Why Objectivism is Not An American Philosophy

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, RobinReborn said:

 

It is now, but it hasn't always been

 

Surveys in the 1920's of mental‐test studies of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, such as Italians, Poles and Greeks, showed their average I.Q.'s to be in the 80's, occasionally in the 70's. Data on Jewish‐Americans were harder to find, because the early researchers, during the controversies over immigration laws, focused on nationality groups. However, the U. S. Army tests showed soldiers of Polish and Russian ancestry scoring consistently at or near the bottom of the list of European ethnic groups, and it was known then that half or more of the Polish and Russian immigrants were Jews

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/27/archives/new-light-on-black-iq.html

Back in the 1920's  i.q. tests and their like were linguistically and culturally biased.   Since immigrants were often not fluent in English they did poorly on the tests. Also the tests had imbedded cultural memes.  In addition most of the immigrants from eastern Europe were from the farming villages and were generally not well schooled.  There were peasants. The "native intelligence", that is,  the genetically conditioned portion of intelligence of the Eastern European immigrants showed up clearly in the next generation. The children were schooled in public schools  and were fluent in English.  It was that generation that produced a disproportionate number of brilliant intellectuals   in science,  math and the law.  So far, about 20 percent of the Nobel Awards in the sciences have gone to people who were brought up Jewish.  Why were there so many Jewish mathematicians and physicists?  Some wit pointed out that there was an oversupply of Jewish comedians and song and dance people,   so these youngsters had to find another trade.  They went in for  math and physics. 

[Peter]

Jerry Seinfeld's show is still hip and funny after decades of over-broadcasting reruns. The IQ stats and limitations of old tests that you quoted are true based on the passage of time and new evidence. So, where are the Jewish pioneers in covered wagons? They seem to immigrate after the dangerous part is over. Oy vey!   

[Marcus]

On 8/2/2017 at 4:22 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

That makes hash out of the OP's critique. And that also means that the OP attributed words and an idea to Peikoff that are not his, then bashed Peikoff for it, then postured as if he runs this place.

 

Ok but you are playing with words. What is the difference between "Objectivism is an American Philisophy" and "Objectivism is pre-eminently an American viewpoint"? Semantics. Yes, it may not be an exact quote, the meaning is the same. Peikoff (and probably Rand) believed that Objectivism is quintessentially "American". I am here to tell you it is not. Let's argue that not semantics.

Quote

Objectivism couldn 't have gotten a firm foothold anywhere else, than the USA, I think. But I've been fascinated by the identity and internal spread in a nation (and "the 'West"), of this thing called "a culture". Of course the distance from the individual to millions of individuals is too vast to take in without abstracting it. All one can induce is a predominant characteristic from many sources and observations. And events can be changing and out-dating the aggregate all the time one is identifying it. E.g. Australia was mentioned. From what I know and hear from some over there, that traditional perception of the tough, self-responsible individualist Australian is on its way out. The complaint is of the growth of another Euro-style nanny State, as the average Aussie seeks less hard work, more regulations and welfare.  

What I know is that Australia consistently ranks higher than America on freedom indexes every year while America slips further down year by year. If Australia is a "tax grabbing, regulating, nanny state" what does that mean for America? Don't be the pot to call the kettle black.

Quote

This is a libertarian metric with the central libertarian economic-political focus. Objectivism focuses on morality/ethics--that's its center.

I'd say millions of Americans have absorbed (this) Objectivism from reading Atlas Shrugged. It has helped them in their private lives. In the novel the philosophy is implicit since the term was apparently launched post publication with "Nathaniel Branden Lectures" (NBL) in 1958, soon re-named NBI.

You are actually complaining about libertarianism, not Objectivism.

Brant Gaede, the stats on huge majorities of America are real. Actuallly worse yet, it has gone in the wrong direction. Americans who believe in God, angels, ghosts and other hokum are real. Sorry. No rational culture believes in such things. If they really took these books to heart, there would be tangible changes in the overall culture and politics of this country. Actually by the looks of things, it has gone in the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, America slips in the freedom ranking while Hong Kong moves in the opposite direction. By the hard metrics, this not a good sign for Objectivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Marcus said:

Let's argue that not semantics.

Marcus,

You are not a conceptual thinker yet. You have some fundamental conceptual misunderstandings, starting with the word "semantics." And your claim: "The meaning is the same." (It is not.)

You show no wish to understand anything. You do show a wish to win some kind of virtual contest and to teach others what you, yourself, do not know and, apparently are unwilling to learn. Hell, you won't even own up to being intellectually sloppy and pretentious when busted. Facts don't seem to matter to you.

