Is Ron Paul as dangerous as Bidinotto claims?

[Johnny]

That one always gets me zero traction. Main reaction: "Who the f**k says?"

It's just a big rationalization for imperialism. Ask the indigenous, they always more or less said "not perfect, but better if you leave us alone."

It's cavalier. Yeah, let's go edu-muh-kate the locals (which includes running them off their land, and giving them new, swanky social and other diseases).

Screw that.

In my opinion, the biggest mistake the founders made--by far--is to accept the ancient idea that a few men can get together, draw a map, and legitimately outline vast tracts of land they are going to assert their rules on, as if they owned the place.

What an absurdly stupid statement. Were the founding father rulers and did they think they owned the place? They drew up lines to set up a Republic to establish a rule of law where individual wealth creation was respected, not an oligarchy of feudal lords. Individually they made claims to parcels of land and made productive use out of it where only nomads and hunter gatherers claimed it as their own before them. In fact it was the indigenous tribes of North America that made vast tracts of land as their own without any productive use of that land towards wealth creation. The vast majority of indigenous tribes simply sold the land to the Europeans for trinkets in exchange. What exactly is your definition of a productive use of land? Is using land by hunter/gatherer societies without any notion of individual rights to property a productive use of land? Give me a break! MSK are you really serious when you say he has Objectivism down cold? I seriously doubt that!

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't see the connection between that quote and the issue. Anyway, it strikes me as almost axiomatic or a simple deduction: ethics deals with how one ought to act; the law and its implementation are a species of human action, therefore the science of the first must set the ground rules for the second.

That's why I hoped you would follow the link I provided, so you could see that the rule of law does not arise from 'how one ought to act,' but rather the principle of due process, public justice, and presumption of innocence. In another passage from Principles of Internet Law, I explained it thusly:

The concept of "wrong" is fundamental to the administration of justice. It's not an ethical term, but a logical and judicial one, implied by due process. No man should judge his own cause (True or false, right or wrong?) If false, courts would not exist; you'd have a right to conduct your affairs any way you please. If it's true, that no man should judge his own cause, then judicial procedures must be objective and fair. Anything less would be wrong as a matter of legal principle.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. But when Ron Paul talks about constitutional law, it is this sort of test that's implied. Before the US had a constitution, our forefathers were steeped in the English common law. No summary judgment. No 'might makes right.' Fair public trial by jury. Liberty and privacy as the default presumption of innocence among equals.

W.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[sjw]

I don't see the connection between that quote and the issue. Anyway, it strikes me as almost axiomatic or a simple deduction: ethics deals with how one ought to act; the law and its implementation are a species of human action, therefore the science of the first must set the ground rules for the second.

That's why I hoped you would follow the link I provided, so you could see that the rule of law does not arise from 'how one ought to act,' but rather the principle of due process, public justice, and presumption of innocence. In another passage from Principles of Internet Law,

I read the link. Men make laws. That is an action. The content of the laws prescribe yet more actions. Any time there is human action driven by choice, ethics applies, specifying what kinds of actions are right, wrong, or personal/neutral.

If you don't think ethics applies to human action, if you think that is too broad, then what do you think it applies to? I guess that's the real question, it's not about your definition of law, but of ethics. Evidently you have a narrower view of it. Is it all human action except law, or do you subtract even more?

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is my two cents.

I have observed that almost every country in existence (that I have known or read about) was founded by a group of men with bigger clubs than others. This holds throughout all of human history. Whether the process of ruling was a republic or a principality (to use Machiavelli's term), the initial founding of the governing entity that controlled a geographically defined area was set and/or defended by arms.

This has always made it difficult for me to see a clear logical chain of law arising from ethics (based on individual rights only).

Then one day I started thinking about ethics. What if tribal behavior were part of man's inherent nature, something like an 80-20 division, where 80% is individual nature and 20% is tribal (or 90-10, or 85-15 or whatever)? I am not saying this is how it ought to be, but this, as an overview, seems to be how man has acted throughout the ages. I have observed that when both sides of such human nature are not included, or when one side becomes excessively disproportionate to a healthy division, there is either a mess (like with communism on the collective/tribal side) or a dictatorship (on the purely tribal side) or a great deal of internal strife (on the individual rights only side) where I have not seen much social organization or progress.

