Objectivism and Tragedy of the Commons

[IamBalSimon]

I begin with a couple of postulates:

1 - Most people don't understand liberty and contractual agreements.

2 - Most people don't rationally evaluate the phrase "self-interest" to include long-range and ripple effects that can lead to outcomes that they themselves would not choose.

If the above postulates are valid, and I believe they are, then perhaps it would be helpful for Objectivists to explore Garrett Hardin's construct: Tragedy of the Commons (TOTC) (described at Wikipedia here). Searching the OL forum, I have seen this referred to a few times (mainly by Brant, and once by me), but so far, have not found an exploration in depth.

It seems to me that if we are to ever have a "free society," we will have to go from where we are today (on the verge of a very nasty socialism) through one or more transitional societal configurations where eventually we are free in the O-ist/Libertrarian sense of the word. But that effort is fraught with hazard, in large part from the TOTC.

Right now, government is the main (and somewhat dysfunctional) guarantor of the long term view. Publicly traded corporations are held hostage to the quarterly bottom line because investors correctly believe that anything else will subject their money to government mischief, if not outright malfeasance. People go to national parks and litter because cleaning up "isn't their problem," and then they wonder why the parks aren't as pristine as they may have once been. "Short term self-interest based logic" seems to be rampant, and makes things worse than they need to be.

There are some people who seem to thrive on sticking it to others. There are others who do look at the long view, but then see the boors, bullies, and savages amongst us and wonder if it's all a lost cause. I personally have been in the latter camp. I sometimes have to struggle with great difficulty to not allow negativity to be my final word on a subject.

Has anyone looked for, or even discovered/developed, ways to move our current society to one where liberty is truly valued, where the long view is seen as important as the short run, where where people acknowledge ripple effects and try to deal with them so as to keep the game going pleasantly and productively? Do you think such a transitional state might be able to begin as a kind of pilot project? A project where outsiders see the fruitful results and say, of their own accord, "Hey - that's what I also want! How do I participate?"

- Bal

[Peter]

Bal wrote:

Has anyone looked for, or even discovered/developed, ways to move our current society to one where liberty is truly valued, where the long view is seen as important as the short run, where where people acknowledge ripple effects and try to deal with them so as to keep the game going pleasantly and productively? Do you think such a transitional state might be able to begin as a kind of pilot project? A project where outsiders see the fruitful results and say, of their own accord, "Hey - that's what I also want! How do I participate?"

end quote

NO. There have been quite a few attempts like Minerva or communes to be "the shining example." We are stuck with what we have here in the Western World. Here in America, activism would be appreciated in 2012.

Back in the seventies, the last time doom seem so close I was a minor "survivalist." I suggest you have an quick exit from cities and a place to go, keep a mormon closet (look it up), and keep water on hand for a few days. I have a generator and well water too. And an elephant gun, luger, shotgun, and 22 rifle.

Utopias don't exist except in the imagination.

Peter

[IamBalSimon]

Bal wrote:

Has anyone looked for, or even discovered/developed, ways to move our current society to one where liberty is truly valued, where the long view is seen as important as the short run, where where people acknowledge ripple effects and try to deal with them so as to keep the game going pleasantly and productively? Do you think such a transitional state might be able to begin as a kind of pilot project? A project where outsiders see the fruitful results and say, of their own accord, "Hey - that's what I also want! How do I participate?"

end quote

NO. There have been quite a few attempts like Minerva or communes to be "the shining example." We are stuck with what we have here in the Western World. Here in America, activism would be appreciated in 2012.

Back in the seventies, the last time doom seem so close I was a minor "survivalist." I suggest you have an quick exit from cities and a place to go, keep a mormon closet (look it up), and keep water on hand for a few days. I have a generator and well water too. And an elephant gun, luger, shotgun, and 22 rifle.

Utopias don't exist except in the imagination.

Peter

Hey Peter,

I get the view that holds that America is doomed. As a nation, America has swung so far to the Left that we could establish a Left Pole, where any movement from it would be toward the right. And I think we'd agree that political correctness makes truthful public diagnosis difficult at best. Add to this the overbearing IRS, TSA, DHS, etc. and it would seem to require effort that is more than heroic to change society for the better in any significant way, which is why I thought of pilot projects.

