bmacwilliam

I really do think I'm in agreement with this. At least if you mean Natural Law as more or less "the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior." I don't see see how strict individualism can logically come from this. Bob

Well then explain please. Your frame of reference is quite at odds with individualism. Shayne Clearly. Shayne, what I'm really trying to do is to understand the fundamental basic tenets here, then I'm happy to read some more books. The problem is that the fundamentals seem to be at odds with reality. But I'll stop posting here.

Well then explain please. I can see quite clearly that elections - perhaps particularly American ones - do not bring about substantive change, but that's not a problem with elections themselves. I've brought my car to a mechanic and it wasn't fixed, but that's because the mechanic was a poor choice, not that I had the wrong process, I tried again with another mechanic and all was well.....

But if morality includes the fundamental concept of non initiation of force, then isn't a morality that doesn't apply in this situation incomplete or fundamentally flawed? Doesn't morality come from a deeper place than "established method" ? Bob

But, if 'life' comes before 'liberty', how could charity be optional? I don't get it. Bob

Curious, I don't get it. Is this an American thing maybe? Very little choice? Is that what you mean? My government has just called an election, we will choose from the tree-hugging freaks, socialists, separatists, liberals, and conservatives. Lots of choice at the very least. Bob

This is one purpose of competing governments -- to sort out disagreements on this level. If you are right then your community will prosper. If Objectivists are right then theirs will. In either case, we will find out through voluntary activity who is right, but at the foundation has to be pure voluntarism; you shouldn't get to have your say by fiat, that's how wars are started. Shayne Elections provide us with competing governments no? The thing is, you can build a "proper" function of government based on a number of foundational rights variations. Anything labeled "natural" clearly should reflect the "nature" of the subject. The idea of a human nature without recognizing inherent altruism is simply absurd. I find it interesting that while an ethics can be deductively derived from any foundation, and in that sense are 'correct', and loudly proclaimed as so, the obvious objective truth is that the foundation of this is clearly based on a fringe morality - one that is not reflective of human nature in any larger sense at all. So, anarchists are indeed 'overgrown teenagers' as I see it, simply because of a unsophisticated or underdeveloped morality. Of course a better word for this when it appears in adults is 'deviant'. Bob

Well, again I think that substituting strictly wealth as the foundation might lead to this, but that's not really what I mean. Having a little trouble articulating it I guess. In the same vein as 'your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins', my idea of wealth is perhaps more appropriately described as 'your freedom to choose ends where the consumption of someone else's wealth begins'. Is that more clear? Perhaps we're not disagreeing on anything substantial. The problem that arises as I see is this: When one applies a strict, liberty based foundation of ethics it leads us to the Randian conclusion that charity, in any form is always entirely optional. I find this nothing less than completely absurd on many levels, not just the moral. I truly think this is simply not reflective of the reality of what we are and how we developed as a species. I believe partial altruism is without a doubt truly an objective and necessary part of human nature and is defensible on an scientific basis. It simply CANNOT be rationally dismissed. Rand's logic I think is solid on this, but her description of reality is incorrect. The partial confiscation of wealth is therefore entirely justified. The only question remaining is degree. This is a slippery slope if wealth is not held as a critical guidepost. Confiscation is valid ONLY if a) it serves to provide the necessities of life OR b ) it serves to create greater aggregate wealth. The recipient of (a) does NOT have the freedom to NOT contribute with labour if capable. This leads to almost entirely (but not completely) respecting individual liberty and also leads to mankind's most critical component of progress - wealth.

