand to be called one though it is a credit to philosophy that she is one. It's simply a classification but one she embraced.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Shayne

That's a good one. Another is the quote around the inside of the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial my grandfather Irving Brant suggested to his friend Sec. of the Interior Ickes when he was asked to come up with some good J. quotes while it was under construction. He told me this story when he took me there when I visited him in Washington in 1960. On my own I went to several different tourist places including the White House and the Washington Monument. I ran up the stairs twice. Walking by the Capitol I saw the preliminary Bleacher construction for the Kennedy inauguration.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant FYI:

Given Jefferson’s singular importance among the nation’s Founders, it is not surprising that over the years scholars have sought to appropriate him as an early proponent of the views they themselves embraced. Thus, since the Progressive Era, Jefferson has been portrayed as a species of civic humanist, a man who was suspicious of the instrumentalities of an emerging commercial society and who believed that the nation’s virtue rested on an agrarian population active in political life. A typical instance of this interpretation is that of Charles M. Wiltze, whose

Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy

, first published in 1935, offers a picture of Jefferson as an early social democrat who, had he lived, would have embraced many of the reforms of Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Even earlier, Vernon Parrington’s

Main Currents in American Thought

, published in 1927, painted Jefferson as a proto-socialist who distrusted industry and everything that followed in its wake, a staunch opponent of the capitalist society that was emerging in the Anglo-British world in the 18th century. This Progressivist interpretation clashed head on with the then prevailing view of Jefferson as a classical liberal. Parrington’s essay had the effect of dividing Jefferson scholarship into competing camps that persist to this day. Some historians continue to view Jefferson as a Lockean liberal who distrusted government and subscribed to the strictest limits on the actions of the civil magistrate; others regard him as an agrarian with socialist leanings who only adhered to the principles of private property so far as they served certain political ends.

Perhaps the most egregious examples of invoking Jefferson for purely transient political purposes are the inscriptions on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. Planned and built during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the walls of the memorial are adorned with quotations from Jefferson’s writings, many of which suggest that Jefferson advocated positions consistent with the aims of the New Deal – with which he would, in fact, have had little sympathy. Thus, Jefferson’s admonition that an educated electorate was essential if liberty were to be preserved is transmuted into a call for universal public education. And his caution that man, as he advances in his understanding of the world, must accompany his greater enlightenment with changes in his social institutions becomes a justification for a new theory of government in keeping with the social-democratic principles that animated the New Deal.

Bassani’s conclusions are in direct contrast to those of the majority of today’s historians, who have argued that Jefferson distrusted commerce and would have supported legislation to provide for a more equitable distribution of property. Bassani notes at the start that “far from being a radical democratic theorist who made some concessions in the sphere of the rights of the individual, Jefferson was a classical liberal who believed that individuals were the best guardians of their own liberties and natural rights.”

Source here

[Brant Gaede]

That's interesting, Adam. One reason my grandfather decided to write his Madison bio. was he was criticized for quoting Madison while testifying before Congress in favor of Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. In any case it was the Altar of God quote that he was responsible for. Maybe some of the others, but he didn't tell me that. Ickes wanted a bunch of quotes from him. Irving was well in with the New Dealers and could see the Pres. any time he wanted to and heavily influenced one Supreme Court appointment in the 1940s. He also did a lot of survey work for Ickes in the far west and is responsible for the boundaries of the Olympic National Park. He was privileged to drive the length of the Blue Ridge Parkway before it was opened to the public. Truman didn't think much of him so he concentrated on his writing and didn't stop until he croaked in 1976 at the age of 90.

--Brant

Edited June 26, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

That's interesting, Adam. One reason my grandfather decided to write his Madison bio. was he was criticized for quoting Madison while testifying before Congress in favor of Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. In any case it was the Altar of God quote that he was responsible for.

--Brant

Brant:

Great quote from the letter to Benjamin Rush. The whole paragraph it is pulled from is really excellent.

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of.

I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists

, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.

And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

Entire letter here

[syrakusos]

Another is the quote around the inside of the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial my grandfather Irving Brant suggested ... --Brant

Creator: Brant, Irving, 1885-1976.

Title and dates: James Madison, the Virginia Revolutionist by Irving Brant, 1940

Abstract: Consists of the original typed draft with holograph corrections of Irving Brant's biography James Madison, the Virginia Revolutionist.

Biography of Irving Brant: Irving Brant was a journalist and newspaper editor, but turned to writing full-time after 1938. His biography of James Madison (Princeton Class of 1771) is considered a standard reference work on this founding father.

-- http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/getEad?eadid=C0296&kw=

(And here I thought all along that you were living in Belgium next door to Wolf deVoon.)

[Xray]

What on Earth could ever convince any rational person to invest in Greek government bonds?

I wondered about this too and googled a bit.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,677543,00.html

Since the article is in German, I apologize beforehand if my translation of technical terms is awkward, but the gist of it is that insurers (the companies who invested in Greek bonds were insurance companies) prefer investment in papers with fixed interest, and favor goverment bonds.

