Libertarians Need Objectivism

[Brant Gaede]

I presumed you meant what you wrote.

No, you presumed I meant what you understood/understand.

Anyway, if you wanted to have a productive conversation, you'd be exploring just what it means or should mean to say that someone is a "philosopher." You don't want to do that, which is fine. Instead, you want to act like a punk, which is not fine.

Shayne

A "productive conversation" on whether Ayn Rand was or was not a philosopher? Bitch slapping your audience is no foundation for productivity from it. I complain about that and you call me a "punk." That and more. Then you have the gall to toss the ad hominem ad hominem at me. Go ahead and have your "productive conversation." I suspect it's going to be a monologue.

--Brant

[Xray]

Does anyone really believe that Rand's advocating "full, pure uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" (TVOS; p. 37) is the solution to the problems the world is facing?

What if Rand's idea of man as the fully rational being is not based on reality because it has not taken into account enough things like people being greedy for more and more?

And wasn't the recent collapsing of the banks also a result of that greed? The greed for more and more profit?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Xray

[merjet]

Does anyone really believe that Rand's advocating "full, pure uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" (TVOS; p. 37) is the solution to the problems the world is facing?

What if Rand's idea of man as the fully rational being is not based on reality because it has not taken into account enough things like people being greedy for more and more?

And wasn't the recent collapsing of the banks also a result of that greed? The greed for more and more profit?

The greed wasn't only by banks. All sorts of people were seeking to profit.

It also occurred in a highly regulated and controlled market, with various subsidies, govt-backed guarantees, and altruistic-minded politicians leading the way (not with their own money, either).

[Brant Gaede]

Does anyone really believe that Rand's advocating "full, pure uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" (TVOS; p. 37) is the solution to the problems the world is facing?

What if Rand's idea of man as the fully rational being is not based on reality because it has not taken into account enough things like people being greedy for more and more?

And wasn't the recent collapsing of the banks also a result of that greed? The greed for more and more profit?

Someone may believe that, I don't.

Rand's definition of man is not the same as a "fully rational being."

Rand's idealization of her ethics, economics and politics represents a philosophy designed to work in an idealized, fictionalized world. Her major strategic mistake in creating and promulgating her philosophy came from her post Atlas Shrugged period when she was unable to leave her ideal world. Instead of becoming a super-advocate of individual rights and critical thinking she became the super-protector of her baby calling it "Objectivism." That had way too much cultural baggage. It blew off those who would not accept a package deal but who might have rallied to a rights' flag. She could have still pointed out how rights were inextricably tied into an ethics of rational self-interest and that she had a nascent philosophy to back it all up. This left the conservatives in the hands of people like Kirk and Buckley and the libertarians with Rothbard and liberals with mush-headed thinking. She got the idealistic, unformed teenagers and college students who, as they matured, tended to drift away.

--Brant

Edited June 24, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[anthony]

Does anyone really believe that Rand's advocating "full, pure uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" (TVOS; p. 37) is the solution to the problems the world is facing?

Who said it is?

To rephrase, can capitalism, and individual rights, undo what Socialism, and 'human rights' have perpetrated on the world? Yes.

A self-responsible individual living in a capitalist society will definitely have the opportunity to 'save' himself - the rest of the world is not his primary concern.

So, if it is poverty and liberty that concern you, capitalism can eradicate one, and promote the other.

All I know is, god save me from any sanctimonious and self-proclaimed Messiahs who have a vision to save the world. Of either kind: the one who preaches love and compassion, is as dangerous as the one who controls and engineers society 'for its own good'.

(They need each other to exist, anyway. You should read a smart Russian-American on the subject.)

If you need an example of greed, look no further than Greece. Millions of people, used to living comfortably in sinecures of jobs, and fat pensions, squealing like stuck pigs now that the State is imposing "austerity measures" on them - after running out of 'other people's money' to continue supporting them. Even recently, with their nation crippled, and living on hand-outs, they still take to the streets in angry protest! Against what? I don't know. Reality?

