Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[George H. Smith]

For my discussion of what Jefferson and his contemporaries meant by "property," see this Cato Essay, section (2).

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/philosophy-declaration-independence-part-2

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Once again, you seem to want to deny that you are using NIOF as a primary, while you continue to use NIOF as a primary.

I never claimed that NIOF is a moral primary. I have said this repeatedly. How many more times must I say this before you get the point?

You can repeat it a billion times, but until your expressed viewpoints are consistent with the premise that NIOF is not a primary, you are still using it as a primary.

Nope. Never have, never will. Should you ever wish to discuss what I really think instead of your fantasies, let me know. Meanwhile, go tell other people what they think. I'm not interested.

[George H. Smith]

The various rights you discuss in this article ("Justice Entrepreneurship"}all revolve around the issue of force (e.g., self-defense, fair trial, restitution). Other than property rights, I did not see any reference to what Rand calls "the conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival"--e.g., the right to take all those actions that are necessary, by his nature as a rational being, to sustain and protect man's life. The most basic right is the right to life, which mandates the freedom to take all those actions required by a rational being for the fulfillment and enjoyment of his life. A concomitant of that right is that the use of force is brought under objective control, and the only practical way to do that is through a government with procedural safeguards that strictly regulate the use of force.

My entire article was devoted to showing how we can derive objective procedural safeguards rationally, without recourse to government. I even outlined some particulars in the last part. And you respond with the usual hackneyed generalities.

I doubt if you even read my article. You don't seem to have a clue what it is about.

As I have been arguing consistently throughout this thread, we can therefore legitimately characterize any threat to such objective control of force as the initiation of force, and any action taken by the government to stop that threat as retaliatory force. Private defense agencies represent such a threat.

Yada, yada, yada.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I'm sure George will be delighted to discover that his position is shared by ARI and Leonard Peikoff. I regard their positon as equally insane. It's exactly the sort of dogmatic nonsense that helps to marginalize Objectivism as a lunatic fringe."

Have you ever thought of using an argument, instead of smearing people who disagree with you? I don't give a shit how shocked and saddened you might be, and I doubt if anyone else does either.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 32:32 through 37:29

<...> But in a general society, God help you! If you had a society which all shared one philosophy, that would be dreadful.

And your, euhh, so-called libertarian anarchism is nothing but whim worship if you refuse to see this point, because what you refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men, particularly, men of different views—and it is proper and good that mankind at large, or as a large a section as a nation—should have different views. It's good to have different views, provided you respect each other's rights. And there is no one to guard rights except a government under strictly objective rules.

On the 'Rewrite Squad' thread, Robert Cambell compares these sections to the Ayn Rand Answers version:

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 75-76)

Robert Mayhew said:

<...>

But if you had a society in which all shared in the same philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful.

<...>

Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it's good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other's rights."

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective law. <...>

A classic example of insensitivity to what Rand was actually saying.

Mayhew drains some of the vehemence from this answer. More to the point, he gets rid of Rand's rejection of a "great society" in which everyone subscribes to the same philosophy. Leonard Peikoff and his followers "know" that Rand could not have expressed individualistic sentiments in 1972; she must have wanted a society in which everyone professes Objectivism.

The claim that libertarian anarchists do not recognize "the need for objectivity" is false, of course. But I am much more willing to give Rand a pass for this prejudicial muddle than I am her followers, who simply parrot what Rand said, while refusing to read any of the relevant literature.

Whatever the correct resolution of this matter may be, the anarchists (Rothbard, Barnett, Friedman, etc.) have explored new frontiers in political and legal philosophy. The O'ist minarchists, in contrast, have remained chained to their perches, while chirping objective law... objective law...rarrrk...rarrrk...whim worship...whim worship...rarrrk...rarrrk....

Perhaps the worst thing about about intellectual mediocrities is how dreadfully boring they tend to be.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If some minarchist on OL would care to give me a definition of "objective law" -- a definition that does not beg the question by including "government" as part of the definition -- please do so. I have given up on Dennis.

