Why So Negative (Rights)?


Dglgmut

Recommended Posts

Oh, I'm glad Calvin started this thread, William. I think he's too tough to cave in and run away. I hope he starts another. There's probably a Canadian/American psychological and cultural divide at work. You do your thing. I'm going to keep doing mine and I'm sure Calvin will stay his own course. But read that clever "moral and psychological depravity" sentence again. That was bitch-slapping Objectivists and libertarians and those were his words dumped on us here. He adduced no evidence for what the socialists actually thought (or even if they think) or quoted them.

--Brant

No, you read it again. I compared their extrapolation, a mistake, to another mistake people on the right make: the mistake of assuming people on the left are obtuse and are "blanking out" what is clearly in front of them, when in reality they are just interpreting it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, I'm glad Calvin started this thread, William. I think he's too tough to cave in and run away. I hope he starts another. There's probably a Canadian/American psychological and cultural divide at work. You do your thing. I'm going to keep doing mine and I'm sure Calvin will stay his own course. But read that clever "moral and psychological depravity" sentence again. That was bitch-slapping Objectivists and libertarians and those were his words dumped on us here. He adduced no evidence for what the socialists actually thought (or even if they think) or quoted them.

--Brant

No, you read it again. I compared their extrapolation, a mistake, to another mistake people on the right make: the mistake of assuming people on the left are obtuse and are "blanking out" what is clearly in front of them, when in reality they are just interpreting it differently.

Are you asserting that reality is subject to "interpretation, in that it changes based on the interpretation?"

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to persuade anyone here, I'm just telling you what's going on outside of this community--which is clearly a bit disconnected.

Good because your persuasive skills are not persuasive.

Essentially, your argument is that those of us on OL that do not see the political reality through your gestalt, are then disconnected from the real world of politics that you know about?

A...

I'm suggesting that perhaps it is better to allow others to develop their own philosophy without shoving abstractions down their throats that they do not understand--and effectively do more harm than good because now they associate the message with the messenger. That means accepting people who have a different philosophy from you, and finding a different angle to reach an agreement with them. Rand Paul tried to spoon feed them philosophy and they spat it back.

Yeah. Ayn Rand was successful because she understood that complex ideas have to be digestible. Her view was that art was a very effective means of doing just that. She was all about showing, and model-building, rather than merely telling, instructing and philosophizing. She was an artist first and a philosopher second, and she was much better at being an artist.

It's weird, Calvin, that you're running into so much resistance here on this issue. People here seem to have forgotten about how they got to where they are ideologically. They forget that they were first exposed to Rand's having given them exactly what you're advocating, and only then did they graduate to delving into more detail that they never would have grasped if Rand hadn't first primed them through her art. They didn't start with a classroom lecture mindset of being scolded about the proper philosophical structure and technical basis of ethics, politics, etc.

But now they expect neophytes to be able to skip this thing that Rand identified as a "profound need" based on the very nature and limits of man's cognitive faculty, and to instead just will themselves to condense the "widest metaphysical abstractions" into their "immediate, perceptual awareness" when listening to Rand Paul talk over their heads.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Telling Calvin that he is a troll and attaching bad names and fitting him for a socialist shirt ... this is misplaced in my eyes. It doesn't do a job. It obviates the very issue he brings forward...

Thank you for a refreshing display of awareness. Exactly as you said, these are my observations. A lot of replies have been challenging those observations as if they were opinions, which is egregious from my perspective.

I think it is very important to know not only the ineffectiveness, but the counterproductiveness of arguing in a way that completely diminishes the beliefs of the listener.

The contradictory view being expressed by many people here, but made especially clear in Mikee's last post, is that people with collectivist ideology cannot be reasoned with... then why have any interest in politics? Get "the cleansing" started already...

I remember how my feelings changed over time while learning about Ayn Rand and her philosophy... it went from creepy to fascinating to obvious. Why didn't I reject it at the 'creepy' stage and move along? Because there were slivers of profound truth that I couldn't deny; and I don't like leaving things as approximates, as I've noticed most people are content to do, so I had to keep looking into it.

