Is There a Psychology of Liberty?

[sjw]

A totalitarian government claims the totality of human existence and endeavor. It of course cannot take it all, just terrorize the general populace by taking arbitrary bites out of it here and there. One day you are there; the next day you are gone. Stalin's daughter was going to get married. All of a sudden, her man was gone. Show trials were his specialty. He starved, what, 20 million people to death in the Ukraine? He was getting ready to kill the Jews when he died.

--Brant

That kind of thing happens in America too, if you don't tow the line. Just try not paying your income taxes, or growing some pot. I suppose you might want to argue that in America we have a "heads up" that such and such behavior will lead to such and such punishment, but even that's not entirely true.

If you don't know what it is, you're not going to notice it sneaking up on you. If you don't see the totalitarianism in modern governments, then you're making an engraved invitation for it to get worse and worse; by your own unprincipled thinking, you grease the slippery slope from a "gentle" totalitarianism to a more harsh one.

Shayne

[caroljane]

--Brant

That kind of thing happens in America too, if you don't tow the line.

Shayne

It's toe, not tow,..

Carol

irritating interjecting pedant

Somebody has to do it

[Selene]

Carol:

Keep it a secret from Shayne that he made the same error that I made. Ssshhh!

[George H. Smith]

The term "totalitarianism" has nothing to do, except in your imagination, with a "swath of territory." Rather, it refers to a government which claims coercive jurisdiction over the totality of human actions.

This is literally impossible, obviously. Your "totalitarianism" is a fantasy that has never existed nor can ever exist. Somewhat like your "anarchism."

Are you saying that no government has ever existed that has acknowledged no limitations on its legitimate use of power?

Are you serious?

Ghs

You misunderstand. I'm defining in terms of what governments actually do and according to what basic principle, not in terms of what they claim to be able to do. Certainly I am not saying there haven't been deluded dictators who think they can claim that they are Santa Claus and have magical powers, but the fact is that they don't have those powers.

Shayne

Totalitarian rulers don't claim that they can actually control every aspect of human behavior. They claim the right to control any aspect they like, e.g., by punishing people who disobey. This is a de jure claim, not a de facto one.

Even I cannot believe you are this thick.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

--Brant

That kind of thing happens in America too, if you don't tow the line.

Shayne

It's toe, not tow,..

Carol

irritating interjecting pedant

Somebody has to do it

You can toe it or you can tow it.

--Brant

heh, heh

[Brant Gaede]

A totalitarian government claims the totality of human existence and endeavor. It of course cannot take it all, just terrorize the general populace by taking arbitrary bites out of it here and there. One day you are there; the next day you are gone. Stalin's daughter was going to get married. All of a sudden, her man was gone. Show trials were his specialty. He starved, what, 20 million people to death in the Ukraine? He was getting ready to kill the Jews when he died.

--Brant

That kind of thing happens in America too, if you don't tow the line. Just try not paying your income taxes, or growing some pot. I suppose you might want to argue that in America we have a "heads up" that such and such behavior will lead to such and such punishment, but even that's not entirely true.

If you don't know what it is, you're not going to notice it sneaking up on you. If you don't see the totalitarianism in modern governments, then you're making an engraved invitation for it to get worse and worse; by your own unprincipled thinking, you grease the slippery slope from a "gentle" totalitarianism to a more harsh one.

Shayne

If you don't know the difference between what we have and what the Russians had under Stalin or Germans under Hitler you simply are not educated. I have spent my whole life in what are called the Liberal Arts educating myself. Not science and mathematics, except as they are integrate-able into the Liberal Arts. I mastered arithmetic, not higher mathematics. Not even basic and intermediate algebra. It was always, this ain't me. I saw no reason for mathematical reasoning for what I was about. I couldn't stand to use my mind that way. Now, studying Liberal Arts in college was another problem. This is much more complicated than my story here. The profs generally wanted you to take their crap in and regurgitate it to them in the tests in a way that flattered them and what they taught. This is one reason I have no college degree. My major interest in life is human understanding so I can understand why and what we do--should and shouldn't--to find some way to head the irrationality and destructiveness of so much human interactions. My biggest conclusion so far: life is too short for any one person to do that but regardless of any positive contribution anyone or number of people can do respecting ideas and culture bettering and repairing, that things are getting better and better overall through time and no one can twist and turn humanity away from that, only cause some--and some can be a great some--pain and suffering-OR, some amelioration and prevention of that, which is the true legacy of Ayn Rand through her millions of readers who were able to achieve better, more productive, happier lives.