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

Your identification of the connection between the reductionist interpretation of NIOF and the mind-body dichotomy is superb. I agree completely. I want to do some more thinking on that topic before commenting further.

Thanks for your insight on this.

Dennis,

Thanks for your kind words.

I can't help but notice the similarity between NIOF and dogma in general (when NIOF is believed in as an axiom). When you remove the mind, but insist on the rule, that's the definition of dogma to me.

When someone believes in dogma all the way down, they say it trumps reason, they say you have to take it whole hog or nothing while saying they are not actually saying that, and they get really pissed and personal when you when challenge it at the root.

I wonder what the influence of cognitive bias is on dogma...

Something to think about...

"while saying they are not actually saying that. . ."

Exactly, Michael. They may it look like they are earnestly seeking the truth, when, in fact, there is clearly only one conclusion they will find acceptable. Their personal intellectual agenda is setting the terms of the discussion, not a quest for understanding. Otherwise, why get so bent out of shape when others disagree?

Alas, reality does not accomodate personal agendas, nor does it yield to verbal intimidation. And when people begin to sense they're witnessing a con game, the jig is up. So you get lots of fireworks and no resolution.

My sense is that the dogmatic defense of NIOF may well stem from the mind-body dichotomy,to some extent. I can see at least two aspects where that pattern is evident.

One is theory vs. practice: So what if the anarchist model breaks down in practice? What counts is that it's a beautiful theory. We'll find a way to make it work in practice, somehow.

A second is mind vs body: The physical realm--the realm of physical force--is somehow innately superior to the mental realm, so protection cannot be extended to products of the mind, only to physical actions.

Proponents of NIOF take both sides of the equation--theory over practice in the first case, body over mind in the second--thus widening the gap and making cognitive integration impossible.

There it is in a nutshell. This is going to be a lot of work, especially since I want to do it right (I already have a good start, although it's still private), but I believe I will be well rewarded. And I expect it to fertilize some other projects I have on the back burner. Hell, I expect it to have good spin-off for OL, even though I am keeping those two projects separate.

Michael

Sounds like a fascinating project. You've obviously invested a tremendous amount of time, energy and knowledge into it. I know you'll keep us posted as you get closer to going live.

[Dennis Hardin]

If you are going to use viability (i.e., at around six months) as a bright line for when a fetus acquires individual rights, then you should attribute the same rights to a viable fetus that we attribute to babies. Thus, since a mother should not be permitted to force alcohol, drugs, or other harmful substances into the body of her baby, so a pregnant woman should be legally prohibited from ingesting substances that might harm the fetus. And just as a mother does not have the right to endanger the life of her baby, so a pregnant woman (after six months, in your scheme) should be legally prohibited from engaging in risky behavior.

Of course, the woman had these rights before becoming pregnant, so somewhere along the line she lost some of her natural rights. How, exactly, can a woman lose some of her rights by becoming pregnant?

Also, according to your scheme, if a woman and her doctor perform an abortion after six months, then they should be prosecuted for first-degree murder, just as if they had conspired to murder a baby. If you happen to believe in capital punishment, then both murderers should face the death penality, or, at the very least, life imprisonment.

Moreover, after six months a pregnant woman would not even have the right to kill herself, if this act would also result in the death of the fetus. This action would qualify not as mere suicide, but as a murder/suicide.

So will you defend all this? Or will you attempt to weasel out of the logical implications of your own position?

[Ghs

The developing embryo and the mother have a unique biological relationship-the embryo is dependent on the mother for its sustenance. The fact that the mother does not have the right to destroy the embryo in the third trimester does not endow the embryo with all the rights of an independent human being. I see no reason why the mother should suddenly become the slave of the embryo after six months. Individual rights, once acquired, are inalienable. As an independent human being, her rights are paramount. She retains all the rights she would normally have, including the right to end her life if she so chooses. If the embryo’s existence should threaten her life at some point, she has every right to act in her own self-interest and destroy it. Her only responsibility is to allow the embryo to live so long as this is consonant with her own health and well-being.

[George H. Smith]

Your identification of the connection between the reductionist interpretation of NIOF and the mind-body dichotomy is superb. I agree completely. I want to do some more thinking on that topic before commenting further. Thanks for your insight on this.