Now with interest rates having dropped dramatically due to the financial crisis of recent years, the companies had to take more risks. For after all, they have to fulfill the contract with their customers which guarantees those a definite sum of money.

And that's why they bought bonds from 'high risk' states like Greece: for these states, being already in a financial crisis, have to pay a substantially higher interest to the insurance companies investing in their government bonds.

So despite the Damocles sword of state bancruptcy hovering over states like Greece, still the insurers had sought to profit from the predicament these states were in.

Being under financial pressure themselves, they had somehow blocked out that the worst case for both Greece and themselves could become reality faster than they thought.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Xray

[merjet]

I wondered about this too and googled a bit.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,677543,00.html

The article can be translated here.

What on Earth could ever convince any rational person to invest in Greek government bonds?

The article does not address this, but it is also a matter of price and amount.

1. Suppose a bond, $100 par, can be bought at a price of $30. For somebody believing the bond is worth $60, $30 is a bargain.

2. Many people are willing to risk a small amount of their money for a large payoff (e.g. lottery tickets). I'm not familiar with the other companies mentioned in the article, but Allianz is one of the biggest companies in the world.

[sjw]

Since that initial outburst he's been qualifiying all over the map,

If you say something enough times Brant, that won't make it so. In fact I haven't been qualifying at all, I've only being specifying what sense of the term "philosopher" I'm talking about. As in: someone who actually holds truth in the highest possible regard, who is actually a "lover of wisdom." And -- without qualification -- Rand was not this kind of person. Nor, as it happens, are you this type. Nor has any Objectivist I have ever met been this type; on the contrary, if you behave as if truth is of the utmost importance with an Objectivist, then at some point you will elicit an insult, or foaming at the mouth, or flouncing off, etc. (See also: Rand's treatment of Hume in FTNI).

Philosophy, generally speaking, is a garbage dump. It's no credit to be called a philosopher.

Well, that certainly explains (or rationalizes) your views. Also in your favor of the idea that Rand was a philosopher, see sense #3 of "philosopher":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosopher

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Another is the quote around the inside of the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial my grandfather Irving Brant suggested ... --Brant

Creator: Brant, Irving, 1885-1976.

Title and dates: James Madison, the Virginia Revolutionist by Irving Brant, 1940

Abstract: Consists of the original typed draft with holograph corrections of Irving Brant's biography James Madison, the Virginia Revolutionist.

Biography of Irving Brant: Irving Brant was a journalist and newspaper editor, but turned to writing full-time after 1938. His biography of James Madison (Princeton Class of 1771) is considered a standard reference work on this founding father.

-- http://diglib.prince...eadid=C0296&kw=

(And here I thought all along that you were living in Belgium next door to Wolf deVoon.)

(I have to take Wolf's word for it that he's dead. He told me by PM three years ago that he was living in Perth Australia. I wonder if that was his legal name. Even Billy Beck has no idea what happened to him.)

That's just the first of six vols. The last was published in 1961 followed by a one volume condensed version and his book on the Bill of Rights and a couple more.

He had two or three more books published in the 1930s. Rose Wilder Lane went gaga over the Madison bio. She didn't mind the New Deal bias because it was so above-board and obvious.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, reclassifying most philosophers into non-philosophers is a religious enterprise respecting whom you have left over. These great people. These lovers of truth. This wonderful purity not corrupted by Ayn Rand. Then you tell me I'm a Randroid for not sharing this love-of-truth respecting your special re-classifications--that my attitude is religious. Never mind that I think Rand had grave faults as a thinker and a person and that all I'm objecting to is your arbitrary and worthless epistemological crusade which is actually an ad hominem attack on her. Ayn Rand was a philosopher. You have no power to change that. Get over it.

--Brant

[sjw]

Philosophy, generally speaking, is a garbage dump. It's no credit to be called a philosopher.

Note the hypocrisy which Brant is engaging in.

On the one hand, he claims it's no credit to be called a philosopher. There's no respect implied by the term at all; no work to be done to actually earn the designation; it is completely non-normative; if anything, it's even a negative epithet to be called a "philosopher." On the other hand, if I say Rand wasn't one, he says it's denigrating to her.

He desperately wants to call her a philosopher -- for some unstated reason. He wants it so badly that even when I show him that the term has 5 or so different senses, and that I'm only talking about a certain sense that I want to put forth as a meaningful, important sense, with the implication that he can continue calling her one in those other senses, but not in my sense, he still isn't satisfied. For him, there is only one true sense, the "garbage dump" sense. There is no "lover of wisdom" sense. There can't be a "lover of wisdom" sense. Why? Because Rand wouldn't qualify. So it MUST be that the only true sense is Brant's "garbage dump" sense.

I say a true philosopher is a lover of wisdom; Brant says philosophy is a garbage dump. And down Brant goes into a hypocritical reductio ad absurdum.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

She took pride in the appellation. It's what she made of it. No one is going to effectively take it away from her. The term may have multiple senses but it makes no sense to deny her all senses.

--Brant