Sign in to follow this  
9thdoctor

Peikoff on Hispanics

Recommended Posts

Somehow Peikoff has managed, in his latest podcast, to stir some feelings of anger in your faithful Time Lord. I thought I was past getting riled up by anything he might say. This time it's about Hispanic immigration. He says he opposes the 'immigration bill' for 'one simple reason', the reason being that 80% of Hispanics reliably vote Democratic. There is 'no theory now, we're on the end'[sic].

Start at 22:20. You'll probably want to download it, zapping that far ahead is a pain if you try to do it from the website.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/08/26/an-interview-with-amy-peikoff-on-the-nsa-programs-a-follow-up-to-dr-peikoffs-previous-podcast/

I'm not even going to write out any criticisms at this point. He sounds weird BTW, like he just had some dental work done or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps those 80% of Hispanics have been heeding Peikoff's advice/threats to vote Democratic?

Indeed. I mean, where to begin? This is such a train wreck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Peikoff's podcast for August 26th (number is not given), which is primarily devoted to the NSA domestic spying, Peikoff takes a diametrically opposed position to that of Harry Binswinger, who minimized its importance in an op-ed in Forbes [i think]) and the end of the pod cast he starts talking about the former NSA document leaker, Edward Snowden. Snowden is a great hero to him for revealing the NSA's electronic eavesdropping. He dismisses any damage that might be done by Snowden revealing defense secrets to Russia. In my mind, if Snowden has done this or is likely to do it, that makes him a traitor, Not to Peikoff, who comes up with a convoluted ethical theory that one good deed cancels out any evil deed that that person has done. You have to listen to his explanation, which is near the end of the podcast. By this time, he has gone beyond just sounding agitated to raving, and it is hard to determine whether he understands the implications of this absolution from evil by committing one act that is sufficiently good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Peikoff says about Snowden being a hero may have some interesting implications in regard to Nathaniel Branden in the Objectivist movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff's new "discovery" or pronouncement, that one good deed absolves the perpetrator from any evil deed he has also done (this is a paraphrase. Listen to his last podcast, near the end, in his discussion of Edward Snowden), is in direct contradiction not only to Rand's position on evil and moral compromise, it is in conflict with Peikoff, himself (see his OPAR, Chapter 8, Virtue (in particular, his section entitled "Integrity as Loyalty to Rational Principles," and pp. 264-267 in that section.).

Either he does not remember what he said, or he has now dropped an essential position of Rand. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping to keep this thread about his statement on Hispanics, but yeah, the Snowden part was certainly problematic too.

Does anyone know what percentage of Jews 'reliably vote Democratic'? If it's in the 80% range shouldn't they be kept out too? How about in the time of FDR, who was easily as bad as Obama, by Peikoff's logic should they have been shipped back to Germany and certain death, since it would mean adding people to the voting rolls who are statistically more likely to vote in a way he doesn't (currently) like? And Russian Jews were even worse, they were likely to be Communists for chrissake, especially in the 1920's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,maybe we are referring to different podcasts (or at least, diff subjects in the podcast). I am starting a separate thread in the Ethics section on Peikoff's apparent switch in positions on evil and moral compromise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ND,

But the issue isn't the Hispanics who are here legally. It is those who will be legalized and vote reliably Democratic.

Thanks to immigration, California is a one party state with the Democrats having super majorities in both houses. If the US embraced "open immigration" the entire South West would turn Democratic in a generation.

And Hispanics don't vote Democratic because they are afraid of Republicans on immigration. They vote Democratic because their views, particularly on economics, are left of center. When Reagan signed an amnesty in the 80s, the Republicans did worse among Hispanics the next election cycle. Last year a referrendum to raise the sales tax and the income tax on the rich won in California because of overhwelming Hispanic support.

Bringing the Jews and the Nazis into the issue is ridiculous.

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the issue isn't the Hispanics who are here legally. It is those who will be legalized and vote reliably Democratic.