Dennis, Thanks for your kind words. I can't help but notice the similarity between NIOF and dogma in general (when NIOF is believed in as an axiom). When you remove the mind, but insist on the rule, that's the definition of dogma to me. When someone believes in dogma all the way down, they say it trumps reason, they say you have to take it whole hog or nothing while saying they are not actually saying that, and they get really pissed and personal when you when challenge it at the root. I wonder what the influence of cognitive bias is on dogma... Something to think about...

"while saying they are not actually saying that. . ." Exactly, Michael. They may it look like they are earnestly seeking the truth, when, in fact, there is clearly only one conclusion they will find acceptable. Their personal intellectual agenda is setting the terms of the discussion, not a quest for understanding. Otherwise, why get so bent out of shape when others disagree? Alas, reality does not accomodate personal agendas, nor does it yield to verbal intimidation. And when people begin to sense they're witnessing a con game, the jig is up. So you get lots of fireworks and no resolution....

Oh, Christ! -- more psychobabble, and this time from guy who actually charges people for his advice. Talk about a con game!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If you are going to use viability (i.e., at around six months) as a bright line for when a fetus acquires individual rights, then you should attribute the same rights to a viable fetus that we attribute to babies. Thus, since a mother should not be permitted to force alcohol, drugs, or other harmful substances into the body of her baby, so a pregnant woman should be legally prohibited from ingesting substances that might harm the fetus. And just as a mother does not have the right to endanger the life of her baby, so a pregnant woman (after six months, in your scheme) should be legally prohibited from engaging in risky behavior. Of course, the woman had these rights before becoming pregnant, so somewhere along the line she lost some of her natural rights. How, exactly, can a woman lose some of her rights by becoming pregnant? Also, according to your scheme, if a woman and her doctor perform an abortion after six months, then they should be prosecuted for first-degree murder, just as if they had conspired to murder a baby. If you happen to believe in capital punishment, then both murderers should face the death penality, or, at the very least, life imprisonment. Moreover, after six months a pregnant woman would not even have the right to kill herself, if this act would also result in the death of the fetus. This action would qualify not as mere suicide, but as a murder/suicide. So will you defend all this? Or will you attempt to weasel out of the logical implications of your own position? [Ghs

The developing embryo and the mother have a unique biological relationship-the embryo is dependent on the mother for its sustenance. The fact that the mother does not have the right to destroy the embryo in the third trimester does not endow the embryo with all the rights of an independent human being. I see no reason why the mother should suddenly become the slave of the embryo after six months. Individual rights, once acquired, are inalienable. As an independent human being, her rights are paramount. She retains all the rights she would normally have, including the right to end her life if she so chooses. If the embryo’s existence should threaten her life at some point, she has every right to act in her own self-interest and destroy it. Her only responsibility is to allow the embryo to live so long as this is consonant with her own health and well-being.

When I presented my position on third trimester abortion, I was accused of advocating the "slaughter" of babies. My position was "unconscionable," Dennis said. He even evoked the dreaded What would Tom Snyder say? test -- Dennis's version, apparently, of the What would Jesus say? test.

But we now find that Dennis's baby -- his human being with the right to life -- is not quite a real human being, and its right to life is not exactly a right to life. The fetus is a kinda human being with kinda rights. For, you see, the pregnant woman has the right to inject poisons into the body of this kinda human being (via consuming alcohol and drugs), and she also has the right to make it a co-victim in a murder/suicide.

As expected, Dennis ignored the most important question that I raised, namely: If a woman aborts a fetus after six months, should she and the abortionist be tried for first degree murder? And if they are found guilty, should they suffer the same penalties as anyone else convicted of that crime, such as life imprisonment? I suspect Dennis would weasel out of this dilemma as well, since he has made it crystal clear that he doesn't take his own attribution of fetal rights seriously.

Dennis's post is an exemplar of how he reasons about issues in general. He first determines his goal, i.e., he decides in advance the position he wants to justify, and he then backtracks to the premises and arguments that will get him there. And should those premises and arguments generate problems of their own, as they typically do, he simply adjusts them as needed to fit his needs. Concepts and arguments are nothing more than clay to Dennis -- material to be shaped as his feelings dictate.