Of course most people do not want to make the effort to learn when they do not have the feedback to tell them that the effort is productive. Learning is its own reward, but the effort is not. If you think and think and think and get nowhere, what you've learned is that thinking is a waste of energy. So the task for those on the side of individualism is to simplify the problem so that the thinking required is minimal. I believe the human emotions are basically the same on both sides (or however many sides you see there being), it is a difference in perception that separates most people and the only way to correct the perceptions of another person is to work with what they already know and feel. Therefore, understanding what most people know and feel is the first step--but that is not what I see going on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird, Calvin, that you're running into so much resistance here on this issue. People here seem to have forgotten about how they got to where they are ideologically. They forget that they were first exposed to Rand's having given them exactly what you're advocating, and only then did they graduate to delving into more detail that they never would have grasped if Rand hadn't first primed them through her art. They didn't start with a classroom lecture mindset of being scolded about the proper philosophical structure and technical basis of ethics, politics, etc.

Before I saw your post I was writing about my own experience when first exposed to Ayn Rand. I think you said it well. And while you're right that she did a good job and had an innovative approach, I think there is still a ways to go in this area of the wider practice of transferring knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Romantic Manifesto Rand said something about art being the artist's expression of what is important. I'd say that works with political debate as well.

In this video, at about the 6:20 mark, Paul says something cringe worthy. You can just feel how he alienates the audience. And the reason I'm using Rand again is because he is probably the most appealing Republican candidate to liberals, which makes it all the more frustrating when he has slip ups like these.

What he does is he trivializes the beliefs of the crowd, which is basically the definition of offensiveness. Instead of accepting that many people think it is very important to conserve the environment, and using some convincing statistics or stories that show how deregulation and economic friendly regulation can be more "green" than the current laws and future laws in that direction, he lazily contradicts the audience as if they'll go, "Good point, we'll shut up about it."

He says something they see as simply untrue (and offensive).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that both you and J see that one track to Ayn which is a valid track.

However, some folks were already in that mind set and except for the "sanction of the victim," when I finished Atlas Shrugged, I closed the book and looked at the setting sun over the pristine Delaware River and said, "Of course."

My best friend who handed me the book and said, "You have to read this because this is what you have been talking about."

Again, my first exposure to her ideas was The Fountainhead . That was when I was about 8 or 9.

So, to me, Atlas was a validation book.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Romantic Manifesto Rand said something about art being the artist's expression of what is important. I'd say that works with political debate as well.

In this video, at about the 6:20 mark, Paul says something cringe worthy. You can just feel how he alienates the audience. And the reason I'm using Rand again is because he is probably the most appealing Republican candidate to liberals, which makes it all the more frustrating when he has slip ups like these.

What he does is he trivializes the beliefs of the crowd, which is basically the definition of offensiveness. Instead of accepting that many people think it is very important to conserve the environment, and using some convincing statistics or stories that show how deregulation and economic friendly regulation can be more "green" than the current laws and future laws in that direction, he lazily contradicts the audience as if they'll go, "Good point, we'll shut up about it."

He says something they see as simply untrue (and offensive).

A long time ago, an article on the "Ransberger Pivot" was posted and discussed over at the now almost-completely-dead Rebirth of Reason (dead, I think, for the primary reason of not using tools like the Ransberger Pivot, but opting to limit and discourage disagreement and discovery instead). The Pivot is something that Rand Paul would do well to employ.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta be kidding. Sanders destroy me? Yeah, he might--if he got me through you one small snip-quoted piece at a time.

In the eyes of the public, yes, he would make you look stupid, because they would not understand what you were talking about.