I don't have any particular opinion of the current immigration bill, I object to the collectivist principal at the root of Peikoff's statement. Besides, by the time people have gotten naturalized and can vote, Peikoff will probably be saying Objectivists must vote Democratic, again.

Sorry about proving Godwin's Law, but it's natural to bring Jews into this, since Peikoff is Jewish, and Rand was a Jewish immigrant. How about this, what if there was a country with lots of Objectivists, or simply atheists, and Pat Robertson said we shouldn't let people immigrate from that country because of the way 80% of them are going to vote. Fair analogy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the collectivist principle in Peikoff's thinking. Hispanics are left of center, they have higher rates of illigetimacy and welfare dependency, etc. They will almost certainly vote Democratic for as long as the eye can see.

I still don't see what the Jews have to do with it. For example, I don't believe that Israel should expel its Moslem population, but there is no doubt that if Israel became a majority Islamic country (as open immigration Objectivists seem willing to accept) it would be bad for the Jews. Is that collectivist?

-Neil Parille

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this, what if there was a country with lots of Objectivists, or simply atheists, and Pat Robertson said we shouldn't let people immigrate from that country because of the way 80% of them are going to vote. Fair analogy?

Well, atheists tend to mary atheists (or at least secular people) and have atheistic (or secular) children. There is nothing "collectivist" about this.

How about this: "if Obama were able to run again in 2016, he would win the black vote in a landslide." Is that collectivist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the collectivist principle in Peikoff's thinking.

Was 'no Irish need apply' collectivist, in your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this, what if there was a country with lots of Objectivists, or simply atheists, and Pat Robertson said we shouldn't let people immigrate from that country because of the way 80% of them are going to vote. Fair analogy?

Well, atheists tend to mary atheists (or at least secular people) and have atheistic (or secular) children. There is nothing "collectivist" about this.

How about this: "if Obama were able to run again in 2016, he would win the black vote in a landslide." Is that collectivist?

I agree that there is nothing "collectivist" (a dodgy term if there was one) here, but I believe the point is to not reduce people to statistics (i.e., not dehumanize them, I guess). The point here being, I suppose, is that Hispanics (or any group) shouldn't be targeted on such a basis (i.e., how they vote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw, come on!

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a mans genetic lineage-the notion that a mans intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/racism.html

They will almost certainly vote Democratic for as long as the eye can see.

Do you believe this is true of Hispanics in particular, and does not apply equally to all immigrants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw, come on!

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a mans genetic lineage-the notion that a mans intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

Well, I was only trying to be funny and I've admittedly forgotten the sense in which my sentence was trying to be funny. As for what racism is a form of, I will settle with the word "bigotry" in place of "collectivism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure on this, but a policy of immigration presumably meant to skew party politics one way, could be considered social engineering (on a grand scale). But opposing it, could as well be social engineering, too - though in reverse. Does the immorality of the one make the other moral? Because your opponent is premising collectivist presumptions, does not make your own reactive collectivism any more moral, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Parille, on 29 Aug 2013 - 9:02 PM, said:snapback.png

I don't see the collectivist principle in Peikoff's thinking.

Was 'no Irish need apply' collectivist, in your view?

It's my understanding that there were few, if any, "Irish need not apply" ads or signs.

In any event, making a decision about some people based on the entire group is "collectivist." But if the issue is whether or not Hispanics, based on their voting pattern and socio-economic status, are likely to vote a certain way, then I see nothing collectivist about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Parille, on 29 Aug 2013 - 9:02 PM, said:snapback.png

I don't see the collectivist principle in Peikoff's thinking.

Was 'no Irish need apply' collectivist, in your view?

It's my understanding that there were few, if any, "Irish need not apply" ads or signs.

In any event, making a decision about some people based on the entire group is "collectivist." But if the issue is whether or not Hispanics, based on their voting pattern and socio-economic status, are likely to vote a certain way, then I see nothing collectivist about it.