The USA government certainly takes into account more than individual rights. It is basically a hierarchy of tribes if looked at from one perspective (local, state and federal governing bodies), all based on individual rights and, more recently, individual entitlements. There is definitely a division and the individual rights side is gradually losing ground as technology tries to make up for it by providing more wealth in the world.

I think the growing encroachment of government control is due to poorly defined limits and the 100% individual rights people will always lose if they do not insist on some kind of limitations and accept the need for objectively-defined group values. The only alternative out in the real world is an armed uprising. So until they work on their premise, they will always have difficulty explaining their case enough to convince others on a large scale. Even a child can see certain contradictions. This is what I believe has led to the formation of anarcho-capitalism of freedom-minded people—the unwillingness to blank out the logical contradiction going from an "individual rights only" premise of human nature.

Those who advocate "individual rights only" but include a need for government certainly cut their own legs from underneath them when they do not have a logical fundament for why one group is superior enough over another to blast it to smithereens. The only case where there is any logical consistency is in the case of being attacked. Self-defense is logical from the non-initiation of force rule. But the initial founding of the government is not consistent with NIOF and neither is the preemptive action we have recently seen in the Middle East (despite the huge amount of logical pretzels I have seen woven). I am not saying that such action was right or wrong (right now) since it is not pertinent to the present point, but I am saying that it cannot be defended according to NIOF or individual rights. The logic simply breaks down.

If a code of ethics is supposed to derive from man's essential nature and not just part of that nature, I see no contradiction in including the tribal part of man's nature within some kind of objectively defined confines. We are not individual blobs of unique mass stuck to a globe spinning through space and time. We are individual members of a biological species. That species has essential characteristics, just as the individual members do. This approach, resting ethics on human nature before getting to law, makes a lot more sense to me than trying to ignore what I observe with my own eyes.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

If you don't think ethics applies to human action, if you think that is too broad, then what do you think it applies to? I guess that's the real question, it's not about your definition of law, but of ethics. Evidently you have a narrower view of it. Is it all human action except law, or do you subtract even more?

I won't belabor the question, just a quick restatement. Ethics pertains to individual action, not groups.

Edit: Okay, maybe that was too abrupt. Consider the practice of engineering. The ethical dimension is a commitment to rationality and honesty. Everything else is math, materials science, and project management (amoral business optimization). Doctors strive to be rational, scientific, compassionate and efficient, but they can't buck the economics of health care. Medical schools, hospitals, drugs, diagnostics, surgical procedures, peer review, legal liability and a host of other impersonal collective regimes constrain what they can and cannot do for a patient. Bankers, auditors, and fiduciaries are practically robots, very little freedom to be autonomous or 'creative' with their duty to depositors. The choice to practice a profession (and do it well) is an ethical problem. But those who enter professional practice are no longer free to govern their actions at their option and discretion.

W.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[sjw]

I won't belabor the question, just a quick restatement. Ethics pertains to individual action, not groups.

Groups are only individuals. A group of red balls is still red. A group of individuals is still bound by ethics. If you and I write down on a piece of paper that we're going to steal something from a 3rd person, that doesn't mean we've made the action somehow valid. Yet that is all the law is about. Groups of individuals getting together writing down what they are going to do to 3rd parties in various circumstances. I don't recognize the law's validity unless it is bound by ethics.

Edit: Okay, maybe that was too abrupt. Consider the practice of engineering. The ethical dimension is a commitment to rationality and honesty. Everything else is math, materials science, and project management (amoral business optimization).

Any math that isn't based on rationality and honesty isn't math, likewise for any science. Project management without ethics is a disaster (and it's all too common to see).

I don't see how your concept of divorcing the law from ethics has even a semblance of plausibility.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't see how your concept of divorcing the law from ethics has even a semblance of plausibility.