Well, while I beg to disagree there is also the simple problem that the "public" isn't smart enough to know stupid. I'm smart enough to get around that respecting a twit like Sanders. Now Rand Paul is very smart but he went dumb the way he began his remarks and went off the edge with the doctors (and their janitors!!) being "slaves." Not a good approach, but it left him open for your over the top criticism. There is an issue of slavery in that it's not seen as slavery until the pot of water you're in suddenly is hot enough to cook you and you cannot get out. The time the doctors are actual slaves we all will be too.

It's too easy to go astray with ideological reasoning. Paul opened with that. That he softened up a bit to the end was to my mind the cart before the horse. Bernie Sanders used no ideological reasoning beyond a "right" to medical care asseveration. What he was really talking about was putting the government and its bureaucrats between the patient and his doctor. The great rise of medical insurance as an employment perk to get around WWII wage/price controls paved the way for third party control exacerbated by Medicare, then Medicaid, then Medicare D, and now the ACA plus the continuing layering on of regulations made possible by extant legal authority. One can call it socialized medicine--sounds kinda nice and soft doesn't it?--I call it fascist. Bernie should be continually excoriated for embracing the latter while claiming to speak for the former, using it for albeit inadequate camouflage. This is actually a huge cultural divide that likes communism and hates fascism (equate with Nazism). This is why Mao has his face plastered all over Chinese currency but Hitler's wasn't on the pre-euro German currency. I hate and despise them both.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm glad Calvin started this thread, William. I think he's too tough to cave in and run away. I hope he starts another. There's probably a Canadian/American psychological and cultural divide at work. You do your thing. I'm going to keep doing mine and I'm sure Calvin will stay his own course. But read that clever "moral and psychological depravity" sentence again. That was bitch-slapping Objectivists and libertarians and those were his words dumped on us here. He adduced no evidence for what the socialists actually thought (or even if they think) or quoted them.

--Brant

No, you read it again. I compared their extrapolation, a mistake, to another mistake people on the right make: the mistake of assuming people on the left are obtuse and are "blanking out" what is clearly in front of them, when in reality they are just interpreting it differently.

And you said the other with heavy implication. I got them both. I'd accept your not knowing you did that if you were to admit your intent was nothing of the sort. Otherwise it's an endless argument possibility I won't exploit further by continuous repetition when anyone can go back and read and decide for themselves.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A long time ago, an article on the "Ransberger Pivot" was posted and discussed over at the now almost-completely-dead Rebirth of Reason (dead, I think, for the primary reason of not using tools like the Ransberger Pivot, but opting to limit and discourage disagreement and discovery instead). The Pivot is something that Rand Paul would do well to employ.

Thanks for the link.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A long time ago, an article on the "Ransberger Pivot" was posted and discussed over at the now almost-completely-dead Rebirth of Reason (dead, I think, for the primary reason of not using tools like the Ransberger Pivot, but opting to limit and discourage disagreement and discovery instead). The Pivot is something that Rand Paul would do well to employ.

J

I think that is a good tool. The example used was oversimplifying things, though, as the concerns of the individualist are more complex. It's more like, "I want children to receive a good education, and I want it done in a way that doesn't cause more problems in other areas of the economy." Or as Thomas Sowell would say, "At what cost?"

There are so many moving parts to consider when it comes to effective communication and transferring knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do not validate and find the actual pain that caused the concern, you have on chance of "nudging" them, or, walking with them to a solution that will satisfy both of you.

That is if your purpose is to persuade someone to change their mind or work with you to achieve a solution.

One of the reasons that Bill Clinton was so effective politically was that "I feel your pain..." mantra.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...just interpreting it differently."

It's a mistake to label Objectivists as right-wing. We have nothing to say to the Free Shit Army or their smarmy political figureheads. The John Galt program consists of getting the hell out, refusing all contact with looters and moochers.

That wasn't any Ayn Rand program however, not even in her magnum opus. That's the Wolf De Voon program with a more salable label.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...just interpreting it differently."

It's a mistake to label Objectivists as right-wing. We have nothing to say to the Free Shit Army or their smarmy political figureheads. The John Galt program consists of getting the hell out, refusing all contact with looters and moochers.