(I'm taking bets that their charitable benefactors - Germany, France, etc,- are going to do an Atlas one of these days, and Shrug.)

Tony

[sjw]

A "productive conversation" on whether Ayn Rand was or was not a philosopher? Bitch slapping your audience is no foundation for productivity from it.

Saying she was not a philosopher (in the proper sense of that word) only causes foaming at the mouth because of religious zealotry on your part. That's not my fault, that's what I'm criticizing.

I complain about that and you call me a "punk." That and more. Then you have the gall to toss the ad hominem ad hominem at me. Go ahead and have your "productive conversation." I suspect it's going to be a monologue.

I call you a punk because you are a punk, punk. I advocated a position, all you did was attack me. So I attacked you back, and with more justification than you had. So stop complaining. Either accept reason as an absolute or shut the hell up.

Shayne

[sjw]

Brant, if I were to poll actual professional philosophers about whether Rand would qualify as one, I'm sure I'd get at least 10% of them saying that it's a reasonable topic of debate. If not more. I doubt you disagree. And yet you posture as if the question is completely out of the question.

Everything you've said to me in this thread I take as pure posturing on your part. I don't think you mean any of it, not really, not seriously. It's as if you're trying to cast a spell, if you wish it's so, it's so. Nope, not how it works. You can't manipulate me like that. I don't know who you think you can, but not me. So just knock it off.

Shayne

[sjw]

One more thing Brant. You believe I should tiptoe around other people's nonsense. In some contexts, fine. I get it. I know how to play the "politically correct" game. But why should I do that with Objectivists (or anyone else for that matter) in a philosophical-political context?

Shayne

[sjw]

Does anyone really believe that Rand's advocating "full, pure uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" (TVOS; p. 37) is the solution to the problems the world is facing?

What if Rand's idea of man as the fully rational being is not based on reality because it has not taken into account enough things like people being greedy for more and more?

And wasn't the recent collapsing of the banks also a result of that greed? The greed for more and more profit?

Rand had the solution right in front of her nose -- individual rights -- but then started pushing capitalism instead. In effect, and in spite of her intentions, this covered her entire political philosophy with a fascist tinge.

Shayne

[Selene]

Rand had the solution right in front of her nose -- individual rights -- but then started pushing capitalism instead. In effect, and in spite of her intentions, this covered her entire political philosophy with a fascist tinge.Shayne

Shayne:

You see no connection between her essay on man's rights and Ayn's definition of capitalism?

You see her entire "political philosophy" as having a fascist "tinge?"

I know that you might want to edit your statement because you are crediting her with having a political "philosophy," which would make her a philosopher which you appear to be arguing she was not.

Adam

So confused by your more brilliant insights

[syrakusos]

Does anyone really believe that Rand's advocating "full, pure uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism" (TVOS; p. 37) is the solution to the problems the world is facing?

.. things like people being greedy for more and more? And wasn't the recent collapsing of the banks also ...

It also occurred in a highly regulated and controlled market ... not with their own money, either).

I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - to discover inconsistent premises applied without context.

I agree with Merlin on this and more.

Shayne and Brant's lover's spat should have been derailed from my post in which I pointed out that some of a generation of philosophy professors does know Ayn Rand's works and considers them valid. If Eric Hoffer and Colin Wilson are philosophers, then Ayn Rand is also. In fact, the world agrees, even if: "Brant, if I were to poll actual professional philosophers about whether Rand would qualify as one, I'm sure I'd get at least 10% of them saying ..." There's the guys on EconoLog from George Mason University, and the entire Von Mises Institute, and lonely Mark J. Perry teaching at the U of M Flint campus. These people are all over the world in ones. That is appropriate to individualists, of course.

As for capitalism and greed and all that, I am disappointed that Xray only revealed the common - not the cogent - understanding.