Shayne

Okay. I understand. I've enjoyed the exchange of views.

W.

[sjw]

Michael I completely disagree with your theory and method and conclusions. I don't think you're following reason here either, and here's why:

This approach, resting ethics on human nature before getting to law, makes a lot more sense to me than trying to ignore what I observe with my own eyes.

This is a serious statement, to claim that you're seeing all this with your eyes. It implies that there is no argument possible, that this is perceptual data, and you are just reporting on the perceptual data. Well it's not viewable with your eyes, none of it is, and to regard it as if it were is the definition of intrinsicism, it is completely invalid, it's tantamount to embracing faith and feelings as your guide all while denying that that's what you're doing.

This faith-based method has led to all of your other conclusions, so there is really no point in arguing about those without first addressing this notion that you "observe" these ideas "with [your] own eyes".

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Try thinking metaphorically. "Seeing with one's own eyes," can mean many things, including reading books, analyzing an issue firsthand without being told what to think, etc.

Anyway, if you think ethics should not rest on human nature, but rest on something else, I'm all ears (er... I mean eyes... I mean I am willing to entertain your thoughts with an open mind, but not physically open like snapping a skull and exposing the brain, er... I think you know what I mean... I hope so... ).

Michael

[sjw]

Shayne,

Try thinking metaphorically. "Seeing with one's own eyes," can mean many things, including reading books, analyzing an issue firsthand without being told what to think, etc.

Metaphor or not, it's a shorthand for something akin to "I just know".

Anyway, if you think ethics should not rest on human nature, but rest on something else, I'm all ears (er... I mean eyes... I mean I am willing to entertain your thoughts with an open mind, but not physically open like snapping a skull and exposing the brain, er... I think you know what I mean... I hope so... ).

The disagreement is about what human nature is, not about whether ethics should be based on it. And I might as well say that I disagree with the conclusions you draw too, that you can somehow mix tribalism and individual rights and end up with something workable, right, or coherent.

In case it's not clear, I'm just registering disagreement at this point, not arguing.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Metaphor or not, it's a shorthand for something akin to "I just know".

Shayne,

Not in the manner I use it. It does not mean faith, but firsthand thinking based on best effort. You are free not to accept my meaning, but that is the concept of what I was trying to convey.

As to my concept of human nature, I take the epistemological approach of cognitive integration based on observation BEFORE normative conclusion almost always (when I have a say in the matter), although Steve Shmurak has shown quite empirically that this is not how cognition first develops in infants (see The Wonderful Way Shmurak Faces Emotion). But just so you have something to chew on other than my opinion or developmental psychology, here is a recent post I made that illustrates different facets of the "species" nature of human beings I mentioned (Why We do Dumb or Irrational Things).

I think it is a grave error for ethics to ignore all this science. These things are built in to our psyches, observable, and they produce repeatable results under controlled conditions.

Michael

[sjw]

There's no escaping the fact that when one talks about human nature, one talks about oneself. Not even dressing a study up as "science" can get around that--on a very important level, the "scientists" are only reconfirming what they already thought about themselves.

These kinds of discussions are inherently insulting--I claim human nature is better than someone else, because I have observed that potential. So I claim they are not living up to it and deluding themselves, and they claim I am deluding myself and evading my inevitable faults. In the end, there is no point in arguing about it, at least that I've seen.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I don't see any insult or delusion in these scientific studies. How can there be a potential if there is not a reality to begin with? If you ignore "what is" as a starting point (or claim that it is an insult or delusion), doesn't that cut the concept of "potential" off from reality and make it a floating abstraction?

They way I think is that you identify "what is" from observation, then you build on it, shape it, do whatever you want to with it.

Using volition to live up to a potential is certainly a high value—the highest. But it only takes concrete form when you know where you are coming from.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael,

A study claiming that I lie to myself is insulting. And presumptuous. And of course you don't see the delusion in the studies, you see that I'm deluded, because you agree with those studies. I on the other hand see it the other way. Any study that claims I lie to myself when I introspectively know that I don't is bogus--introspective data is just as much a part of reality as is extrospective data, it is a species of observation to observe what goes on in your own head.