So I'm not going to argue anything with you until that attitude changes. 

OL is a discussion forum for ideas, not a playpen or sports arena to scratch a neurotic itch to ascend in a dominance hierarchy. It sure as hell is not a battlefield where you will trounce enemies, bare your chest and emit Tarzan yells. We have other priorities here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the reader who may be interested, the way of arguing of this poster is a perfect example of normative before cognitive. He's an opinion with feet seeking validation. This is contrary to identifying something correctly (cognitive) in order to evaluate it correctly (normative). This reversal is quite common in our culture, which is one of the reasons people talk past each other so much.

There is an added element to the reversal in this particular rhetoric, though. It's replacing facts that identify what is being evaluated with bossiness and dismissal. Rand calls this "blank out," but it's an aggressive form of blanking out.

The dude wants to be right. Period. That's his primary. He doesn't seem to care how or why that comes about just so long as he is right, so long as he can be the teacher, and so long as he can boss others around. What is he going to teach? Who cares if your thing is facts? He doesn't.  

Michael

[Marcus]

Quote

What is the difference between "Objectivism is an American Philosophy" and "Objectivism is pre-eminently an American viewpoint"?

^ @Michael Stuart Kelly You've called me out on the above but still no real explanation as to the difference between those two statements? They both make reference to a) Objectivism in b) in similar terms. Are you arguing that Objectivists or Peikoff do not think that Objectivism is American? I'm just really confused as to what your trying to say overall.

All that psychoanalysis stuff is unnecessary. What I care about here is discussing whether or not Objectivist ideas are fundamentally American or not. It's the only thing I will address.

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

44 minutes ago, Marcus said:

All that psychoanalysis stuff is unnecessary.

Marcus,

It's not psychoanalysis stuff.

It's traffic cop stuff.

OL is a discussion forum, not a place for you to boss others around.

Here. Let's try this:

Stop telling people what to do, what to think and what to post.

Maybe you will understand that form since it is couched in your kind of "I'm the one in charge here" expression.

After you understand that, later maybe we can talk about the time travel in your opinion of America, Peikoff's statement and all the rest, conflating ancient causes with current effects as if they were the same.

And maybe even how to correctly critique an idea by, first (meaning FIRST), trying to understand what the idea you are critiquing is. You do that by stating it in your own words, and verifying that you got that part right. For instance, "Here is what I understand Peikoff to be saying..." Just from reading your words, I don't think you care about what Peikoff was saying. I think you care about what you imagine he was saying so you could posture as The Great Debunker.

You certainly don't start this way: misquoting Peikoff, then saying: "On it's face, this statement couldn't actually be any more false."

44 minutes ago, Marcus said:

I'm just really confused as to what your trying to say overall.

That's the wisest thing you have said so far in this entire thread (misspelling "you're" and all). From there it is possible to try to identify correctly.

Michael

[Marcus]

@Michael Stuart Kelly I think more like an engineer, not so much a philosopher. Abstract concepts give way to practical ideas that have application in the here and now. I try though. This forum is kind of my way of working through my own thoughts/issues with Objectivism and getting feedback.

It also gives me dead focus. I don't like pointless rambling on in threads that I start. It's  disrespectful. I don't like when bumbling fools (peter) start racial sub-threads and hijack them.

So I have a tendency to get "testy" with people who do annoying or disrespectful  things. My goal is not to "boss" people but to stay on topic. Otherwise I'll just abandon the thread and it will most likely go nowhere. Or just leave the forum for a while and the place gets a lot less interesting. Say what you want about my threads, they are always interesting and drive a lot of views to your forum.

Hope that clarifies my thought process a little. No need for policing or psychoanalysis, just ask politely, I'll tell you.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Marcus said:

... just ask politely, I'll tell you...

Marcus,

I have nothing to ask you.

Michael

[Marcus]

Cool.

Moving along...

[Brant Gaede]

17 hours ago, Marcus said:

Brant Gaede, the stats on huge majorities of America. Actuallly worse yet, it has gone in the wrong direction.ns who believe in God, angels, ghosts and other hokum are real. Sorry. No rational culture believes in such things. If they really took these books to heart, there would be tangible changes in the overall culture and politics of this country. Actually by the looks of things, it has gone in the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, America slips in the freedom ranking while Hong Kong moves in the opposite direction. By the hard metrics, this not a good sign for Objectivism.

I see you came here to preach.

