Enter the Dean

[Peter]

Dean, your examples from “life” are so extraordinary that all I can do is cough out expletives, so I cobbled a few of your truisms together and deleted the expletives, but left a few comments.

Words from Dean:

Make laws that require all children be fed to 8 years old, even if no one is willing to use their own resources . . . . and what you will result with would be something like a large population of young contorted physically and mentally disadvantaged incompetents

end cobbled quote

I wonder what Dean’s view of animal abuse is. Is it really a crime?

Words from Dean:

Not that I'm saying that mothers should just let their own children die if their children are exceedingly incompetent. . . . Except if you hold the view of "right to life" as you did, then actually it is murder from that premise, leaving a child to die from starvation would be a violation of "rights"/the law, whatever, and it would be criminal.

end cobbled quote

I am surprised to hear you say that!

Words from Dean:

If a blind person is about to cross a street, but first asks you whether it is safe to cross... and you do not say anything... and you watch idle as he is tragically crushed under the wheels of a semi truck... that was a "bad" thing for you to do.

end cobbled quote

How trustworthy. How noble of “The Dean.”

Words from Dean:

Loss and gain is just looking from an individual's perspective evaluating goal attainment. "Force" only makes sense in the context of capitalism where property usage control is sacred.

end cobbled quote

In the context of capitalism? Dean if I hadn’t just went and peeked at your RoR site today I would have thought you were a toad . . . or is that troll? No. Dean seems to be a real person, and not the bad guy on TV’s Special Victims Unit, or a bleak comedian. When are you running for office, Deano? I can see the big donors just lining up.

Words from Dean:

Given that I take evolution as undeniable truth . . . . And over time, successful species diversify in nature as their population grows and various individuals with common properties such as ability, ambition, efficiency, and goals find themselves deciding to form differing ecological/social niches . . . .

end cobbled quote

Nazi Germany. Eugenics. Seriously, are YOU an Objectivist?

Words from Dean:

As a side note, maybe to your pleasure, I assert that even though government should always be restricted in its actions by upholding negative rights, I think in many cases, for individuals, it may very well be the case that individuals should violate negative rights, particularly in emergency situations, or to pre-emptively attack given that the government has different information than a potential victim.

end cobbled quote

Tora! Tora! Tora! Now what to do about The Ukraine?

Dean . . . aw forget it.

[Selene]

Oh no!

Now we have two voluminous lengthly posters...running screaming into the void...

[deanwins]

Peter Taylor, Didn't your mommy tell you to stay in the kids section? Someone toss him a fuzzy bunny to play with.

Edit: In this you are being a terrible person for mischaracterizing me. What the heck? Nazi Germany? Does it sound anything at all like I am calling for rounding up people and putting them in gas chambers? No. I am talking about fringe moral issues... and if its too hard for you to differentiate what I think people should do and what I think is good verses what I think the government should enforce... then you fail at politics. Your reply is full of implication that I promote and/or approve of actions that I consistently denounce as despicable.

[Peter]

Dean wrote:

Peter Taylor, Didn't your mommy tell you to stay in the kids section?

end quote

OK. Sorry, I may be sounding like that pal of Ghs's but you do misspell versus, verses. In-joke. Taken individually the topics are all discussion worthy. I don’t want you as an enemy.

I just picked up “How We Know,” by Harry Binswanger after writing my diatribe towards The Dean, on ‘his’ thread. Sorry. Fume. Mumble. Perhaps I was overly harsh, but by packing so many negative images into one letter you made me blanch and exclaim to myself, “That’s not Objectivism!”

In contrast I just read page 215 in the chapter called “Logic,” and Harry Binswanger jammed all these positives into one sentence:

I am a referent of “man,” “animal,” “philosopher,” “American,” “husband,” “stockholder,” “taxpayer,” “civilian” and dozens of other concepts, so merely bringing an image of me to mind would not enable you to distinguish these concepts from each other.

end quote

Now that’s an Objectivist and a nice guy even if Harry won’t answer my emails. I see Michael Marrotta is on the Dean’s list / site. Perhaps he can direct you to the thread, “Race and IQ” for a few chuckles. Just kidding. Claws sheathed.