In this dispute Dennis has given us not an individual's right to life but a new kind of fetal right -- a vague, indefinite kinda right that permits him to characterize the views of his adversaries as "insane" while evading the logical consequences of his own position.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If some minarchist on OL would care to give me a definition of "objective law" -- a definition that does not beg the question by including "government" as part of the definition -- please do so.

I'll bite up to a point. At least to supply some fundamental syllogisms that I often find lacking in the all-or-nothing arguments that permeate this debate.

Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms.

Premise: Objective means being based on reason.

Conclusion: Anything considered objective must include context or axioms.

Or to state another syllogism:

Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms.

Premise: The principle of NIOF is based on reason.

Conclusion: The application of NIOF must include context or axioms.

If NIOF is taken as an axiom and not a principle, as David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra mentioned that several libertarians do, then context doesn't matter and the claim that reason is involved stands.

But the basic condition of an axiom--that you must use it in the attempt to refute it--does not hold up for NIOF. In other words, for the axiom of existence, you must exist to refute existence, for consciousness, you must be conscious to refute consciousness, etc. That's how axioms are logically validated and context is not applicable to them. In other words, this is a correct way of using reason.

This manner of thinking doesn't work with NIOF, though. I'm trying to come up with an example that would seemingly work (for the sake of critical thinking), but it's difficult. Whenever I imagine a situation involving initiating force in human relations (i.e. in attempting to refute NIOF), I don't have to use NIOF at all to do it. But there's always a situation, i.e., a context. In other words, I need to start with something that does not involve NIOF in order to apply NIOF. And that something comes at the start with its own non-NIOF nature.

So NIOF only works as an axiom like the existence of God does. Someone says, "This is so," and if you want the axiom, you have to accept it on faith since you don't need it to imagine the contrary. Reason doesn't work.

To state it another way, if you use reason, NIOF is contextual. If you use faith, NIOF is absolute.

As an aside, I really hate to agree with Peikoff ( ), but when he said "rights are contextual," he was right--according to this manner of reasoning.

Moving on to "objective law," here is a syllogism:

Premise: Law can be objective or arbitrary.

Premise: Anything considered objective must include context or axioms.

Conclusion: To be objective, law must include context or axioms.

I could go on and, I admit, this is half-baked so far (it isn't intended to be complete), but if no agreement can be made on these basic syllogisms and using a method like this to analyze the problem, trying to arrive at a definition of "objective law" will be a shouting match with little or no cognitive input except to claim--for grounds--that someone said so.

I certainly don't see any agreement on the differentia, or genus for that matter, ever happening by shouting.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

If some minarchist on OL would care to give me a definition of "objective law" -- a definition that does not beg the question by including "government" as part of the definition -- please do so.

I'll bite up to a point. At least to supply some fundamental syllogisms that I often find lacking in the all-or-nothing arguments that permeate this debate. Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: Objective means being based on reason. Conclusion: Anything considered objective must include context or axioms. Or to state another syllogism: Premise: In order to apply reason correctly, you must include context or axioms. Premise: The principle of NIOF is based on reason. Conclusion: The application of NIOF must include context or axioms. If NIOF is taken as an axiom and not a principle, as David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra mentioned that several libertarians do, then context doesn't matter and the claim that reason is involved stands. But the basic condition of an axiom--that you must use it in the attempt to refute it--does not hold up for NIOF. In other words, for the axiom of existence, you must exist to refute existence, for consciousness, you must be conscious to refute consciousness, etc. That's how axioms are logically validated and context is not applicable to them. In other words, this is a correct way of using reason. This manner of thinking doesn't work with NIOF.....

I'm not aware of any libertarians that view NIOF as axiomatic. Even the usual exception, Walter Block, doesn't hold that the NIOF principle is self-evident.

I therefore don't know of whom you are speaking. Are these real libertarians? If not, then what is the point of discussing a position that no one defends?