As I wrote the opening post I thought of communes, which seem more like socialist enclaves than Galts Gulch. But what if a semi-closed capitalist "gated community" based on Objectivist/Libertarian principles was established? What if, just to enter the community even as a visitor, you had to swear John Galt's oath: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.

In such a community, I would think that the long view and ripple effects of one's actions that affect the community as a whole have bearing on each member's self-interest, and so social structures could be established and agreed upon without requiring highly granulated agreements for every little thing. A form of long-view "reasonableness" could be established. And if the principles were sound, then that community ought to be able to thrive.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that I'm right. I am saying that if your view is the only way to see this, and that there are no more cards to be played; that America is truly doomed and all is lost, then in the coming apocalypse, none of this matters. It will be your elephant gun and "might makes right" that will result. A few days water won't be nearly enough. You'd need your own insular water supply or one protected by warlord who you'd either be or work for - at one or the other end of a gun.

I can't go there with you yet. I see 2012 as a reason for hope. I see the Tea Party - if it continues as a movement and does not become a political party - as another reason for hope. And as bad as socialism is, I think it still is far superior to raw anarchy or warlordism. If we end up with a kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of a country, I think people will still be able to live relatively peaceable lives, have families, raise their kids, etc. It won't be good; it won't work well; and people will find their lives severely downgraded. But not as downgraded as we'd be under an apocalyptic end.

- Bal

[BaalChatzaf]

If we end up with a kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of a country, I think people will still be able to live relatively peaceable lives, have families, raise their kids, etc. It won't be good; it won't work well; and people will find their lives severely downgraded. But not as downgraded as we'd be under an apocalyptic end.

- Bal

One Ba'al to another Bal.

This is precisely what we have now. A Mixed Economy is a mutt economy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

If we end up with a kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of a country, I think people will still be able to live relatively peaceable lives, have families, raise their kids, etc. It won't be good; it won't work well; and people will find their lives severely downgraded. But not as downgraded as we'd be under an apocalyptic end.

- Bal

One Ba'al to another Bal.

This is precisely what we have now. A Mixed Economy is a mutt economy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Socialist-Capitalist Mutt Economy Country is sitting up here, asking the age-old economists' question, "We know it works in reality, but how do we make it fit the theory?"

[IamBalSimon]

If we end up with a kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of a country, I think people will still be able to live relatively peaceable lives, have families, raise their kids, etc. It won't be good; it won't work well; and people will find their lives severely downgraded. But not as downgraded as we'd be under an apocalyptic end.

- Bal

One Ba'al to another Bal.

This is precisely what we have now. A Mixed Economy is a mutt economy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And as one Bal to another Ba'al - Agreed.

Unfortunately, for a long while the country is likely going to grow "muttlier," with intensified movement toward socialism. But at some point, there may be enough pain that people begin waking up. This happened to some extent with the rising up of Tea Party movement; it would nice to see it accelerate. I think there is a race on between the level of pain we feel and the speed at which we become a stupider society. At some point stupidity *can* make the pain permanent. This is what was at play in Atlas and is likely the reason that I feel like I'm reading a variation of Atlas when I read today's news stories.

But I don't think we're there yet, and I have a romanticized and surprisingly strong faith in the American Pendulum created by the Founding Fathers with their Constitution and the checks and balances included in it. Nothing is inevitable. Pain or pleasure; socialism or capitalism. There will always be a mix. May the The Founders' Pendulum continue to swing.

- Bal

[IamBalSimon]

Socialist-Capitalist Mutt Economy Country is sitting up here, asking the age-old economists' question, "We know it works in reality, but how do we make it fit the theory?"

I think a variety of small-town sized, planned pilot efforts (this goes beyond "studies") could move the ball forward, if just a little bit. They would form their own charters, have their own internal agreements, much like countries and states (at least in America) do now. I don't know how independent and "sovereign" states/provinces are in countries like Canada, Australia, etc. But I'd imagine the economies of scale would grant some degree of independence. If located within the USA, they would surely have to comport with United States laws, federal, state, local, etc., so the efforts could not be "pure." But perhaps there is still enough liberty within the American structure to allow ideas like this to be tried.