That wasn't any Ayn Rand program however, not even in her magnum opus. That's the Wolf De Voon program with a more salable label.

--Brant

Maybe you and I read different versions of Atlas Shrugged?

“We are on strike, we, the men of the mind... on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties."

The Wolf DeVoon program is slightly different, arguing for the rule of law in Galt's Gulch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...just interpreting it differently."

It's a mistake to label Objectivists as right-wing. We have nothing to say to the Free Shit Army or their smarmy political figureheads. The John Galt program consists of getting the hell out, refusing all contact with looters and moochers.

That wasn't any Ayn Rand program however, not even in her magnum opus. That's the Wolf De Voon program with a more salable label.

--Brant

Maybe you and I read different versions of Atlas Shrugged?

“We are on strike, we, the men of the mind... on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties."

The Wolf DeVoon program is slightly different, arguing for the rule of law in Galt's Gulch.

It's more than "slightly different." The Pup BaBoon program pretends to argue for the "rule of law," but in reality it supports the "Free Shit Army" by opting to glorify private smarmy political figureheads instead of public ones. In practice, it doesn't refuse "all contact with looters and moochers," but becomes a groupie/lackey/toadie/lickspittle/ass-kisser to a third-rate douchebag con man.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A long time ago, an article on the "Ransberger Pivot" was posted and discussed over at the now almost-completely-dead Rebirth of Reason (dead, I think, for the primary reason of not using tools like the Ransberger Pivot, but opting to limit and discourage disagreement and discovery instead). The Pivot is something that Rand Paul would do well to employ.

J

I think that is a good tool. The example used was oversimplifying things, though, as the concerns of the individualist are more complex. It's more like, "I want children to receive a good education, and I want it done in a way that doesn't cause more problems in other areas of the economy." Or as Thomas Sowell would say, "At what cost?"

There are so many moving parts to consider when it comes to effective communication and transferring knowledge.

Indeed! It's not easy. Lying and fear-mongering and promising to give ignorant people free shit is easy. Smearing anyone who disagrees is easy. Explaining the consequences of the lies and fear-mongering and the redistribution can be very difficult.

I'd suggest that you try it yourself. You know what you don't like about Rand Paul's arguments, and you're even critical of the simplified example of the Ransberger Pivot which was given in the link that I posted. Rightfully so. But how would you do it? How would you address the tactics of the left, and counter them in a way that would be more likely to educate and convince the people who you think aren't being reached by Paul?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dg wrote about Rand Paul: You can just feel how he alienates the audience.

end quote


I am thinking about that and I was thinking of the concept of negative rights, and Watson the computer made doubly famous on the TV Show, Jeopardy. Is consciousness a mystery unless you are conscious? Is consciousness an action? What is the difference between an assertion and an argument? Are mental processes physical processes, not of the muscles, but of matter and energy? If a computerized response as from Watson is matter and energy what is the barrier to consciousness? The mind exists in nature, and nature is causal, therefor how is the mind capable of volition and uncaused action? Can true AI ever exist? Do thoughts have weight? What does the internet weigh? Could there be a lack of intervention, not just in another country like Syria, and not just in winning an argument, but a lack of intervention in the thoughts of others? Now that I have written it I am not sure what I mean. Sorry. Forget I ever didn’t ask.
Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put pictures or recordings on your cell phone, does it get heavier? Could a web site die? If you use the technique, The Ransberger Pivot (a communication principle you can use to find common ground with an intellectual opponent, and then swing the audience towards your point of view), is there anything physically pivoting? Can this pivoting principle be used on the audience at a tennis match?

Ok. I’ll stop. But please answer any questions you know the answer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put pictures or recordings on your cell phone, does it get heavier?

Yes. If you put pictures which were printed on paper on your phone, it gets heavier.

Could a web site die?

All Objectivist sites other than OL have died.

If you use the technique, The Ransberger Pivot (a communication principle you can use to find common ground with an intellectual opponent, and then swing the audience towards your point of view), is there anything physically pivoting?