Shayne

Edited January 13, 2008 by sjw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A study claiming that I lie to myself is insulting. And presumptuous.

Shayne,

I disagree.

I think that any study that says you intentionally lie to yourself would be insulting and presumptuous, since it would claim you have to choose the wrong and cannot choose the right. Merely to state that the mind of human beings in general drifts in the direction of self-deception—and even that within limits—as a default (and show this through controlled tests) is neither presumptuous nor insulting. It is merely an attempt to learn from observation. If you have any kind of studies with repeatable results that show the contrary, I am open to examining them.

Reality doesn't care about our evaluations of what should be. Facts are facts.

And, importantly, these results highlight the human need to discipline volition with ethics. If not, humans make a mess of things. Which, in fact, they have done throughout all of recorded history.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Going to the other side, if you want to see more than introspective proof of how it is possible to choose to not lie to yourself, look at the following video. There is no way Wilber could have done that unless he disciplined his mind (by choice) without lying to himself about anything he was doing regarding the process. It simply would not have worked. The proof is there and it is measurable.

Michael

[sjw]

There's no such thing as a lie that's not intentional.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

We automate our knowledge and we automate our values. If we relax our conscious volition (the part where we actively choose this or that in full awareness) and run on autopilot, which we do most of the time, we will often choose our values over reality when there is a conflict.

This is not always the case, but it is a pitfall to watch out for. Even though we automate the cognitive part correctly, on that level we are still prone to warp reality to conform to our values at times. This is simply the way the mind works.

Why call that a lie? I can think of one reason. Can we honestly say that we always learned the cognitive part incorrectly in those cases, or did we know what was correct and, at the automated level, prefer to ignore and/or alter reality to suit our values? The studies show that we prefer to ignore and/or alter reality in favor of values.

Once awareness arises or we focus our beam of awareness on this issue, though, it is not only possible to correct it, this is where I think ethics kicks in to help us. And, in addition to consciously choosing, we try to automate the correct and the good if we are the good guys. We will always try to do that as much as possible. We can even automate a kind of periodic mental scan over automatic mental actions with our beam of awareness. (I know I do.) But I think there are way too many automations to scan for a single beam of awareness, so it is impossible to catch all the warps 100% of the time.

It would be lovely if we could make one moral choice and have it frozen for all time, running on autopilot. But, unfortunately, there are certain choices we have to consciously make over and over, otherwise we will make a mess of things—like we often do if we let autopilot run with them.

That's my best shot at understanding all this so far.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael,

I think I see what you are talking about, that someone can have a habit of being out of focus and then semi-consciously lying, or at least that's how I'd describe that. However, I disagree with a study that studies 100 *average* people, who were probably raised religious and indoctrinated in public schools, and then declares we all lie to ourselves.

It's a huge mistake to take a bunch of semi-brain-washed people, study them, and then make declarations about what constitutes human nature.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Michael,

I think I see what you are talking about, that someone can have a habit of being out of focus and then semi-consciously lying, or at least that's how I'd describe that. However, I disagree with a study that studies 100 *average* people, who were probably raised religious and indoctrinated in public schools, and then declares we all lie to ourselves.

It's a huge mistake to take a bunch of semi-brain-washed people, study them, and then make declarations about what constitutes human nature.

I like your approach, Shayne, and I agree that many people have been harmed. The Comprachicos was an extremely important essay. However, I wonder how much of life is repressed. Sorry to be quite so Freudian, but for the longest time, I wondered and worried if I had killed a man and then repressed it. After many years of soul searching, I concluded that perhaps it was true and if so I think I know who it was I could have killed. Whether it happened in reality is not the point. I am fairly certain that my recollection of numerous other incidents has proved faulty. This could be likewise mis-remembered or mis-wired as a psychological defense.