--Brant

while the state rolls on you don't have to be rolled under

[Brant Gaede]

If you don't know what it is, you're not going to notice it sneaking up on you. If you don't see the totalitarianism in modern governments, then you're making an engraved invitation for it to get worse and worse; by your own unprincipled thinking, you grease the slippery slope from a "gentle" totalitarianism to a more harsh one.

Now this is a kind of ad hominem, Shayne, which you do all the time. "Unprincipled thinking" must be immoral or amoral thinking. But the real and proper question is it rational or irrational? Suppose I were a Nazi using principled Nazi-okay principled thinking . . . ? I'm sure you wouldn't be patting me on the back for using principled thinking.

--Brant

do you know what you do?

Edited July 25, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

It's toe, not tow,..

Carol

irritating interjecting pedant

Somebody has to do it

Oh, thanks...

Shayne

[sjw]

Totalitarian rulers don't claim that they can actually control every aspect of human behavior. They claim the right to control any aspect they like, e.g., by punishing people who disobey. This is a de jure claim, not a de facto one.

What aspect (in terms of a principle of action) of human behavior does the United States government disclaim the right to control? What natural rights does it unswervingly respect?

Shayne

[sjw]

If you don't know the difference between what we have and what the Russians had under Stalin or Germans under Hitler you simply are not educated. I have spent my whole life in what are called the Liberal Arts educating myself. Not science and mathematics, except as they are integrate-able into the Liberal Arts. I mastered arithmetic, not higher mathematics. Not even basic and intermediate algebra. It was always, this ain't me. I saw no reason for mathematical reasoning for what I was about. I couldn't stand to use my mind that way. Now, studying Liberal Arts in college was another problem. This is much more complicated than my story here. The profs generally wanted you to take their crap in and regurgitate it to them in the tests in a way that flattered them and what they taught. This is one reason I have no college degree. My major interest in life is human understanding so I can understand why and what we do--should and shouldn't--to find some way to head the irrationality and destructiveness of so much human interactions. My biggest conclusion so far: life is too short for any one person to do that but regardless of any positive contribution anyone or number of people can do respecting ideas and culture bettering and repairing, that things are getting better and better overall through time and no one can twist and turn humanity away from that, only cause some--and some can be a great some--pain and suffering-OR, some amelioration and prevention of that, which is the true legacy of Ayn Rand through her millions of readers who were able to achieve better, more productive, happier lives.

--Brant

while the state rolls on you don't have to be rolled under

We should recognize the reason behind the improvement. That's coming from the people under duress, not from the coercion. The Creators are dragging humanity forward in spite of the duress. The fact is Brant, you will toe the line, or you will be shot. That's the principle at issue, and no amount of liberal arts makes it go away.

Shayne

"May your chains set lightly upon you."

[sjw]

Now this is a kind of ad hominem, Shayne, which you do all the time. "Unprincipled thinking" must be immoral or amoral thinking. But the real and proper question is it rational or irrational? Suppose I were a Nazi using principled Nazi-okay principled thinking . . . ? I'm sure you wouldn't be patting me on the back for using principled thinking.

--Brant

do you know what you do?

It's not possible to be a principled Nazi. That's a common confusion, but principles are only principles when they are both integrated with each other and with reality.

Shayne

[sjw]

Would you say Brant that there is no degree of totalitarianism in the US political system, not in my sense of the term, and not in your sense of the term either?

Further, how would you say that it is possible to implement your sense of the term, without mine operating as the fundamental pretext?

A good anarchist would have pointed out that my concept of totalitarianism is similar to their concept of "The State", which would then have led us into the realm of discussion that GHS so despises: a discussion about the proper meaning of concepts, and their assignment to particular words. I won't go there now, but I will point out an important difference. For me, totalitarianism is an aspect of a government's character; it is not the sole explanatory cause. It is similar to the concept "dishonest" as applied to a person. A person can be dishonest at times and in respects, while not being fully and completely the archetype of "dishonest" (see "The Archetype Fallacy" in my book). For an anarchist, "The State" functions as a kind of bogeyman; in their mind, "The State" is an entity. Totalitarianism is in my mind completely different. It's not a thing, it's a characteristic that can exist both in seemingly innocuous and in disastrous degrees.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Totalitarian rulers don't claim that they can actually control every aspect of human behavior. They claim the right to control any aspect they like, e.g., by punishing people who disobey. This is a de jure claim, not a de facto one.

What aspect (in terms of a principle of action) of human behavior does the United States government disclaim the right to control? What natural rights does it unswervingly respect?

Shayne

Freedom of press and freedom of religion are two such areas. Whether the U.S. government always respects such rights, in each and every case without exception, is a different issue and is not relevant here.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A good anarchist would have pointed out that my concept of totalitarianism is similar to their concept of "The State", which would then have led us into the realm of discussion that GHS so despises: a discussion about the proper meaning of concepts, and their assignment to particular words.