--Brant

no choir

[anthony]

On 8/4/2017 at 8:39 PM, Marcus said:

 

What I know is that Australia consistently ranks higher than America on freedom indexes every year while America slips further down year by year. If Australia is a "tax grabbing, regulating, nanny state" what does that mean for America? Don't be the pot to call the kettle black.

 

 

 

It means, that a freedom index is just one tool, not an authoritative source which represents the reality of free people 'on the ground'. It means, comparisons are often odious. And, one doesn't need to live in a shiny, new frying pan, to call both the pot and the kettle grimy.

Here's an example of a, um, "successful" Welfare State. Only 36% of state spend. Not quite an Objectivist's or libertarian's idea of freedom. But, you notice, they won't rest on their laurels there - always room for a better and bigger welfare state...

BRIEFING

Why having the best social welfare system in the world matters to Australia

ANDREW LEIGH, MP

OCT 4, 2016, 4:35 PM

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• REDDIT
• LINKEDIN
• EMAIL

Photo: Scott Barbour/Getty Images

Quiz time. Of the roughly 200 nations in the world, which country’s welfare state is best targeted to those in need?

If you answered ‘Australia’, then you’re absolutely correct. It’s also a healthy sign that you haven’t been paying too much attention to Liberal Ministers like Scott Morrison and Christian Porter.

Because despite the demonisation of Australia’s social security system, Australia really does have a world-class social safety net. Not ‘world class’ in the aspirational sense – but world class in the Kyle Chalmers, Carol Cooke, Chloe Esposito kind of sense.

Put simply, a dollar spent in the Australian social security system does more to reduce inequality than a dollar spent in any other welfare system in the world.

As the Australian National University’s Peter Whiteford has shown, this didn’t happen by accident. Our pension has both an income test and an assets test. Unemployment benefits are set at the same level regardless of how much you were earning when you lost your job. We stopped paying the Baby Bonus to millionaires. One reason that so many people were critical of Tony Abbott’s parental leave plan is that it was a wage-replacement model, which gave the most to those who earned the most.

The result of so much targeting is that the size of government in Australia is considerably smaller than in most advanced countries. Put together the spending done by local, state and federal governments, and you’ve got 36% of the economy.

Figures published by the advanced-country OECD put us second-lowest of 29 countries, with only Switzerland spending less. Government in the US makes up 38% of the economy. In most developed countries, government is over 40% of the economy. In eight advanced nations, government is over 50% of the economy. A targeted welfare system means Australians pay a lot less tax than citizens in most rich nations.

As any great Olympic athlete knows, just because you’re on top of the world, it doesn’t mean you can’t improve. But it helps to come to debates over welfare armed with the facts.

 

In 2001, 38% of those aged 18-64 lived in a household that received some income support. In 2014, the most recent year for which these figures are available, that figure was down to 32%. So much for a ‘crisis’ in welfare reliance.

Yet when you’re talking about welfare, the largest expenditure isn’t on unemployment payments (which are low by international standards) or on the disability pension (which is now much harder to access than it was a decade ago). The biggest single income support payment – indeed, the biggest single government program – is the aged pension.

Sure, we’re spending more on older Australians. But that’s because the share of the population who are aged 65 or over has been steadily rising. The baby boomers worked much of their careers in an Australia without universal superannuation, so it isn’t surprising that many are reliant on the aged pension.

For all the rhetoric about ‘leaners versus lifters’, the fact is that Australia’s welfare system looks a lot more like a piggy bank than a conveyor belt. When times are good, we put money in. But when we find ourselves jobless, homeless, or with a disability, government protects us from poverty. That’s how social insurance is supposed to work.

When it comes to working-age Australians, the data show that most households got some welfare, but few people were stuck on welfare. Arecent analysis by the Melbourne Institute looked at welfare use from 2001 to 2014. Fewer than one in ten people were in households that got welfare every one of those fourteen years. But only three in 10 people were in households that never got welfare in that period. Most households got welfare for between one and three years. In other words, the social safety net caught them a few times – but they didn’t laze around in it.

But remember, that’s only a 14-year period. If you looked over a whole lifetime, the share of people who never use the welfare system during their working lives would be even lower than three in 10. So any attempt to divide the population into ‘us’ and ‘them’ misunderstands the fact that most welfare use is by people who are getting a hand up, not a hand out.

On the Labor side of politics, we’re always up for a conversation on how to improve the safety net. After all, it was people like Bill Shorten and Jenny Macklin who argued in government for scrapping the Baby Bonus, creating the National Disability Insurance Scheme, phasing out the Dependent Spouse Tax Offset, and raising the full-rate pension.