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I'll have to check the quotes of David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra that Dennis provided and see who they were referring to. I remember Rothbard being mentioned.

Gotta do this later today.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

George, I'll have to check the quotes of David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra that Dennis provided and see who they were referring to. I remember Rothbard being mentioned. Gotta do this later today. Michael

Murray sometimes spoke of the "axiom" of nonaggression, but he didn't mean what you mean by "axiom." He meant what Francis Bacon called a "middle axiom." The is a mid-level principle, justified by reason, that is employed as the fundamental principle of a specific cognitive discipline.

For Murray, nonaggression is the "axiom" of libertarianism in the sense that it is the common principle on which all libertarians agree. It thereby establishes the framework for higher-level libertarian theory, but it is not some kind of self-evident or primary principle in moral philosophy.

You should always keep context in mind. When one libertarian argues with another libertarian, it is not necessary, in this context, for either to justify the nonaggression principle. This is not necessay, in this context, because both libertarians already agree with the principle. And this common ground -- or middle axiom -- permits them to explore more complicated problems, such as those that arise in legal theory.

This is how theories progress -- in stages, as general principles are established and agreed upon, and as these general principles are then applied to specific problems.

Do general principles sometimes admit exceptions? Yes, of course. But once a general principle has been agreed upon, the burden of proof falls upon the person who posits the exception. It is his responsibility to demonstrate why a general principle that he himself accepts does not apply to a particular case. This requires that he specify criteria by which legitimate exceptions can be identified.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself. --Brant

Reason is a faculty. NIOF is a principle that is derived and justified by using the faculty of reason.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself. --Brant

Reason is a faculty. NIOF is a principle that is derived and justified by using the faculty of reason.

Ghs

The mind is not a faculty, but a mind without reason negates the mind. The mind is metaphysical, reason epistemological and rights and the NIOF principle are all derivative from the axioms of Objectivism with an ethical buffer. The integrated logical heirarchy of the basic principles of her philosophy was actually her greatest achievement, not any of the parts, which gives it a compulsive coherence.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Reason can also refer to a method of cognition.

Using reason as opposed to daydreaming, for instance.

In fact, if I remember correctly, Robert Merrill in The Ideas of Ayn Rand gave 3 or 4 different meanings for reason as Ayn Rand used the term (and examples).

I might get to looking this up later and quoting it, also.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Einstein daydreamed up his relativity theories and verified them through reason. They were further verified by observation and experiment, though still tentative as all such high-end theories must be.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself. --Brant

Reason is a faculty. NIOF is a principle that is derived and justified by using the faculty of reason. Ghs

The mind is not a faculty, but a mind without reason negates the mind. The mind is metaphysical, reason epistemological and rights and the NIOF principle are all derivative from the axioms of Objectivism with an ethical buffer. The integrated logical heirarchy of the basic principles of her philosophy was actually her greatest achievement, not any of the parts, which gives it a compulsive coherence. --Brant

If you are going to get O'ist on my ass, then you need to keep in mind that Rand herself called reason a "faculty." Reason and the human mind are not the same thing. Reason is specific faculty -- or power or ability, if you prefer -- of the human mind. When we use the mind to achieve a cognitive purpose of some kind, we are said to be engaged in reasoning.

I'm not sure what you mean by"compulsive coherence." All rational standards impose cognitive constraints. The rules of addition, for example, constrain us to believe that 2+2=4. It's not as if someone can declare I believe that 2+2=5, and then, when asked to justify this assertion, reply: I appeal to reason, which is a higher standard, or more fundamental, than the rules of addition.

Things don't work this way. Rather, it is via our faculty of reason that we formulate and justify general principles, after which we use judgment (or "practical reason," as some Aristotelians would say) to apply our general principles to particular situations. After our conclusion has been justified, it is impermissible to short-circuit this cognitive process by jettisoning the relevant principles and appealing directly to "reason." If someone disagrees with our conclusion, then he needs to formulate other principles and then apply those to the same situation. He cannot simply invoke "reason," as if this were a magical incantation.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Reason can also refer to a method of cognition.

Using reason as opposed to daydreaming, for instance.