Good one, Shayne! Let no one say that you don't have a sense of humor!

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Now this is a kind of ad hominem, Shayne, which you do all the time. "Unprincipled thinking" must be immoral or amoral thinking. But the real and proper question is it rational or irrational? Suppose I were a Nazi using principled Nazi-okay principled thinking . . . ? I'm sure you wouldn't be patting me on the back for using principled thinking.

--Brant

do you know what you do?

It's not possible to be a principled Nazi. That's a common confusion, but principles are only principles when they are both integrated with each other and with reality.

Shayne

Your special definitions and understandings with concepts such as ~principle~ and ~totalitarian~ really make it too much of a chore to engage you. You do have something of a point here, though. It was easier to survive in Germany, if you weren't a Jew, if you were a principled Nazi than in Russia where the principled communists were likely to get swept away in the even greater totalitarian flux.

Leonard Peikoff had the idea in 1968 in one of his "Ominous Parallels" lectures that the Germans in WWII were superior to the Russians on the battlefield--that the Russians merely advanced while the Germans retreated. I don't know what he thought he was illustrating with that bs aside from the superiority of a lesser to a greater tyranny or West over East. I don't think that found its way into his book, published, if you can FBI, 14 years later.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Now this is a kind of ad hominem, Shayne, which you do all the time. "Unprincipled thinking" must be immoral or amoral thinking. But the real and proper question is it rational or irrational? Suppose I were a Nazi using principled Nazi-okay principled thinking . . . ? I'm sure you wouldn't be patting me on the back for using principled thinking.

--Brant

do you know what you do?

It's not possible to be a principled Nazi. That's a common confusion, but principles are only principles when they are both integrated with each other and with reality.

Shayne

Nonsense. It is quite possible to have flawed, incorrect, or even immoral principles; and it is possible for such principles to conflict with other principles that one holds.

So what does all this absurd redefinition of terms accomplish for Shayne? One thing, and one thing only: It enables him to label his adversaries as "unprincipled."

Ghs

[sjw]

I see that George has created a special thread just for Sharon that is supposed to be "off limits" to the traditional OL style of discourse. The surface "rationale" given is that this thread has gone off topic. Presumably, my pointed questions regarding the substance of her book and the relation to contemporary culture are "off topic" as well. I'll respect George's wishes, on the grounds that if I created my own thread and asked for certain special rules, I would want them to be respected not just in their words but in their intent (nevermind the fact that I wouldn't sunder my actual intent from my words as George likes to do).

Would George do the same for me? Given that around the time Phil was leaving, when I proposed precisely the kind of optional special rules (to aid with threads that become off-topic mudslinging fests) specified by the thread creator as he is doing right now, he became quite abusive of me, accusing me of trying to establish some kind of forum dictatorship, I'm thinking that the answer is no, on account of his obvious hypocrisy. But I won't be hypocritical. I'll let him have his special padded room, off limits from possibly difficult questions.

Shayne

[sjw]

Now this is a kind of ad hominem, Shayne, which you do all the time. "Unprincipled thinking" must be immoral or amoral thinking. But the real and proper question is it rational or irrational? Suppose I were a Nazi using principled Nazi-okay principled thinking . . . ? I'm sure you wouldn't be patting me on the back for using principled thinking.

--Brant

do you know what you do?

It's not possible to be a principled Nazi. That's a common confusion, but principles are only principles when they are both integrated with each other and with reality.

Shayne

Nonsense. It is quite possible to have flawed, incorrect, or even immoral principles; and it is possible for such principles to conflict with other principles that one holds.

So what does all this absurd redefinition of terms accomplish for Shayne? One thing, and one thing only: It enables him to label his adversaries as "unprincipled."

Ghs

You always go for the cheap ad hominem and appeal to the masses as opposed to entertaining a new thought. You're quite a sick man George. I don't know what Brant sees in you.

I have a specific reason for distinguishing a "principle" from things like "commandments", "duties", and "imperatives." Nazis have duties, orders, and imperatives. And sure, they can consistently abide by them. But they don't have principles. Of course, it would be pointless to explore the rational meaning of a principle with a total hypocrite such as yourself.

Shayne

[sjw]

Your special definitions and understandings with concepts such as ~principle~ and ~totalitarian~ really make it too much of a chore to engage you.

It can be hard to learn new things.

Actually I was under the impression that this was fairly standard Objectivism. In any case, I define a principle according to the method on which the corresponding proposition was formed, not based on the generality of the proposition itself. The Ten Commandments aren't principles, they're rules.

Shayne

[Selene]

Your special definitions and understandings with concepts such as ~principle~ and ~totalitarian~ really make it too much of a chore to engage you.