Isn't there some "collectivist" about advocating (or not) governmental privileges (i.e., citizenship) on the basis of stereo-typed assumptions about how that group might vote in future elections? What if, for instance, the new Bush dynasty darling Georgie is so cute and persuasive that he makes just about everybody--including newly minted Americans with brown skin--willing to vote Republican?

Or is it yours and Peikoff's view that there is something unique to "Hispanics" (or the subset of them that might become new citizens) that renders them impervious to persuasion when it comes to political campaigns? How does Peikoff know that it wasn't the intellectual tour de force of his 2006 fatwa to vote Democrat that has caused such entrenched voting preference? :laugh:

It seems very odd to me that the "intellectual heir" of Ayn Rand makes such statements--especially in light of his track record on voting recommendations.

One last question as food for thought: what if our hypothetical Hiispanic-American presented a true coin flip on the likelihood of his vote? Would it then be okay to grant such hypothetical people citizenship privileges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil Parille, on 29 Aug 2013 - 9:02 PM, said:snapback.png

I don't see the collectivist principle in Peikoff's thinking.

Was 'no Irish need apply' collectivist, in your view?

It's my understanding that there were few, if any, "Irish need not apply" ads or signs.

In any event, making a decision about some people based on the entire group is "collectivist." But if the issue is whether or not Hispanics, based on their voting pattern and socio-economic status, are likely to vote a certain way, then I see nothing collectivist about it.

Isn't there some "collectivist" about advocating (or not) governmental privileges (i.e., citizenship) on the basis of stereo-typed assumptions about how that group might vote in future elections? What if, for instance, the new Bush dynasty darling Georgie is so cute and persuasive that he makes just about everybody--including newly minted Americans with brown skin--willing to vote Republican?

Or is it yours and Peikoff's view that there is something unique to "Hispanics" (or the subset of them that might become new citizens) that renders them impervious to persuasion when it comes to political campaigns? How does Peikoff know that it wasn't the intellectual tour de force of his 2006 fatwa to vote Democrat that has caused such entrenched voting preference? :laugh:

It seems very odd to me that the "intellectual heir" of Ayn Rand makes such statements--especially in light of his track record on voting recommendations.

One last question as food for thought: what if our hypothetical Hiispanic-American presented a true coin flip on the likelihood of his vote? Would it then be okay to grant such hypothetical people citizenship privileges?

"Collectivist" is the wrong word to use here. "Bigoted" strikes me as more appropriate (not that I am not calling Neil a bigot). This is why I find Rand's attempt to cast racism as a type of "collectivism" to be ****ing bogus. In fact, I think the word "collectivism" in and of itself to be stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In its great era of Capitalism, the United States was the freest country on Earth--and the best refutation of racist theories. [...]

But few people recognized that America did not melt men into the grey conformity of a collective:

she united them by means of protecting their right to individuality.

The major victims of such race prejudice as did exist in America were the Negroes. It was a problem originated and perpetuated by the noncapitalist South...

[...]

Today, that problem is growing worse--and so is every form of racism. America has become race conscious

in a manner reminiscent of the worst days in the most backward countries of 19th century Europe.

The cause is the same: the growth of collectivism and statism."

["Racism", VoS]

Samson:

Racism is a (primitive) subset of collectivism - only differing in that it deals with a man's ancestral or genetic collective, instead of his existing social collective.

Racism and collectivism both deny individual free will, so both are deterministic.

And as Rand points out above - politically, racism grows with collectivism, as cause and effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

I fundamentally disagree with Ayn Rand's use of the term "collectivism". I find it to be essentially substanceless or packed full with multiple different definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what one gets with the highest abstractions, those which umbrella a large array and deep hierarchy of lesser concepts and percepts: sometimes ambiguity, contradiction and redundancy.

For each of us to handle with care, is all I can say to that. Which doesn't mean the major concept itself hasn't immense value, as a sort of cognitive shorthand - especially when posed against "individualism". Is it also the construction of the word itself, "collectivism", that you don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this