[deanwins]

Peter Taylor,

As for the Eugenics accusation... I of course would like to see that we improve our genes/design... but definitely not through some arbitrary dictator's choice of which attributes or which people live and die. My point about the state of humanity after 1,000,000 years if we adopt a particular policy is a fact. But I am not advocating that we just kill off the weak or whatever, that's ridiculous, I'm all about letting people have the opportunity in the free market to become the greatest they can be. And I totally admit that there is no way in hell I'd be able to look at skin color or genes or anything like that and be able to tell whether a person will be successful or fail, an upstanding citizen or a murderer. Rather I'd like to see improvements through genetic engineering and by productive people being able to spend the resources they earn on making babies with whomever they choose. Through respecting individual rights. This is far from NAZI eugenics as could possibly be.

Don't try to deny that genetics don't somehow dictate physical or mental ability. Yes I agree that environment and the individual's choice can have big impacts on physical and mental ability. But if say I have a design where my body stays physically fit without needing to exercise 30 minutes every day, or that can eat more kinds of foods without getting sick, or needs less sleep, or blah blah blah physical realities about our bodies design effect how much time we can think, and how focused we can be about what we are thinking, and how efficient the thinking is. Again let me repeat that I don't think genetics is everything. For example, I said "Look at the changes to our society." Here I was implying, but not going into detail, that not only will people find and fulfill niches via genetic changes, but also within our lives, especially with human life forms, we can change the way we think and what we do and our nature just by changing our philosophy. Our society (United States) is full of incompetent couch potatoes... not that their bodies aren't capable of more than that, but that they've found a niche that results in successful living. (Not much of living though in the aspect of independent goal attainment, basically just succeeding in living long enough to have children and watch some number of TV shows.)

My view of animal abuse is that its despicable, but not a crime. Definitely worthy of refusing to trade with such a person. Unless of course one abuses some other person's animal without the owner's consent, that would be violation of consensual property usage. And I do mean despicable. But I could totally see this as being more of a guardian-incompetent relationship, especially for more intelligent pets like dogs and cats. In this I'd be more inclined to consider abuse a crime, and allow local governments to set up their own standards. The thresholds for what is considered abuse and what the punishments would be are too arbitrary and cultural. For example compare India, the US, and Korea. My perception of India is that many are vegetarians and try not to hurt even insects. In the US, we are more middle ground, but we still harvest animals for food. In Korea, they eat dogs.

Re: ""Force" only makes sense in the context of capitalism" yes, well as in "initiation of force" "retaliating force", these are all concepts that rely on the definition of force meaning using someone's property without their consent. Of course there is newton's "force" and there is "military force" and there is "the force" in Star Wars. But I'm referring to a particular meaning of force that we are referring to when talking about negative rights. Do you have any disagreement here or are you just using this as a place to insert some more comments about how what I'm saying makes you feel icky? I totally agree that I wouldn't win in a political run for office... I'm way to extremely libertarian, on the verge of anarchy. And my philosophy has too many dependencies which most people are unable/unwilling (ick or religious mental blocks or permanent death or deterministic choices) to understand/agree. And then as I pointed out earlier, there are lots of lazy people in the world who would rather enslave me, even if they accepted my philosophy as true.

I do not consider myself an "Objectivist" capital "O" meaning that I completely agree with Rand. Evolution and that reality is deterministic results in various differences. Premises which Steve Wolfer and I frequently fall back to when we disagree on something. Another difference in my philosophy is that I take an individual's goal attainment to be primary, and do not constrain it by the rule to obey individual rights. Its subjective, but recognizes that there are factions and various factions have different relations with other factions, and due to the nature of a faction, they'd have different moral systems. Versus with Rand she only considers one faction, the human faction, which is a generalization of humans verses other species. And in my philosophy, recognizing the different factions, where morality is relative to the identity of each faction... I consider myself as essentially part of the same faction as Objectivists. Despite that I think that individuals in my faction should sometimes break NOIF rules, I agree with Objectivists that the only purpose of government should be to enforce NOIF.

But if you were being honest with me, then I don't really feel like this post would be necessary. I think you could figure all of this out on your own... I'm wasting my time defending myself when we could be having more practical conversation.