But if we’re going to talk about the welfare system, we have to start with the facts.

If you can’t admit that the Australian system is the best-targeted in the world; that welfare usage by working-aged people is lower than in the Howard era; and that most of us access the welfare system at least once in our lives – then you’re not serious about evidence-based reform.

[Brant Gaede]

WTF?

Reducing inequality?

I think inequality save under the law is what makes human beings best go. Welfare mostly stops people in their tracks.

I'm tired of explaining why this is just another expression of fascism--the use of force by government interfering in the economy hurting people who succeed to help those who haven't yet in turn hurting them--force hurts--really only to maintain moral supremacy and political power. That's why the MSM is all after Trump--they are fighting for their power.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 8/5/2017 at 3:59 PM, anthony said:

Not quite an Objectivist's or libertarian's idea of freedom.

Tony,

Or how about the right to bear arms in Australia?

On a more serious note, wait until the day a charismatic leader arises over there with dictatorial ambitions. These thugs are attracted to money and power and Australia has lots of both. Granted, there are procedural checks and balances in place, but someone will eventually figure out how to get around them. They always do when they can't be stopped by force.

So I don't see what an unarmed population will be able to do when government guns are finally aimed at them.

Not my idea of freedom.

Michael

[Marcus]

On 8/5/2017 at 1:59 PM, anthony said:

It means, that a freedom index is just one tool, not an authoritative source which represents the reality of free people 'on the ground'. It means, comparisons are often odious. And, one doesn't need to live in a shiny, new frying pan, to call both the pot and the kettle grimy.

Here's an example of a, um, "successful" Welfare State. Only 36% of state spend. Not quite an Objectivist's or libertarian's idea of freedom. But, you notice, they won't rest on their laurels there - always room for a better and bigger welfare state...

BRIEFING

 

You don't seem to understand the article. The article is saying despite their welfare state, Australia's government still spends less than America does as a percentage of GDP, which is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is much more efficient and targeted (If you *must* have a welfare state,  at least be smart about it).

This further proves my point, not yours. Which is one of the reasons why Australia outranks America on freedom indexes. Check the figures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

[anthony]

23 hours ago, Marcus said:

You don't seem to understand the article. The article is saying despite their welfare state, Australia's government still spends less than America does as a percentage of GDP, which is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is much more efficient and targeted (If you *must* have a welfare state,  at least be smart about it).

This further proves my point, not yours. Which is one of the reasons why Australia outranks America on freedom indexes. Check the figures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

I can't admire a "smart" welfare state. Which is better? An "efficient" welfare state? A badly run and wasteful one? The one that falls soonest, I'd think. (Add "corrupted", and that's what we have here).

Anyhow besides that, it looks to me you put too much faith in stats and figures. Who collates these indices? Any "freedom index" today will factor in ~as a plus ~ many aspects of control and regulation which are anathema to freedom lovers. The Welfare State and egalitarianism is now 'a metaphysical given' , representing what most of the world calls "freedom". They will be among the criteria for an "Index", I suspect . 

All non-insane nations also know that business, industry and trade - i.e. "Capitalism", is necessary/"a necessary evil", tolerated to get the funds that keep many citizens content.

I know many stories of Australia from personal hearing, a very poor work ethic, interfering and petty laws and over-zealous law enforcement, etc. from emigrants who settled there at great cost and started business... and came back - to this failing and racist State. We hear often from my brother in law who's lived there 20+ years and I've a daughter who married an Australian. Personal anecdotes don't make me an expert of the country, I admit, but together with articles I read, they add up.

If we have to be "top-down", and you are concerned about a national comparison and a few percentage points difference, these situations don't freeze in place. I'll make the bet that Australia's dependency on welfare and expenditure will grow steadily while America's will slowly fall. 

[merjet]

8 hours ago, Marcus said:

You don't seem to understand the article. The article is saying despite their welfare state, Australia's government still spends less than America does as a percentage of GDP, which is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is much more efficient and targeted (If you *must* have a welfare state,  at least be smart about it).

This further proves my point, not yours. Which is one of the reasons why Australia outranks America on freedom indexes. Check the figures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

No, it doesn't prove your point. The Wikipedia page show Australia's government spending as a %GDP = 35% and the USA's = 42%. However, Australia's spending on defense was 6%, whereas the USA's was 13%. Both differences are 7%, so it doesn't follow that the difference between the two countries is welfare spending.