But I guess also what I'm saying is that anarchy (although I admit I need to learn more) doesn't make sense. Even if anarchy is indeed the natural extension and development of liberty theory/natural rights etc., it fails because wealth could not prosper in this environment and any argument wrt freedom is rendered meaningless. Free and dirt poor is not free (for me at least). If wealth could be maximized with anarchy, I'd like to understand how. Bob

Ok, but what I was getting at was that wealth is a superset of liberty. But I'm not sure it's meaningful to break it down further. What I mean is that base-liberty is not good enough. Or, in other words, "everything else" that is of any real use at all (in terms of progress that is) is wealth-focused liberty and not simple freedom. The implication too is that there may be some freedom that might be defendable in the vacuum, but needs to be curtailed to maximize the useful form of liberty. and as Brant says: "Okay, freedom isn't enough. You also need food and clothes and a roof over your head, to say nothing of rationality and like-minded neighbors. " So, while it may be a logical error in base-liberty thinking it seems to me that once you start to value wealth less than choice at a fundamental level, you get the supposed "right" of others to confiscate and redistribute your wealth in unproductive ways, which in a real but ironic way, destroys aggregrate freedom AND wealth. See what I'm getting at? Edit: And to add, a certain amount of wealth confiscation can actually serve to enhance aggregate and individual wealth and is indeed justified by protecting one against the cheaters (and possibly for infrastructure maybe too).

I think that is a fascist definition of the purpose of government. The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference. This leads to maximizing wealth and other good things as a consequence, but wealth maximization as such is not the proper purpose of government. Shayne Human freedom is "the fundamental driver of progress." --Brant I can't really disagree, because my concept of wealth, more or less, includes freedom by necessity, but is more than just base freedom. My freedom is freedom in the pursuit of self-improvement. We can imagine a society/country where people are more or less completely free but are poor - perhaps even by choice. They couldn't afford a developed arts culture, space exploration, medicine, philosophy, travel, and a whole host of intellectual pursuits because they are barely subsisting. Fine, great, but is this "progress"? Compare that to a prosperous society that can afford all kinds of "advancements" and is also free (or mostly) but values wealth more. Which is more "progressed"? Freedom is necessary, but not sufficient for "progress" as I would define it - and admitedly that's a personal bias. But wealth in a very real sense implies a more sophisticated/complete (if I may call it that) concept of freedom. Wealth also implies/includes freedom because you couldn't say you were wealthy if you didn't have the freedom to own and control your resources. So the concepts are related. But freedom without the wealth connection as I describe it has little to no practical value as far as I can see. Bob

Well, thank you for that - sincerely. However, it doesn't help me much as far as trying to understand some of the supporting arguments ;-) Bob

I think that is a fascist definition of the purpose of government. The proper definition is that government exists in order to defend individual liberty against criminal interference. This leads to maximizing wealth and other good things as a consequence, but wealth maximization as such is not the proper purpose of government. Shayne Interesting, but doesn't 'capitalist' describe it better than 'fascist'? But its more or less the same idea - protection against criminal interference. The more wealthy I get, the more liberty I enjoy. In fact, for me, the entire reason I pursue wealth is this exact reason - wealth=freedom. Freedom (in a practical sense, if not philosophical) means little without wealth. Does it mean much to me that I'm free to travel the world or my country or whatever if I don't have the means? Bob

Or perhaps to put it a different way: Wealth maximization should be the primary goal of any "collective" authority. With wealth comes everything else, more leisure, better medicine, better everything. Wealth is the fundamental driver of progress (I think). Theft, cheating, fraud (and government) are generally destroyers of wealth, but a government is necessary to minimize the other problems. Therefore, there's a sweet-spot somewhere where the government is powerful enough to discourage cheating effectively, but small enough not to destroy a large amount of wealth. Bob

Personally, I'd really appreciate it if I could get a couple quick references to try to understand the basic tenets of anarcho-capitalism and related variations. I'm really stuck getting off the ground with this. I can't seem to agree with the basics, but I'd like to learn more. For me I'm stuck, more or less, with this view: Life and society are very complex, sure, but in the macro-view is essentially a rational and of course sometimes emotional struggle for scarce resources (money, love, time, accomplishments, assets etc.). In at least a somewhat realistic sense, a game metaphor is appropriate. Any game needs rules, and in most cases, needs referees with the authority to punish including physical removal from the game. Sure, we can play friendly games of street hockey without referees, but certainly couldn't have the Stanley Cup final without them. Very quickly the game would degrade into a cheating frenzy no? But the referees, like democratic political leaders do not have a monopoly though do they? If they were really bad, then they'd get replaced (maybe with votes from the players). Isn't this essentially our democracy (perhaps with smaller government)? Is it the voluntary agreement with the rules that makes the difference? Bob