Yes.

Can this pivoting principle be used on the audience at a tennis match?

Sure. It can be used on any audience.

Ok. Ill stop. But please answer any questions you know the answer to.

I don't answer any question that I know the answer to, but only ones to which I know the answer.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I'd reply in kind, except you've written nothing, risked nothing, and done nothing IFAIK.

Okay, I'll tell you what, I'll go out and develop a crush on a third-rate con man, write up some amateurish opinions about law, quote myself constantly, praise my own work via puppet pseudonyms, and then I'll be as accomplished and adventurous as you.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But read that clever "moral and psychological depravity" sentence again. That was bitch-slapping Objectivists and libertarians and those were his words dumped on us here. He adduced no evidence for what the socialists actually thought (or even if they think) or quoted them.

No, you read it again. I compared their extrapolation, a mistake, to another mistake people on the right make: the mistake of assuming people on the left are obtuse and are "blanking out" what is clearly in front of them, when in reality they are just interpreting it differently.

Brant was asking me to re-read the clever sentence. It was a fairly long sentence:

To the extent that people on the left extrapolate the moral and psychological depravity of those on the right, people on the right take the difference in point-of-view that they have with those on the left to signify obtuseness, and in turn they end up arguing their points like they're talking to a five year old, using absurd analogies and fables instead of pointing to things in the person's life experience that perhaps lacked context.

Brant, adducing evidence is part of discussion. Bear in mind some of your articles of faith that have been challenged as you challenge Calvin, for example your persistent view that France will go fascist because Muslims. You don't adduce evidence even when challenged, at least on that subject. What I mean is that you too make an argument without initially relying upon quotes, cites, references, speeches, statistics, and so on.

So, of course it is licit to ask for warrants and evidence to be adduced on whatever point seems wanting of support. In the final analysis here, you would like support for the notion that 'people on the left extrapolate the moral and psychological depravity of those on the right' and also for the corollary notion that -- to the same extent of extrapolation -- 'people on the right take the difference in point of view ... to signal obtuseness.'

In this case, I think you understand and agree with Calvin's observation. He doesn't really need to cite quotes of real-life right/leftist folks who think right/leftists are morally and psychologically depraved. We can pick abject altruist dismissals of rightists as heartless monsters from the horror files here at OL. Or, by inversion Calvin need only point silently to Greg's main body of work here on leftism and depravity.

You need extra evidence put up to demonstrate that 'rightists' think differences in point of view reflect leftist obtuseness? There is evidence here in the thread. Once Calvin had been misidentified as a fellow-traveler with the Red Horde, look at how his 'obtuseness' was underlined, to the point of invective. It was insinuated that Calvin must be stupid and is rightfully suspect for bringing forward his concerns, as if he were a catspaw or lieutenant of the Horde.

In a thread focused on communication disorders, we have our own misunderstandings as illustrative examples close to hand. It's a good thing to know where I go wrong in assessing 'opponents.' It's a good thing to know when I am wrong. It's a great thing to know which arguments fall dead in the water because of particular imperfections.

A long time ago, an article on the "Ransberger Pivot" was posted and discussed over at the now almost-completely-dead Rebirth of Reason (dead, I think, for the primary reason of not using tools like the Ransberger Pivot, but opting to limit and discourage disagreement and discovery instead). The Pivot is something that Rand Paul would do well to employ.

Interesting thread and topic over there. I found a promising passage from The Libertarian Republic, "How Do We Communicate Libertarian Ideas Effectively?" The young lady is calm, conversational and at ease with the topic. It gives a good rationale for the greater principle of charity remarked upon by MSK and me from time to time.

In the early 1980s, the Ransberger Pivot was developed as a debate technique by Ray Ransberger and Marshall Fritz. Marshall Fritz you may know as one of the founders of the Advocates for Self-Government. The key to the Ransberger Pivot, is turning a conflict situation into a cooperative one.