[deanwins]

If you read my post closely above, you will note that I said "Another difference in my philosophy is that I take an individual's goal attainment to be primary, and do not constrain it by the rule to obey individual rights." So for example, if MSK were to take the position that he would personally punish a person who didn't help a child in that situation (him personally violating NOIF)... but that he'd not vouch for a government policy to violate NOIF... then I'd be quite pleased with that compared to him vouching for government policy to violate NOIF. I really really really don't like government policy violating NOIF... it gets out of hand.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dean,

I'm traveling until Tuesday, so I'm only going to be able to engage in this later in the week.

Only have time for short messages right now.

Stay tuned.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Another difference in my philosophy is that I take an individual's goal attainment to be primary, and do not constrain it by the rule to obey individual rights.

Rights aren't obeyed. They are respected. Laws are obeyed. Would you say "... and do not constrain it by respecting individual rights"? The "rule" is libertarian bogus rationalization for confining philosophy to politics and traducing thinking about philosophy generally. Libertarianism is a political philosophy with some libertarians embracing "selfishness" commonly understood, which Rand didn't, and not giving it another thought--the necessary bridge to "rational self-interest." As libertarianism per se is a parasite on Objectivism (objectivism) anarchy is a parasite on libertarianism. Add in thinking and the parasitism disolves. Objectivism, btw, is a parasite on objectivism (a Nathaniel Branden add-on to Rand's personal philosophy which she both embraced and didn't), which is why it is taught (by Objectivists) as a catechism--"the philosophy of Ayn Rand," not the philosophy of you or me. Critical thinking is eschewed. With Peikoff at the top it's become a ridiculous, jejune cult. At least back in the 60s it had a lot of oomph. Now the gravitas is gone except for ARI neo-con bullshit.

Are you aware your philosophy is more grounded in Rand's fiction than Objectivism, especially The Fountainhead? And that was true of her herself until she died? "Take what you want, said God, and pay for it" (Rand liked this according to N. Branden, who did too) isn't just poetic prose. And did she pay for it.

I see you mentioned animal rights--there aren't any--I once tried to rationalize them into existence, but decided to let the violators of animal abuse laws come up with something on their own--in court, with the fillup I wouldn't be there to help them argue their cases. The same thing goes for philosophical discourse. Let them come here. Plenty of tar and feathers and I've got a rail.

You strike me as someone who sort of wants to be an anarchist, but doesn't know how, settling for "near," wrestling with the tar baby of minarchism. An ararchist wouldn't seek control, while you seem to or your posts wouldn't be so long. Philosophy generally speaking is about control, especially morality. Rights have a more a more particular, norrower focus even though a lot of unacknowledged morality is embedded in rights' theory--unacknowledged by anarchists or, if not, where are they, really? (No fair referring to super-brain George H. Smith; he's too smart for me.)

--Brant

for the record, I don't know how to be an anarchist

[deanwins]

Brant,

The situations where I would actually consider violating NIOF as good for myself would be unusual situations like where: 1. I would be starving and needed to steal or trespass in order to survive. 2. Preemptive defense of my property, which is speculative yet potentially practically necessary in some contexts.

In the case where NOIF was violated, I think there optimally should be a government restoring justice through forced restitution, retribution, and incompacitation. So MSK would have to pay for the medical bills of the unhelpful person or life insurance of the person if he killed. I would have to somehow repay the orchard owner for stealing the apple. And preemptive defense, once found proved with certainty by the gov who the actor of preemptive violence is, still is innocent until proven guilty that in fact there was no clear and present danger.

I think government should optimally be funded through voluntary means. I propose that the government be funded by selling shares or by voting tickets... So that ones say in what the government does is proportional to how much you fund it. Or even that when you give money to the government, you contract/stipulate what government actions the money can fund. I am not saying this is necessarily the best ideas, I'm happy to hear other voting and government funding methodology.

Does that make it more clear to you that I am a minarchist?

Edit: respected versus obeyed: yes, respected works. I was thinking "obeying one's self chosen rule to live by"... but respected works better because "obey" implies the rule was externally given.

[Brant Gaede]

Dean, I think it's much too soon for so much nuts and bolts. I merely advocate moving society/governance toward more and more freedom letting things to be dealt with as they come up. Practical examples projected into the future are okay to an extent for purposes of illustrating and justifying underlying principles.

--Brant

[Peter]

Dean wrote, “In Korea, they eat dogs.”