The consequential acceptance of Ayn Rand's theories of epistemology and ethics is knowable and important. I said that if I look in any textbook and do not find Ayn Rand, I consider it imcomplete. I can do that because so many do cite her works.

Whether or not "everyone" in philosophy acknowledges Rand's contributions, the fact remains that libertarians need objectivism. Without it, they are abandoned to name-calling, ad hominems, strawmen, and calls to authority.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Reidy]

Does anybody believe that laissez-faire is the solution to the world's problems? I'm confident that somebody somewhere does, but that merely reminds us of the futility of wondering if somebody somewhere believes anything. The answer is always yes, though I've never met anybody who believes this.

On the other hand, many of us believe that laissez-faire best meets a certain necessary condition of people's best being able to find a solution to any one problem. Most who believe this doubt that any problem is the world's problem rather than somebody's in particular.

[sjw]

Shayne:

You see no connection between her essay on man's rights and Ayn's definition of capitalism?

Sure, there's many connections.

You see her entire "political philosophy" as having a fascist "tinge?"

Yep. Start with her essay on patents.

I know that you might want to edit your statement because you are crediting her with having a political "philosophy," which would make her a philosopher which you appear to be arguing she was not.

More teenage punk word games. You have a political philosophy too. That doesn't make you a philosopher.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

You see no connection between her essay on man's rights and Ayn's definition of capitalism?

Sure, there's many connections.

You see her entire "political philosophy" as having a fascist "tinge?"

Yep. Start with her essay on patents.

I know that you might want to edit your statement because you are crediting her with having a political "philosophy," which would make her a philosopher which you appear to be arguing she was not.

More teenage punk word games. You have a political philosophy too. That doesn't make you a philosopher.

Shayne

Shayne:

I see you are back to the ad hominem pattern.

Be safe.

Adam

[sjw]

I see you are back to the ad hominem pattern.

No, just had higher expectations than were warranted. Evidently you're not even aware of the word games you're playing. It's hard for me to fathom that. It seems like you're doing it on purpose. But if not, OK.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Brant, if I were to poll actual professional philosophers about whether Rand would qualify as one, I'm sure I'd get at least 10% of them saying that it's a reasonable topic of debate. If not more. I doubt you disagree. And yet you posture as if the question is completely out of the question.

Everything you've said to me in this thread I take as pure posturing on your part. I don't think you mean any of it, not really, not seriously. It's as if you're trying to cast a spell, if you wish it's so, it's so. Nope, not how it works. You can't manipulate me like that. I don't know who you think you can, but not me. So just knock it off.

Shayne

This is really shameful. Now it's professionals, mostly employed by government, who are the real philosophers. About Ayn Rand, we "debate."

--Brant

[sjw]

This is really shameful. Now it's professionals, mostly employed by government, who are the real philosophers. About Ayn Rand, we "debate."

--Brant

Is this senility or permanent teenagerhood? I never said they were real philosophers. But I'll bet you that at least half of them are mature enough to be able to have a discussion about what constitutes actually being a philosopher. I'll bet they'd be well-balanced enough to entertain the idea that maybe THEY aren't even philosophers. But not religious-zealot Brant.

Shayne

This IS really shameful.

[Brant Gaede]

One more thing Brant. You believe I should tiptoe around other people's nonsense. In some contexts, fine. I get it. I know how to play the "politically correct" game. But why should I do that with Objectivists (or anyone else for that matter) in a philosophical-political context?

Shayne

Reference needed.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I call you a punk because you are a punk, punk. I advocated a position, all you did was attack me. So I attacked you back, and with more justification than you had. So stop complaining. Either accept reason as an absolute or shut the hell up.

Shayne

Missed this gem. Keep distilling philosophy until all you've left are the likes of Hume, Locke and Aristotle. If only your real position was so pure instead of an attempt to do a number on Rand.

--Brant

[sjw]

Missed this gem. Keep distilling philosophy until all you've left are the likes of Hume, Locke and Aristotle.

--Brant

The "likes" of Hume, Aristotle, and Locke? WTF?