In fact, if I remember correctly, Robert Merrill in The Ideas of Ayn Rand gave 3 or 4 different meanings for reason as Ayn Rand used the term (and examples).

I might get to looking this up later and quoting it, also.

Michael

Rand's fundamental defintion of "reason" was:

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. It is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice...

Consciousness—for those living organisms which possess it—is the basic means of survival. For man, the basic means of survival is reason. Man cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere percepts.

In other words, we must use reason to formulate and justify the general principles, or standards, that guide our lives. "Reason" is not itself a standard. It is the faculty, or means, by which we arrive at standards.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself. --Brant

Reason is a faculty. NIOF is a principle that is derived and justified by using the faculty of reason. Ghs

The mind is not a faculty, but a mind without reason negates the mind. The mind is metaphysical, reason epistemological and rights and the NIOF principle are all derivative from the axioms of Objectivism with an ethical buffer. The integrated logical heirarchy of the basic principles of her philosophy was actually her greatest achievement, not any of the parts, which gives it a compulsive coherence. --Brant

If you are going to get O'ist on my ass, then you need to keep in mind that Rand herself called reason a "faculty." Reason and the human mind are not the same thing. Reason is specific faculty -- or power or ability, if you prefer -- of the human mind. When we use the mind to achieve a cognitive purpose of some kind, we are said to be engaged in reasoning.

I'm not sure what you mean by"compulsive coherence." All rational standards impose cognitive constraints. The rules of addition, for example, constrain us to believe that 2+2=4. It's not as if someone can declare I believe that 2+2=5, and then, when asked to justify this assertion, reply: I appeal to reason, which is a higher standard, or more fundamental, than the rules of addition.

Things don't work this way. Rather, it is via our faculty of reason that we formulate and justify general principles, after which we use judgment (or "practical reason," as some Aristotelians would say) to apply our general principles to particular situations. After our conclusion has been justified, it is impermissible to short-circuit this cognitive process by jettisoning the relevant principles and appealing directly to "reason." If someone disagrees with our conclusion, then he needs to formulate other principles and then apply those to the same situation. He cannot simply invoke "reason," as if this were a magical incantation.

Ghs

I did not say that reason was not a faculty. I said the mind wasn't. The mind is the physically active brain while reason is a process it uses off that base. "The mind's best judgment" is a mind using reason. We can think of reason, as philosophy, as the mind's software.

--Brant

while I may use Objectivism, I seldom get didatic with it

[George H. Smith]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself. --Brant

Reason is a faculty. NIOF is a principle that is derived and justified by using the faculty of reason. Ghs

The mind is not a faculty, but a mind without reason negates the mind. The mind is metaphysical, reason epistemological and rights and the NIOF principle are all derivative from the axioms of Objectivism with an ethical buffer. The integrated logical heirarchy of the basic principles of her philosophy was actually her greatest achievement, not any of the parts, which gives it a compulsive coherence. --Brant

If you are going to get O'ist on my ass, then you need to keep in mind that Rand herself called reason a "faculty." Reason and the human mind are not the same thing. Reason is specific faculty -- or power or ability, if you prefer -- of the human mind. When we use the mind to achieve a cognitive purpose of some kind, we are said to be engaged in reasoning. I'm not sure what you mean by"compulsive coherence." All rational standards impose cognitive constraints. The rules of addition, for example, constrain us to believe that 2+2=4. It's not as if someone can declare I believe that 2+2=5, and then, when asked to justify this assertion, reply: I appeal to reason, which is a higher standard, or more fundamental, than the rules of addition. Things don't work this way. Rather, it is via our faculty of reason that we formulate and justify general principles, after which we use judgment (or "practical reason," as some Aristotelians would say) to apply our general principles to particular situations. After our conclusion has been justified, it is impermissible to short-circuit this cognitive process by jettisoning the relevant principles and appealing directly to "reason." If someone disagrees with our conclusion, then he needs to formulate other principles and then apply those to the same situation. He cannot simply invoke "reason," as if this were a magical incantation. Ghs