If the enclaves did not incorporate (i.e., become legal cities within one of the 50 states, then there would be rules and contracts rather than laws. The rules would obviously be set by the founders and then modified as the membership changed and as these gated communities evolved. An interesting question would arise when children would be brought into the picture. Federal and state laws require them to be educated per approved curricula. There is room for experimentation as evidenced by home schools, but certainly the State would be penetrating into the community and people would have to live within the confines of the laws. I am not proposing a David Koresh, Waco TX compound, nut-job kind of system that's ready to go to war with the FBI, the ATF, or any of the other societal "white corpuscles." I am looking for as many win-win-win-...win plays as possible - for as many people as possible.

I am not Pollyanna about this. I believe that more of the experiments will likely fail than succeed. But each failure could be evaluated for reasons why and lessons learned could be applied to new experiments and when something is found to truly work, then that could be voluntarily incorporated into the more successful gated communities.

- Bal

[Rich Engle]

The question in this thread is very hard to address, in that it is loaded, assumptive.

rde

[IamBalSimon]

The question in this thread is very hard to address, in that it is loaded, assumptive.

rde

Please elaborate, Richard.

- Bal

[syrakusos]

If you consider the range of opinions, discussions, disagreements and arguments here and on other Oist boards, you have to give great weight to Ayn Rand's observation that the bloodiest wars are civil conflicts. It is a mistake to think that people who share your professed ideology are like you or will like you or that you will like them. Or even that you have to.

On my blog, Necessary Truth, I have a new post about Cities. I originally wrote it back in February in reply to a post on Whiskey & Gunpowder about the coming collapse of cities, etc., and how safe the writer felt surrounded by 300 miles of country and country people.

Urban culture is vibrant, complex, and intelligent. The cities are magnets for creative people. That brings synergy. Cities do fail, collapse after bubbles. Manchester and Detroit are examples of that. Dependent on one specialty (cotton; automobiles), they could not adapt well to change, whereas Birmingham and Chicago did because they were broadly based across economic activities and sectors.

That is the fundamental problem with the retreatist community. I suggest that anyone who wants to plan in those terms should start with a fish tank. If you can keep an aquarium as a balanced ecology with no inputs, you can widen your scope, maybe to an ant farm - again no inputs.

Just remember what Conway's Game of Life teaches about isolation.

In Ayn Rand's "Atlantis" we saw a sketch of a community: potatoes and hogs, tobacco, and a foundery, with concerts and plays. John Galt provided electrical power. Did he also replace radio tubes by melting glass, smelting metals, building components? More realistically, in a Philip K. Dick post-war story, the huddled people splurge by replacing the rose thorn in the last wind-up victorola with their last steel needle.

You need inputs. They come from without - from people who do not share your values. That is why tolerance and toleration are so valuable. Even monasteries survived by trade. None could be self-sufficient, especially because they maintained their central control and ideological purity.

If you want to see actual working commercial communities - as opposed to failed utopias - read THE ART OF COMMUNITY by Spencer MacCallum. His model is the shopping mall. But they don't grow their own food. You don't need to pass a religious test to join.

As for failed utopias read CALIFORNIA'S UTOPIAN COLONIES by Robert V. Hine (1953; 1966; 1988). No land was better; no peoples were more motivated. Each in turn failed. You cannot survive in isolation. Capitalist ideological purity has nothing to do with business success. Look at Donald Trump, Bill Gates, George Soros, or your local Quickie Mart. Yes, there are Objectivist entrepreneurs who speak and write well and often - T. J. Rodgers, Ed Snider, and others. But Christians and Muslims also do well at business - and dislike taxes as well. What's to like? But that is not the point.

Our society - the entire planet - would be much better off if we all wore Mao Uniforms and lived entirely and only on fish and bananas and water. Is that what you want?