Okay, fine, I'm nuts and you're not -- but I submit that we each of us mis-remember and excuse a lot of regret. One's babyhood and adolescence are ignored. Our 'sins' (in the Latin sense of missing the target) fall into the mist Before Rebirth as an Objectvist, Evangelical Christian or Non-Smoker, as the case may be. I'm not arguing that anyone should face ALL of the truth about themselves. What would be the profit? Similarly, I don't keep scrapbooks, press clippings, trophies, baby pictures, or utility bills and cancelled checks from 1965, 66, 67, 68, 69 ...

Is Ron Paul as dangerous as he was 50 years ago? Or 5 years ago? I don't think it matters a great deal. Judge people for what they do and say today. Senator McPain means it. He'll let the military decide what to do about Iran -- abdicating civilian control of foreign policy. Huckabee means it. He'll show them the Gates of Hell if Iran dares to threaten us in Iran's territorial waters.

Give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he ever killed anyone, unlike McPain bombing women and children from the air in Vietnam, and Huckabee filling their heads with ghost stories in Arkansas.

W.

[Rich Engle]

I smell a new thread happening, Maestro.

"The proof is there and it is measurable."

Yup. Ah, perhaps one day there truly will be that marriage of spirituality and science that Ken talks about so well. Viva the AQAL model.

Measurable indeed. And if so, now the non spirituality folks will be pissed because it actually did get measured and that means...well!

Amazing Wilber got to that level so fast. Your typical Himalayan monk or what have you doesn't get it for a LONG time if ever.

rde

Ken Wilber: True Man, Atomic Playboy Level

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

If you don't like the sample, what sample of mankind would you take to study? Apropos, in the article, it stated that the experiment was repeated, presumably with variations countless times in other places since 1959 with the same result. Here is an exact quote from How and Why We Lie to Ourselves: Cognitive Dissonance on PsyBlog (originally posted on OL here).

Since this experiment numerous studies of cognitive dissonance have been carried out and the effect is well-established.

So the sample used is actually much greater and the prequalifications are not given.

Also, do you agree that examining human history is a source of information about human nature? I personally don't see how it can be discarded. If we examine the sorry spectacle of much of human history, I am afraid the overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that human beings have a dark side they must discipline with reason. Otherwise, they are capable of committing the most grotesque atrocities when given the opportunity, as they, in fact, have done over and over and over.

We can't have it both ways, that human nature does not include these things and that human beings constantly do them. What was Rand railing against all her life if not this dark side of human nature? Something that doesn't exist? A string of unrelated accidents? Something that has no cause?

The more I examine this issue, the more I am equating the "beam of awareness" (full focus) with the faculty of volition. Obviously this faculty uses conceptual integrations and other automated mental operations, but it can choose. I am also starting to delimit the command "to think" to mean focusing our beam of awareness on an issue without allowing the rules of reason and logic to be changed, even when the issue is internal and shows something unflattering about us.

In fact, I have noticed a disturbing trend with some of the more technical Objectivist literature (like OPAR, to cite one example) towards making mental automations, then presuming that no maintenance is needed—and that any attempt to notice the operations of the subconscious, especially clashes between values and knowledge with values winning out, as a statement that the heroic is not possible to man and that he is doomed to be depraved. Thus, one can call such a person an evader, dishonest, etc., and not have to think about what he is observing and pointing out.

The more I think on this, the more I see a massive blank-out on observation and cognitive integration in the purest form. I see a perfect example of the value judgment making the person alter the facts in his mind.

Rand herself wasn't much interested in pursuing this unless something personal was involved. In her journals somewhere (or maybe in MYWAR), she commmented that she preferred to leave the "sewer" of studying psychology to Nathaniel. Maybe this attitude is the reason she was so poor at times at judging the psychology of others. She could attain a stunning insight in one aspect of a person's motivation (like identifying what a "sense of life" is), then almost undo this with a series of gross oversimplifications (like her condemnations of the sense of life of certain individuals because they liked this or that art). There are many other such areas with Rand and it might be useful one day to flesh them out.