It’s pronounced yakamondu? I tried it once in South Korea when I was 19. Thin strips of meat in a rice ball with veggies. I think it may have been fried in bacon grease and was indistinguishable from most other meats. I only ate one portion, once, and I did it without gagging, earning me an extra stripe. It bothered me that the Koreans kept these dogs as food animals, on leashes, and the dogs were nearly immobile and grotesquely fat. But then, I have literally never been hungry, hungry either. They tell me it is not like dieting or fasting and I don’t want to know. I slept with pretty Kim who prepared the meal, as usual. She had a son who was fourteen who lived with his grandparents. He was embarrassed to be seen with me, so I only saw him once, from afar.

Dean wrote:

Another difference in my philosophy is that I take an individual's goal attainment to be primary, and do not constrain it by the rule to obey individual rights . . . . But if you were being honest with me, then I don't really feel like this post would be necessary.

end quote

My lampooning post was meant to be funny. One point is that you lump together the most dramatically misunderstood nuances of Objectivist Ethics. That’s almost looking for trouble.

Brant wrote:

You strike me as someone who sort of wants to be an anarchist, but doesn't know how, settling for "near," wrestling with the tar baby of minarchism.

end quote

Point Two. By saying he would violate individual rights Dean is actually to the “right” or beyond Rational Anarchism! Would I want him as a neighbor? Probably not permanently if there were a breakdown in society, but until the closest band of marauders is annihilated, maybe.

Dean later qualified his statements by saying:

The situations where I would actually consider violating NIOF as good for myself would be unusual situations like where: 1. I would be starving and needed to steal or trespass in order to survive. 2. Preemptive defense of my property, which is speculative yet potentially practically necessary in some contexts.

end quote

Quibble you may Dean, but by FIRST elevating your “goal attainment” over individual rights NOT IN AN EMERGENCY you have probably informed your readers how to deal with you on OL and in real life. In action within your domain would your actions be closer to Josef Stalin’s than to Midas Mulligan? Fascinating candor. Usually, youse guys hide your stripes.

Some of your language is threatening. Is it bluster? I have a hunch Michael will have an opinion.

Snow with a chance of ice tonight. Out of my way dude!. I played pro ball and I saw that last loaf of bread before you did!

[Brant Gaede]

"Don't let your father get punched in the stomach for a can of soup! Get Direct TV."

--Brant

let's see: starving Dean trespasses for food and gets shot by his ideological twin defending his property (who will in turn trespass when he starts starving and gets shot by ...?)

certainly solves the hunger problem

[Selene]

"Don't let your father get punched in the stomach for a can of soup! Get Direct TV."

--Brant

let's see: starving Dean trespasses for food and gets shot by his ideological twin defending his property (who will in turn trespass when he starts starving and gets shot by ...?)

certainly solves the hunger problem

Culling the herd - we could always open up a Donner Pass take out restaurnat...

[Brant Gaede]

"Don't let your father get punched in the stomach for a can of soup! Get Direct TV."

--Brant

let's see: starving Dean trespasses for food and gets shot by his ideological twin defending his property (who will in turn trespass when he starts starving and gets shot by ...?)

certainly solves the hunger problem

Culling the herd - we could always open up a Donner Pass take out restaurnat...

Take out not allowed. You have to eat it on site. Call it "mystery meat."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gotta make it short, but as long as we are going far out, let's do it. This can get fun.

What if there were a cult that held the belief that starving random babies as a sacrifice to their God would bring benefits to mankind or whoever?

We punish the kidnappers, that's a given because kidnapping is a crime, but what about everyone else who walks around the baby as it starves to death? What if they don't even know the baby was kidnapped?

Or what if the parents of a baby in this cult died and suddenly there just happened to be a baby left over for the religious ritual starvation?

What's worse, what if this cult found a baby in the wilderness instead of kidnapping it?

Aren't the cult members just exercising their negative rights?

(I can do this shit all day. And I can't wait to see the pretzel.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, GOD! Not the BABY again!

--Brant

okay--I ate the baby (I was starving), didn't want it to go to waste (the cultists had to go get another one--I might eat it too)

thus I starve the evil cult to death by depriving it of victims (burp!)--join me!

[Selene]

I threw the baby out with the bath water last night ... oops!

[Brant Gaede]

Alternative Atlas Shrugged: John Galt just shoots the producers who don't join him, except for Dagny; he has special plans for her.

--Brant

and the country goes to hell just like in the original!