You fear socialism - and rightfully so. But I point out that the only successful socialist revolutions were in backward places like Russia and China. Even after defeat and (worse) the agony of victory, Germany and the UK did not go the 1984 route of the USSR specifically because they were pluralist, which is to say, urban, tied by rail and telephone to the entire world. The death knell came when Russia and Germany (and the others) looked inward, promising themselves "independence" from the rest of the world - "socialism in one country."

America held its own, not because of the Jeffersonian Yeoman Farmer, self-sufficient with rifle, kettle, and Bible, but because all across the frontier, we built citiesm, complex places where immigrants mingled. Open borders bring open minds.

For me, Objectivism is a personal philosophy. That is what is meant by egoism. It is for me. It may not be for you.

And think hard about the people you know here and on other Oist boards. Anyone who advocates nuking Teheran will have no problem justifying their defensive first strike against you for something you had no idea was so important to them.

[william.scherk]

If we [Americans] end up with a kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of a country, I think people will still be able to live relatively peaceable lives, have families, raise their kids, etc.

This struck me odd. A kind of hybrid socialist/capitalist mutt of country? Sounds like Canada. Come on up and have a visit. I will take you out for coffee and I will give you a quick guided tour of my corner of this socialist/capitalist hellhole.

It won't be good; it won't work well; and people will find their lives severely downgraded.

No. It will work sort of okay, and it won't be the best, just not the worst. Like I say, Canada. The mutt country with folks whose lives are severely downgraded is the hellhole Sweden.

[Selene]

The question in this thread is very hard to address, in that it is loaded, assumptive.

rde

Please elaborate, Richard.

- Bal

Bal:

I cannot speak for Rich, but I was going to point out that the title is formulated in a "question begging" semantic. The statement "assumes" that what "occurred" with the "concept of the commons" is/was a tragedy.

Was it?

How so?

Seems that society, industrialization and productive growth and individual freedom grew without a "commons" that required any judgmental determination as to success or failure.

Adam

[IamBalSimon]

Mike, William and Adam,

I appreciate the thoughtful replies. Here are my responses.

Mike - I can't disagree with anything you wrote. I am especially "shocked into recognition" for the umpteenth time by what you wrote here: "And think hard about the people you know here and on other Oist boards. Anyone who advocates nuking Teheran will have no problem justifying their defensive first strike against you for something you had no idea was so important to them."

So true! There are many liberals and people who "believe things" that I do not, yet who I get on with wonderfully. And there are people who supposedly share my views, and I can't stand being within a hundred miles of them (and vice-versa).

And you are also accurate about the need for inputs, although the bigger and more varied (I won't use the word diverse as it's been co-opted by the Left) the playing field, the more robust and self-sufficient a "community" can be, which is why it is easier for America to be self-sufficient than, say the much more geographically homogenous and insular Britain. (Of course, if this were all that counted, Russia and China would be even more self-sufficient than America; so politics, technology, culture, etc. figure into the game, too.

And yet...

I am not yet ready to give up on my idea. I put it up as a thought experiment to be explored. And attacked - as it should be attacked to show its weaknesses. As long as the conversation remains civil (so far it has), I welcome robust disagreements. Who knows? Maybe a workable idea could emerge. I tend toward optimism because I find pessimism all too boring. Very easy to just give up and say chuck it all. I would not be hanging out here if I felt that way.

Also - thank you very much (you don't know how much I appreciate it) for pointing me to MacCallum's Art of the Community and Conway's Game of Life. I have them now on my reading list. If they help flesh out some of my "possibility-probability-allowability" thinking, that is a very good thing indeed.

-------------------------

William - I think I made it pretty clear that I only really know America (and not nearly as well as I think I should). I don't know Canada; would not presume to say how Canadians view their society. I do know that one of the two times I was up there, I needed a little medical treatment, and promptly received it; covered by my American insurance. That was back in the late 1990s; I don't know if/how things have changed since then, though I do hear about people living in Canada coming to America for the purpose of getting medical care, just as I know people in America go to Canada to buy their pharmaceuticals a bit cheaper. BTW, sometime in the next 12-18 months, my wife and I will be trekking up your way. It would be good to meet you.