In ethics, I believe it is possible to commit oneself to the position that when the "beam of awareness" (full focus) is engaged, whenever there is a contradiction, cognitive identification will take precedence over value judgments. At that moment and for that faculty (full-focus volition), rational thought trumps emotion. This is a chosen attitude. In this sense (the state of full focus only and regarding the specific issue of "to think or not to think"), I believe it is possible for a certain kind of moral perfection to be attained. And I think it is possible to control whether we lie to ourselves within this limit. We simply decide to refuse to do so and that's that. Still, even this decision will be hard to maintain at times, so I don't think it is possible to make it a one-time deal. It is a decision that must be made over and over, although it can be automated to a large extent.

To extend this standard to cover the vast quantity of integrations and automations we have stored in our minds is unrealistic, if not from a moral view, at least from a logistics one. (1) We simply don't have the time to check all that and (2) dismissing maintenance is a stupid thing to do in any human endeavor since things are changing all the time. Thus it is impossible to make a decision once, never focus on it again while running it on autopilot for the rest of one's life, and be sure that it is maintained.

Michael

[sjw]

If you don't like the sample, what sample of mankind would you take to study?

It's not just the sample, it's the method. It's completely bogus to fill a room half with criminals and half with rights-respecting individuals, and then declare that it's human nature is to be half-criminal (or half tribalist).

Shayne

[sjw]

Okay, fine, I'm nuts and you're not -- but I submit that we each of us mis-remember and excuse a lot of regret.

I know what you mean by regret and excuse making, but you're not talking about either you're talking about either erasing memory or rewriting it with something else. E.g., I used to be religious and I recall not being totally honest about whether I believed or not. I was partly confused about what it meant to believe, and that's an excuse, but overall I have to say I was being dishonest with myself and others--if I had been honest I would have said I didn't believe. I was a teenager, raised religious, everyone in my community was in the same religion, and there was a lot of pressure to be dishonest and go along with it even if deep down I knew I didn't know the religion was true. That's an excuse of some sort, but morally I was not off the hook nor let off the hook: I paid the price for the dishonesty. I don't feel guilty, because I've already done my time and suffered the consequences.

I for the life of me do not fathom the mind that rewrites reality as you're saying. I can comprehend simple forgetfulness and fading old memories. I understand unreliable recall of a very minor order. But I don't understand firsthand what you are talking about. It is not how my mind has ever worked and I don't know firsthand how one would pull it off. It *does* sound like insanity to me. It would explain how some other people I know of have behaved.

I wonder how such a person would ever be able to come to the conclusion that their mind was fundamentally unreliable. If it truly was, it would seem that their mind was too broken to even assess that. How would they decide that they'd misremembered? Seems to me that people with this disorder would make no such claim, that inherent in making such a claim is to at least begin to cure oneself of the disorder. To really take the claim to heart is to be cured of it. So if the person is even capable of claiming that their mind is fundamentally unreliable, then they are capable of fixing it. The unreliability is for them completely a moral issue. Otherwise they are just hopelessly insane.

I have seen many people engage in habits that might lead to such a state. The primary issue is: if your mind is ever wrong, then make damn sure you figure out why and try to fix it. Unreliability, especially the kind of making a positive claim that you are certain of that turns out to be bogus, is unacceptable. Many people do not follow this advice, so it is not entirely surprising that their mind might decay into this semi-insane state. It is hard to fathom if you've never been down that road, but in principle I can see how years of being a complete slob with regard to your mental contents, you might end up in a bizarre place.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's not just the sample, it's the method. It's completely bogus to fill a room half with criminals and half with rights-respecting individuals, and then declare that it's human nature is to be half-criminal (or half tribalist).

Shayne,

With all due respect, that was not the method in use. Your insinuation that they used this method (or something similar) and made a biased conclusion is incorrect. I would have to see the counteless tests done later, but I imagine that this was not the method either.

That aside, what method would you use? And the question about samples still stands. What sampling of human beings would you study to observe and learn about human nature? What would be the prequalifications for admiting a person into the tests as a subject?

I am going on the presumption that since you claim that the method was all wrong, you have a notion of that you think is the right one.

Michael