If only your real position was so pure instead of an attempt to do a number on Rand.

All you know how to do is weak ad hominem. I expect more from you.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

Aristotle developed a whole system of formal deductive logic. Where was the lack of quality control there? Do we even know what works were written when? Perhaps his earlier works were written when he wasn't as developed as he was when he wrote his better works.

Shayne

Theorems about abstract non-physically existing objects can be deduced from axioms which are not empirically bound to the world.

To get a theory of the world, one needs induction/abduction from particular events or perceptions. Therefore the conclusions must be checked empirically for truth since the truth of the conclusions is not given a priori. Aristotle's physics, for example, was a train wreck. Many of his conclusions could have been refuted by the most simple of experiments. For example. Heavier bodies (in general) fall faster than lighter one's. Drop a ten pound shot and and one point shot (or rock) from the roof of the nearest Temple to Athena and the conclusions is refuted. Surely this simple experiment was not beyond The Man Who Invented Logic (he didn't, by the way). But it never occurred to him to even try it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Does anybody believe that laissez-faire is the solution to the world's problems? I'm confident that somebody somewhere does, but that merely reminds us of the futility of wondering if somebody somewhere believes anything. The answer is always yes, though I've never met anybody who believes this.

On the other hand, many of us believe that laissez-faire best meets a certain necessary condition of people's best being able to find a solution to any one problem. Most who believe this doubt that any problem is the world's problem rather than somebody's in particular.

But with us being so closely intervowen globally, we often are dramatically affected by the problems which those individuals have created by their wrong decisions.

Bankers who failed to correctly assess reality made horrible mistakes which then resulted in the collapse, and that collapse has affected us too.

Companies who e. g. invested in Greek government bonds have encountered huge losses, losses which in turn will affect those who have invested their money in those firms.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Xray

[sjw]

Theorems about abstract non-physically existing objects can be deduced from axioms which are not empirically bound to the world.

To get a theory of the world, one needs induction/abduction from particular events or perceptions. Therefore the conclusions must be checked empirically for truth since the truth of the conclusions is not given a priori. Aristotle's physics, for example, was a train wreck. Many of his conclusions could have been refuted by the most simple of experiments. For example. Heavier bodies (in general) fall faster than lighter one's. Drop a ten pound shot and and one point shot (or rock) from the roof of the nearest Temple to Athena and the conclusions is refuted. Surely this simple experiment was not beyond The Man Who Invented Logic (he didn't, by the way). But it never occurred to him to even try it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You can't actually do induction without using logic as the standard to determine whether your various generalizations actually make any sense. Like a computer, you may be able to describe, but without logic, you will never understand.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

If only your real position was so pure instead of an attempt to do a number on Rand.

All you know how to do is weak ad hominem. I expect more from you.

Shayne

A debate on whether Rand was a philosopher is actually an ad hominem attack on her person as opposed to a discussion of her ideas. I've spent 48 years of my life considering her ideas in the implicit then explicit context of her as a philosopher. No way was I going to let you core me like an apple with your moronic proposition. All you've done is irreparably antagonize me.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Does anybody believe that laissez-faire is the solution to the world's problems? I'm confident that somebody somewhere does, but that merely reminds us of the futility of wondering if somebody somewhere believes anything. The answer is always yes, though I've never met anybody who believes this.

On the other hand, many of us believe that laissez-faire best meets a certain necessary condition of people's best being able to find a solution to any one problem. Most who believe this doubt that any problem is the world's problem rather than somebody's in particular.

But with us being so closely intervowen globally, we often are dramatically affected by the problems which those individuals have created by their wrong decisions.

Bankers who failed to correctly assess reality made horrible mistakes which then resulted in the collapse, and that collapse has affected us too.

Companies who e. g. invested in Greek government bonds have encountered huge losses, losses which in turn will affect those who have invested their money in those firms.

What in the hell does global, socialized central banking and its effects have to do with laissez-faire capitalism?

--Brant