-------------------------

Adam - I think that your comments would also benefit from some exploring if you're up for it. Paraphrasing, I think you said that I had presumed that the treatment of the Commons was a tragedy without making the case. Would that be an accurate interpretation? You then wrote: "Seems that society, industrialization and productive growth and individual freedom grew without a "commons" that required any judgmental determination as to success or failure."

My reading of history is quite different. The Commons would be like the old wild west without the moderating force of Government and laws. Our Governments control the common areas of our society. In a democratic republic like America, we have delegated our personal sovereignty to the various governments for the benefit of the long view and the common good. People have viewed this mainly as being in their own best interests, and that continues today. We use the word "legitimacy" to mean that the Government is serving the long view and the common areas in a ways we don't find egregious enough to re-assert our personal sovereignty and take down the government. (Lots of feedback snarls in that, so the system is quite self-perpetuating, and this forms a major source of abuse by Government officials and bureaucrats who believe they can act with impunity. But there are limits. The Tea Parties in 2009 and 2010 were just the bare exposing of these limits.)

Consider Government agencies like OSHA which was largely responsible for the very good thing of wiping out abusive child labor in the earlier part of America's history. Consider how Government serves as a counter to abusive businesses that grow so big that they begin to act like governments. Company towns were notorious for abusing the commons.

Consider water laws that are now in place because private parties, who believed (wrongly, I'd say) that they had no personal stakes in the long view, and who couldn't be bothered with the ripple effects of their actions upon the Commons. They would drop poisonous sludge into rivers, leaving it for towns downstream to deal with. Sanitation laws arose in part because of the bad neighbors who acted as if the Commons meant nothing.

This is why it's called a "tragedy." Not because the acts of people affect others adversely; though that's certainly true. We use words like abuse and atrocity when discussing negative impacts a person has on someone else. No - the word tragedy fits because so many people cannot see that the kind of society they create for themselves, their spouses, their kids, and their friends - for all who they care about - is itself something that they would not like. They are blind to their own "contribution" to the tragedy.

I know I've been longish here. Apologies, but one more closing consideration: Why have police and not just arm everyone with guns? It's been tried in times past and found wanting. Too many people being shot (families being ruined) because the "easy" solution was a gunfight instead of a law suit. People these days, in most places, prefer to walk around without guns showing, and delegate the responsibility of maintaining the peace (of the Commons, as well as their persons and property), and accept that law suits are a necessary byproduct of this decision.

- Bal

[Selene]

Bal:

Thanks for your response.

I believe that your response establishes that there was nothing more than a temporary problem with the abuse of the commons. As rational humans, we have recognized that you always build your latrines downstream from your camp, unless you want your morning coffee to be rather unpleasant [scene from The Horse Soldiers].

Clearly, we have, as a culture responded to problems in the commons with controls that are mostly rational. However, there are ample examples of the politicization of "protecting" the commons which resulted in terrible tragedies, e.g., the DDT ban which accounts for approximately 50, 000, 000 deaths per year world wide by some estimates.

As to OSHA, it was enacted in 1971, so I am reasonably sure that you mean the Department of Labor, see here, wherein Keating-Owen Act bans child labor; annulled by Supreme Court, June 3, 1918.

(September 1, 1916).

As to an armed citizenry, the stats are quite compelling that more guns = less crime by a significant percentage, here,, this is the Wiki site, which includes studies that reject Lott's conclusions.

My way of thinking, is that we have "resolved" the problem of the commons in that we have a mixture of free use and controls.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

If you consider the range of opinions, discussions, disagreements and arguments here and on other Oist boards, you have to give great weight to Ayn Rand's observation that the bloodiest wars are civil conflicts. It is a mistake to think that people who share your professed ideology are like you or will like you or that you will like them. Or even that you have to.

The word she used was "religious," not "civil."

--Brant

[IamBalSimon]

Adam - thank you for your response. And thank you for the challenge.

I believe that your response establishes that there was nothing more than a temporary problem with the abuse of the commons. As rational humans, we have recognized that you always build your latrines downstream from your camp, unless you want your morning coffee to be rather unpleasant [scene from The Horse Soldiers].