[Marcus]

@merjet Whether the government blows it's citizens money on welfare or bombs it's irrelevant. Government as a percentage of GDP is markedly lower in Australia. That is is an undeniable fact. "Libertarian" countries don't spend half their GDP from the gov't. It's funny to watch you guys find twisty arguments to fit your narrative/beliefs about what America is. I'm not twisting/spinning my argument here. I'm saying flatly Australia is more free and less dominated by government than America is. I'm basing this purely on the data.

You guys can come up with anecdotes or misinterpret articles all you want. The facts are what they are. It seems so many people here are so invested in  this idea of "America the free", the whole narrative and everything. Maybe it's time to "re-visit" the story.

If America is a "free" country we may as well believe in fire-breathing dragons too.

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, Marcus said:

You don't seem to understand the article. The article is saying despite their welfare state, Australia's government still spends less than America does as a percentage of GDP, which is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is much more efficient and targeted (If you *must* have a welfare state,  at least be smart about it).

This further proves my point, not yours. Which is one of the reasons why Australia outranks America on freedom indexes. Check the figures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

Be smart doing the dumb.

--Brant

where did all the radicalism go?

Long time ago

Where did all the radicalism go?

Who wants to know?

[Marcus]

Talking in riddles as usual Brant?

[Brant Gaede]

30 minutes ago, Marcus said:

Talking in riddles as usual Brant?

Tell us about Objectivism while standing on one foot.

--Brant

[merjet]

16 hours ago:

20 hours ago, Marcus said:

You don't seem to understand the article. The article is saying despite their welfare state, Australia's government still spends less than America does as a percentage of GDP, which is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is much more efficient and targeted (If you *must* have a welfare state,  at least be smart about it).

You don't mention defense spending here. It seems reasonable to conclude you are claiming that Australia's government spending is less than the USA's because Australia's spending on welfare is more efficient.

10 hours later:

11 hours ago, Marcus said:

@merjet Whether the government blows it's citizens money on welfare or bombs it's irrelevant. Government as a percentage of GDP is markedly lower in Australia. That is is an undeniable fact. "Libertarian" countries don't spend half their GDP from the gov't. It's funny to watch you guys find twisty arguments to fit your narrative/beliefs about what America is. I'm not twisting/spinning my argument here. I'm saying flatly Australia is more free and less dominated by government than America is. I'm basing this purely on the data.

You guys can come up with anecdotes or misinterpret articles all you want. The facts are what they are. 

I see. You say that government spending on welfare matters, then ten hours later it's irrelevant.  

On the Wikipedia page you linked, Guatemala, Turkmenistan, and Bangladesh are the counties with the lowest government spending as a percent of GDP.  Are they freer than Australia and the USA because their government spending as a percent of GDP is lower?  How do you twist and spin those facts?

[Peter]

Michael wrote about the Aussies: On a more serious note, wait until the day a charismatic leader arises over there with dictatorial ambitions. These thugs are attracted to money and power and Australia has lots of both. end quote

Someone should tell The Queen. No one is more charismatic than Eliza.

[Marcus]

Quote

You don't mention defense spending here. It seems reasonable to conclude you are claiming that Australia's government spending is less than the USA's because Australia's spending on welfare is more efficient.

No I'm not claiming that. You are claiming that. I said nothing of the sort lol. I said Australia is more efficient in administering welfare which is true, but this is not the sole reason for their lower rate of government spending.

Quote

I see. You say that government spending on welfare matters, then ten hours later it's irrelevant.

Once again, putting words in my mouth and false statements.

Here's what I said:

Quote

Whether the government blows it's citizens money on welfare or bombs it's irrelevant. Government as a percentage of GDP is markedly lower in Australia.

I made that statement in response to this (your) quote:

Quote

However, Australia's spending on defense was 6%, whereas the USA's was 13%. Both differences are 7%, so it doesn't follow that the difference between the two countries is welfare spending.

I said *what* the Australian government spends it on is irrelevant because it's still lower than the US. That's the point you keep not getting. You keep trying to argue around this simple fact lol.

Where is your argument really?

[merjet]

 

2 hours ago, Marcus said:

No I'm not claiming that. You are claiming that. I said nothing of the sort lol. I said Australia is more efficient in administering welfare which is true, but this is not the sole reason for their lower rate of government spending.

Once again, putting words in my mouth and false statements.

Here's what I said:

I made that statement in response to this (your) quote:

I said *what* the Australian government spends it on is irrelevant because it's still lower than the US. That's the point you keep not getting. You keep trying to argue around this simple fact lol.

Where is your argument really?

LOL. See how he twists and spins.