To do so, you need to follow 3 simple steps, which allow you to reframe the debate and create a collaborative conversation through common ground. If you’ve ever heard Judd Weiss give a talk about selling liberty, you may have heard him say that “ideas flow between friends”. This is true, and this is a factor of the pivot.

So, here’s how it works:

You’ve asserted an idea. And someone objects to it. As libertarians we’re pretty used to this.

Step one: listen to their argument. When I say listen, I mean actually listen. Not to what you think they’re saying, but to what they’re actually saying. This is not where you prepare a counter argument that you’re ready to shout at them as soon as they stop talking. This is where you listen to what they have to say, and ask further questions if you need to. Why do you need to listen?

Because step two: is understanding their argument. This can be a difficult one, because as libertarians we tend to skip right to the “root” of a problem. We ignore all the good intentions and pleasantries and justifications and we say “ah! you want to put a gun to my head and force my compliance with whatever your goal is here.” But that’s not how the person you’re talking to sees things. They’re not thinking about implementation. They have an argument which is likely based in good intentions. You need to see their side. What they believe about what they’re saying. Stop presuming that they’re stupid, and stop presuming that their intention is to control you — regardless of whether or not the implementation of their ideas happens to involve control and force. You need to understand their well-meaning objective is here. Understand their argument.

I think one of the clangers in Objectivist communication is the 'gun to the head' analogy. In my earlier days here I heard that a lot from Ted Keer. The doctor always had a gun to his head. The citizen always had a gun to his head in dealings with government, not merely at tax time or on the road, but any time a regulation or 'right' was imposed.

The opening video was about healthcare rights. I was imagining a Saskatchewaner audience. The gun to the head slavery edict was in 1962. The audience just wouldn't 'get' it.

The gestation of socialized medicine in that flat land was much earlier, back to the first decades of the 20th century. The first socialism was in municipally-directed health and hospitalization employment. Doctors were in effect asked if they would take a position as an employee of the municipal trust. Would they staff a clinic and a hospital for a salary and benefits. That is grossly simplifying, but gives the gist of the beginnings. The depression was tough on Saskatchewan. Co-operative movements stepped in to self-organize local solutions to deploying basic care and basic coverage of hospital expenses. I called it a kind of mutual fund solution up-thread. Mutualism and municipalism, maybe. Long and deep roots of collectivizing some kinds of risk pool, and treating medicine as a staffing challenge. Can we get a doctor in town?

The gun to the head analogy in these scenarios would be bizarre. Pre 1962 a contract-based mutualism had led to hospital insurance being negotiated as a province-wide risk pool management, effecting savings from efficient economies of scale.

These were indeed socialist undertakings from the get-go, problems of infrastructure and accountability, public solutions to public problems as perceived at the time.

The gun and the slavery analogy works well in that context only in reference to the doctor's strike in 1962. That was the last time serious resistance to universalism erupted. None of the other provinces faced a doctor strike as they struck their deals and fell like dominoes, not least because doctors themselves were positively engaged in pro-Medicare arguments themselves.

Anyway, making this less Canadian, return to the Senate hearing excerpt and the legislative feebleness contra Obamacare and spiking the ball. There were a couple of moments where I thought Rand Paul connected well. One was where he stated that of course he would see at the hospital any patient brought to him. This snapped back into his disagreement with Sanders. It illustrated something besides the Hippocratic Oath, and could be perceived by socialist onlookers and hearing participants as an acknowledgement by Paul that access to some level of medical attention, especially in an emergency, was a given, a moral ground floor. Not a right but a natural human ethic needing no legislation or compulsion.

The next congress, with GOP leadership in the White House, could effect a health care revolution of sorts just by repealing the ACA. There are paths of persuasion, and lots of tactics. I'm going to think about this thread as an incubator of good ideas.

Here's the video the transcript above is from.

I am now off on an expedition to find pithy Rand phrases on obtuse leftists, guns and slavery. I may not be back for weeks.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now