It can be hard to learn new things.

Actually I was under the impression that this was fairly standard Objectivism. In any case, I define a principle according to the method on which the corresponding proposition was formed, not based on the generality of the proposition itself. The Ten Commandments aren't principles, they're rules.

Shayne

Give us your definition of "principle" please.

[sjw]

Your special definitions and understandings with concepts such as ~principle~ and ~totalitarian~ really make it too much of a chore to engage you.

It can be hard to learn new things.

Actually I was under the impression that this was fairly standard Objectivism. In any case, I define a principle according to the method on which the corresponding proposition was formed, not based on the generality of the proposition itself. The Ten Commandments aren't principles, they're rules.

Shayne

Give us your definition of "principle" please.

It turns out that I was at least partly right about Objectivism. The Lexicon defines a principle as “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/principles.html

Ergo, by the Objectivist definition, it is not a principle unless it is a general truth. However, later on it says things like "You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false ..." So here Objectivism contradicts is own definition of a principle as being a general truth.

I don't think the Objectivist definition is perfect, but I think it's fine for our purposes here, so I won't bother stating my own definition.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I see that George has created a special thread just for Sharon that is supposed to be "off limits" to the traditional OL style of discourse. The surface "rationale" given is that this thread has gone off topic. Presumably, my pointed questions regarding the substance of her book and the relation to contemporary culture are "off topic" as well. I'll respect George's wishes, on the grounds that if I created my own thread and asked for certain special rules, I would want them to be respected not just in their words but in their intent (nevermind the fact that I wouldn't sunder my actual intent from my words as George likes to do).

Would George do the same for me? Given that around the time Phil was leaving, when I proposed precisely the kind of optional special rules (to aid with threads that become off-topic mudslinging fests) specified by the thread creator as he is doing right now, he became quite abusive of me, accusing me of trying to establish some kind of forum dictatorship, I'm thinking that the answer is no, on account of his obvious hypocrisy. But I won't be hypocritical. I'll let him have his special padded room, off limits from possibly difficult questions.

Shayne

I set up the thread for Sharon, not for me. Do anything you like, you piece of shit.

Ghs

Addendum: Permit me to be more precise: Sharon asked me offlist if I could start a new thread for her, and I agreed. I understood her reasons, one of which was that she is not familiar with how much of this site works.

Would I do the same for you? Of course not. Start your own thread, if you like, and establish some guidelines. I simply won't participate, so you will have no problem from me. Perhaps you should call the thread "How I redefine words so I can win arguments."

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Your special definitions and understandings with concepts such as ~principle~ and ~totalitarian~ really make it too much of a chore to engage you.

It can be hard to learn new things.

Actually I was under the impression that this was fairly standard Objectivism. In any case, I define a principle according to the method on which the corresponding proposition was formed, not based on the generality of the proposition itself. The Ten Commandments aren't principles, they're rules.

Shayne

Give us your definition of "principle" please.

It turns out that I was at least partly right about Objectivism. The Lexicon defines a principle as “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/principles.html

Ergo, by the Objectivist definition, it is not a principle unless it is a general truth. However, later on it says things like "You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false ..." So here Objectivism contradicts is own definition of a principle as being a general truth.

Shayne

More nonsense.

Ghs

[sjw]

More nonsense.

Ghs

What I don't understand is why Brant and Selene let you get away with this incessant stream of crap you spew forth, but I get pestered over every remark of mine they think needs substantiation. Is this one of those "worship George because he's an established authority" things? If so that'd be ironic.

The Objectivist definition is clear enough: a principle is a general truth. That's a sensible definition, even accounting for possibly mistaken principles.

Shayne

[sjw]

Addendum: Permit me to be more precise: Sharon asked me offlist if I could start a new thread for her, and I agreed. I understood her reasons, one of which was that she is not familiar with how much of this site works.

Would I do the same for you? Of course not. Start your own thread, if you like, and establish some guidelines. I simply won't participate, so you will have no problem from me. Perhaps you should call the thread "How I redefine words so I can win arguments."

Ghs

She'll "cut me to ribbons" indeed. I suppose by this you meant she'd call me names and flounce off (which is all she in fact did). What in the hell did you Old Guard libertarians do to yourselves that you have become even worse than Ayn Rand was at handling criticism? You can dish it out (on Ayn Rand) but you sure can't take it.

How sad and pathetic. How tragic that so many follow in your touchy, dogmatic, irrational footsteps. Ayn Rand wasn't perfect, she deserved criticism on many things, even including some of the things you criticize her about, but you and the rest in your disgusting hypocritical pretense at being more reasonable on this level aren't fit to use her name let alone criticize her about anything.

Shayne