I did not say that reason was not a faculty. I said the mind wasn't. The mind is the physically active brain while reason is a process it uses off that base. "The mind's best judgment" is a mind using reason. We can think of reason, as philosophy, as the mind's software. --Brant while I may use Objectivism, I seldom get didatic with it

I have no problem with this. I was under the impression, however, that you agreed with Michael's appeal to "reason" as a standard that is more fundamental than the NIOF principle and that can therefore trump it. This is a thoroughly confused approach.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

A woman has a right to have an abortion. A doctor has the right not to perform an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not necessarily the right to kill the fetus, which can be sometimes aborted and life sustained and protected. The transitional period is biological context to social. In the social context the baby has all the human rights he can exercise, which will be true throughout his life. That's the nature of the basic right, the right to life and why it is inalienable. Now, the derivative rights are not inalienable, but an attack on any of them must always be an attack on the right to life too. Rights are a human invention, but human nature is not. The congruence between the two objectifies law. Note that the law must move toward the nature, the nature cannot move toward the law, no matter how adaptable a person may be to tyranny, that's because any tyranny violates the mind's best judgment respecting action and in a negative feedback loop will impact what the mind does think about and violate the pursuit of happiness and its achievement. Therefore, there is no primacy in NIOF, only in reason itself. --Brant

Reason is a faculty. NIOF is a principle that is derived and justified by using the faculty of reason. Ghs

The mind is not a faculty, but a mind without reason negates the mind. The mind is metaphysical, reason epistemological and rights and the NIOF principle are all derivative from the axioms of Objectivism with an ethical buffer. The integrated logical heirarchy of the basic principles of her philosophy was actually her greatest achievement, not any of the parts, which gives it a compulsive coherence. --Brant

If you are going to get O'ist on my ass, then you need to keep in mind that Rand herself called reason a "faculty." Reason and the human mind are not the same thing. Reason is specific faculty -- or power or ability, if you prefer -- of the human mind. When we use the mind to achieve a cognitive purpose of some kind, we are said to be engaged in reasoning. I'm not sure what you mean by"compulsive coherence." All rational standards impose cognitive constraints. The rules of addition, for example, constrain us to believe that 2+2=4. It's not as if someone can declare I believe that 2+2=5, and then, when asked to justify this assertion, reply: I appeal to reason, which is a higher standard, or more fundamental, than the rules of addition. Things don't work this way. Rather, it is via our faculty of reason that we formulate and justify general principles, after which we use judgment (or "practical reason," as some Aristotelians would say) to apply our general principles to particular situations. After our conclusion has been justified, it is impermissible to short-circuit this cognitive process by jettisoning the relevant principles and appealing directly to "reason." If someone disagrees with our conclusion, then he needs to formulate other principles and then apply those to the same situation. He cannot simply invoke "reason," as if this were a magical incantation. Ghs

I did not say that reason was not a faculty. I said the mind wasn't. The mind is the physically active brain while reason is a process it uses off that base. "The mind's best judgment" is a mind using reason. We can think of reason, as philosophy, as the mind's software. --Brant while I may use Objectivism, I seldom get didatic with it

I have no problem with this. I was under the impression, however, that you agreed with Michael's appeal to "reason" as a standard that is more fundamental than the NIOF principle and that can therefore trump it. This is a thoroughly confused approach.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at.

Ghs

You can't use reason to both establish and dis-establish the NIOF principle. I think Dennis started with NIOF as a given to be deconstructed. That's ass backwards. Sort of like climbing a mountain by climbing down the mountain. You can do that with a helicopter, just like Ben Bernacke, with much the same results at least in parallel.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

You can't use reason to both establish and dis-establish the NIOF principle. --Brant

True, but you might be able to use reason to justify exceptions to the NIOF principle. Rand did this, in effect, in her discussion of "emergency" situations. But such situations are very rare and don't have anything to do with how she applied the NIOF principle as a restraint on government.

I know of no case where Rand argued that a government may properly violate the NIOF principle. Indeed, her approach makes this virtually impossible, since she emphasized that the actions of government should be strictly limited to powers that have been delegated to it by individuals, for the purpose of self-defense.

Ghs