The problem is that your downstream could be my upstream. From what I remember in my history classes, the upstream people often didn't give a rip about the people downstream from them. While there may have been some contracts between towns, it took "government intrusion" to "fix" it on a large scale. This is one of the core functions of a democratic republic and civil society. Supposedly rational people, without the agreement to have government and courts take control of the commons tend to not care about what happens downstream from them. And downstream isn't limited to waterways. You have corporations willing to belch smoke and smog pollutants into the air. "Perfectly rational" if the only thing a business person cares about is making money. ("My only interest is making money" was a line said by Hank Rearden in the movie Atlas Shrugged. I don't recall offhand if he said that in the book.) The commons have historically not been of interest to people who want total laissez faire. For the record: I want a society/culture with robust laissez faire, moderated by core functions of a government consented to and overseen by the people who are moderated (governed).

Clearly, we have, as a culture responded to problems in the commons with controls that are mostly rational.

I will agree with you if a good faith, responsible, limited core government is included in your meaning of "culture."

However, there are ample examples of the politicization of "protecting" the commons which resulted in terrible tragedies, e.g., the DDT ban which accounts for approximately 50, 000, 000 deaths per year world wide by some estimates.

Indeed, you are correct. But I can't think of any organizational structure, private sector or public, that can make rational decisions if it is steeped with political correctness, anti-corporatism, and socialist/communist fools who can't process scientific data with any kind of intelligence. Modernly, large American corporations can - and are - riddled with PC fools and socialists too. I've seen this first hand from the inside of some corporations whose names you'd recognize if I mentioned them. I'm almost positive that all major American corporations suffer these idiots. Somehow, I was lucky and missed "diversity training" through all of my adventures in corporate America. But just the stench of it was enough to irritate me.

As to OSHA, it was enacted in 1971, so I am reasonably sure that you mean the Department of Labor, see here, wherein Keating-Owen Act bans child labor; annulled by Supreme Court, June 3, 1918.

(September 1, 1916).

Right - that's what I mean and should have looked up. But again - it is government that influenced and continues to influence the commons based on long term views; based on the kind of society we as a people want. I want a powerful, but limited government because it can be a force for good. Historically, it has been a force for good in America - especially taking the long view. BTW - that is a cool government web page you pointed me to. Thanks!

As to an armed citizenry, the stats are quite compelling that more guns = less crime by a significant percentage, here,, this is the Wiki site, which includes studies that reject Lott's conclusions.

I would modify what you say here. An armed citizenry in the context of a society already made safer by a good faith, sane, and robust police force is better than a citizenry that has been neutered. But that is different from an armed citizenry that does not have such a police force protecting the commons, which was typical of frontier towns in the 'Old West." In my view, as you reduce the good faith, the sanity and the power of a police force, you move closer to the Old West "feral" society, which wasn't all that safe.

My way of thinking, is that we have "resolved" the problem of the commons in that we have a mixture of free use and controls.

If "we" includes the government functions as I discuss here, I can't argue with this statement at all.

[IamBalSimon]

If you consider the range of opinions, discussions, disagreements and arguments here and on other Oist boards, you have to give great weight to Ayn Rand's observation that the bloodiest wars are civil conflicts. It is a mistake to think that people who share your professed ideology are like you or will like you or that you will like them. Or even that you have to.

The word she used was "religious," not "civil."

--Brant

Mike and Brant -

I don't know what Rand wrote. Googling didn't produce a quote that seems on point.

But leaving Rand at the side of the road, let's look at this on it's merits.

Questions: Was Hitler's war (12 million+ killed) a religious war? Was Stalin's reign of terror (23 million+ killed) based on religion? How about Mao's takeover of China (50 million+ killed)? Never mind Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung. I think religious conflicts pale by comparison, or am I missing something?

- Bal

[Brant Gaede]

If you consider the range of opinions, discussions, disagreements and arguments here and on other Oist boards, you have to give great weight to Ayn Rand's observation that the bloodiest wars are civil conflicts. It is a mistake to think that people who share your professed ideology are like you or will like you or that you will like them. Or even that you have to.

The word she used was "religious," not "civil."