[deanwins]

Quibble you may Dean, but by FIRST elevating your “goal attainment” over individual rights NOT IN AN EMERGENCY you have probably informed your readers how to deal with you on OL and in real life. In action within your domain would your actions be closer to Josef Stalin’s than to Midas Mulligan? Fascinating candor. Usually, youse guys hide your stripes.

First of all, in the past I haven't really liked labeling a situation an "emergency situation" because such is a slippery slope. Its a subjective judgement.

I thought about this for a while just now. Here's what I've come up with: The definition of an emergency situation is when a person's necessary means to achieve his goals contradicts with the NOIF principal. Given that different people have different goals and different levels of desperation, the threshold for whether a situation is an emergency situation is different for different people (universal perspective). And then for a real thinking human being, from his perspective, he may conclude that a particular situation is an emergency situation... although he might have a logical flaw or fail to recognize an alternative action or fail to recognize some long term effect, and hence be mistakenly concluding that it is an emergency situation. So let me now comment on your statement, given this insight:

"Dean's goal attainment takes precedence over individual rights while not in an emergency." But from above, clearly while not in an emergency, what is "good" for me is consistent with individual rights. So I hope you can see now that you are once again taking me the wrong way, implying that I am like Josef Stalin when in fact I am more like Midas Mulligan than most anyone you have ever met.

I'm ridiculously productive, capable, insightful, with a track record of success. I'm one of the last people on Earth who would ever be starving and looking to steal to survive. I avoid conflicts at all costs, and do everything I can to diffuse escalation of violence (even if this means I have to lose my wallet or something). I have never been in a fistfight or anything like that. I have friends that entrust me more than banks to secure their valuables.

Michael SK has publicly declared that he will violate NOIF in a situation that is actually quite common: allowing starving children to starve. I would not violate NOIF in many more situations than most people. If other people like MSK violate NOIF, in many cases I won't do anything... I'm very Ron Paul "let's just not get involved". So basically what I am now saying is that all of your criticism towards me now is completely unjustified. Furthermore, you will surely find that your public mischaracterization of me is completely unjust and a black mark on your character.

[Peter]

Dean wrote:

Furthermore, you will surely find that your public mischaracterization of me is completely unjust and a black mark on your character.

end quote

Can I have an eye patch too? Aaarrr! Dean, you should have said up front that it was an emergency situation. I am not putting words into your mouth. The “fate of babies” is your moral truism, for Christ’s sake?

Dean wrote:

Another difference in my philosophy is that I take an individual's goal attainment to be primary, and do not constrain it by the rule to obey individual rights.

END QUOTE and you said it more than once.

Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil:

Not one of these clumsy, conscience-stricken herd animals (who set out to treat egoism as a matter of general welfare) wants to know . . . that what is right for someone absolutely cannot be right for someone else; that the requirement that there be a single morality for everyone is harmful precisely to the higher men; in short, that there is an order of rank between people, and between moralities as well. (§228)

end quote

Dean, that IS you!

In her address to West Point Ayn Rand said:

“In conclusion, allow me to speak in personal terms. This evening means a great deal to me. I feel deeply honored by the opportunity to address you. I can say-not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and esthetic roots-that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.

end quote

And Dean, that IS NOT you!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

NOIF? Non Of Initiation Force? I always remember the old comedian, Looey Nye and think Nye OFF; Niof, non initiation of force.

[Jules Troy]

If some sick cocksucker tried to eat my dog they would find themselves wearing a pair of cement shoes.

[Peter]

Jules wrote:

If some sick c!@#$%%^er tried to eat my dog they would find themselves wearing a pair of cement shoes.

end quote

I thought you were a friend of Dean's on his site Return on Revenue? Oh. I get it.

[deanwins]

Peter Typing on my cell phone. Give me a break. You are being an asshole. Not having the full context of Nietzsche's quote, I'm not sure of all of what he means there. But for one, "rank" would not make sense from a universal perspective looking at factions. How about this: Screw you for consistently being an unprovoked asshole to me. You continue to make mischaracterizations through either idiocy, lazyness, or malice. I'm ignoring you for the time being.

[deanwins]

Well, I feel better already. You guys can still see his posts... but I guess that's your problem now not mine. People can dish out bullshit way faster than it takes to explode (Mises) it.