No, time simply does not exist "before" the big bang. There is no such thing as "eternal" - time itself does not exist, period. Bob

Please clarify Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such. --Brant Time doesn't work this way. The idea is that time itself began at the big bang. There is no 'before'. There is no north of the north pole. Bob

Yes this is overstated. I do believe Capitalism is the best, most appropriate, most "natural" if you will, economic system. LF Capitalism as Rand advocates is a different story though. I believe regulated/policed capitalism along with mandatory taxation (though at lower levels) is the most defendable system based on reality and logic. Edit: However I do believe that Rand started backwards from politics. A very bad political situation was indeed what inspired her, and the pieces fit nicely. This is one of the reasons that I dislike her as a person. I do not think she was honest. Dare I say this is perhaps a difference between reading her as an adult vs a teenager/adolescent. Bob

Perhaps you are right about this. To me, the other possibility is that she needed her ethics to lead to her politics which was actually the most important piece to her. She worked backwards from her political stance but didn't admit as much. Or, like you say, she was emotionally retarded. Probably both. Bob

The last part of your post is food for much thought, but to address the above. "Do you agree with Rand that that answer is an incorrect ideal (of behavior) for all people?" Yes, I do agree. But I disagree that the choices are 1)Selfish or 2)Altruistic as ideals. I think it is very clear that each man should find his own balance and that it is vanishingly unlikely that either extreme is an appropriate ideal for anyone. I think it's very clear that a rather miserable existence lies at both ends. Rand either knew this or she didn't. She either knew this, or was so emotionally abnormal that she didn't know this. Neither situation leaves me with a favourable view of her for reasons that again seem rather obvious no? Bob

Really, I'm not sure either. But what I do know that the "is" that Rand uses is wrong, and if her logic is correct, her conclusion is wrong as well. To me, this seems rather obvious. On the question of determinism, I just have one small - ok, large - problem and that is I do not know that the feeling of free will is not simply an illusion. This, to me at least, seems more troubling than the "brain in a vat problem" that for whatever reason seems easier to dismiss. Free will? I can't accept so easily. I do not firmly believe that we have no free will, but I remain unconvinced that we do. Bob

Ok, let's go with this for a bit. Studies have shown a physiological reward, similar to narcotic response (inherent and not learned) in response to altruistic behaviour. Therefore, a vast majority of people should adopt a partially altruistic morality "from the bottom up based on his own nature". Rands ethics are dead no matter what. Well, unless reality isn't important that is. Bob

No way. If man is in any way "programmed" to act in his genetic interest, and not just personal, then this will significantly alter how he will act, especially wrt kin. Your dismissal doesn't fly. Bob

Here's the thing. Man is dedicated to his OWN genes, not to some socialistic evil collectivist society, or the genetic welfare of man's future. Well, to the latter at least a smaller degree. Because your genes are present in your children, siblings, and your spouse is a replication enabler, we develop strong affinities and behave altruistically toward others in a generally decreasing way in relation to kin distance. There's a little more to it than that, but in simple terms this is reasonably accurate. To me this seems practically self-evident with even the slightest observation of reality. What am I missing?? Bob

This is one of the things that seems so obvious but I'm interested in other opinions. In the animal kingdom we see almost universal and quite often extreme altruism/sacrifice. Lower animals (insects) often have strategies that have infertile "workers" and "soldiers" defending a single "queen" to the death. Higher animals we find an extreme dedication to the young and closely related relatives. Humans included in this group too have a largely uniform emotional attachment and sacrifice potential in close relation to kinship in the same way. What is at the root of this? Well it doesn't matter if we know that it's the genetics that serves as the focus of behaviour or something else. The simple FACT is that humans and other living things DO NOT put individual life as the sole, highest, or primary value. It doesn't matter to ethics exactly why this is, it just IS what we are. Look. Bob