--Brant

Mike and Brant -

I don't know what Rand wrote. Googling didn't produce a quote that seems on point.

But leaving Rand at the side of the road, let's look at this on it's merits.

Questions: Was Hitler's war (12 million+ killed) a religious war? Was Stalin's reign of terror (23 million+ killed) based on religion? How about Mao's takeover of China (50 million+ killed)? Never mind Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung. I think religious conflicts pale by comparison, or am I missing something?

- Bal

Over a thousand years between Islam and Christianity.

The wars that ravaged Europe in the Middle Ages had frequent religious overtones and undertones and serious substance.

Rand ignored the bloody 20th C. and you are somewhat understating it. She also completely ignored that all religious conflicts I'm aware of, at least, had massive political will behind them. Even today the English monarch is titular head of the Church of England. Learning from such, the United States discarded much of that baggage from the start.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Mike and Brant -

I don't know what Rand wrote. Googling didn't produce a quote that seems on point.

I remember a lot of this stuff, but I sometimes not bothered to remember the references. There's a CD of Rand floating around somewhere. I've never owned or used it. But Mike is wrong and I am right.

--Brant

edit: opps!--what a shock to learn you're not perfect and what a shock for OL readers to learn I'm not perfect and that Mike is right and I am wrong--blush! blush! blush!--hit me with a hairbrush (opps!--flashback!)!

Edited May 17, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some Rand quotes:

From The Fountainhead, p. 522. Ellsworth Toohey is talking to Alvah Scarret about a visit to Wynand by Roark.

If you want to know what to expect, just think that the worst wars are religious wars between sects of the same religion or civil wars between brothers of the same race.

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, "The Roots of War" (p. 36):

The bloodiest conflicts of history were not wars between nations, but civil wars between men of the same nation, who could find no peaceful recourse to law, principle, or justice.

From The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, "Global Balkanization" (p. 202):

The worst kinds of atrocities were perpetrated during ethnic (including religious) wars.

It sounds like she considered religious, ethnic and civil wars as equally bloody.

Michael

[IamBalSimon]

Of course, war is not the main thrust of my opener, but a consequence of what happens when rationality and/or good faith break down to the point that bullets form the medium of communication.

And I would suggest that not all wars are equal; nor are the participants to wars to be automatically vilified, unless we are going to vilify men, since women have mainly been the victims and the spoils of war rather than direct participants. In terms of factors, is anyone suggesting we place the human Y chromosome on the major list of evolutionary villains, and perhaps the main components of irrationality?

- Bal

Edited May 17, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I'll be. But the only civil war that begins to match up to her thesis I'm aware of is the American Civil War which was not a civil war at all in one technical sense. Since it wasn't one religion against another she gets that one. The civil wars in 17th C. England were a lot to do with religion. So Mike was right about Rand--sorry Mike--though she did say religious too. I guess Caesar crossing the Rubicon was some sort of civil war, but for blood spilled--was much?--it couldn't compare to the million Gauls he killed. Now a civil conflict is not necessarily a civil war. The war on drugs is a civil conflict. To cut to the chase, I'd guess a civil war is a war that is not a religious war (?). But any religious war has to have a strong civil element. The Muslims attacking Vienna were part of the Sultan's army. "In the name of religion" merely seems to be animating and motivating propaganda, plus a license to rape, kill and loot at will and not be not sanctioned by Great God Almighty!

Rand could write a lot off the top of her head without thinking it through much less doing some real research. In any case, the wars of the 20th C. were hardly "civil." WTF does "civil" mean respecting 70 million killed in WWII? What does "civil" mean to one million dead French soldiers at Verdun? What does "civil" mean to 2-3 million genocided Cambodians. "Civil" and "War" go together like water and gasoline. The only real possible civil war is two forces fighting it out for control of one government, which is not what happened 1861-65 in America. Other than that it's war without a major or primary religious motivation or justification. All in all "civil" and "war" seem only to go with each other in special cases--that is, it's generally redundant. It's just war--just take away the warring governments and see what's left over fight-wise, as in today's Middle East.

--Brant

another rant and pant: maybe I should do some research