The best of questions

[sjw]

a point of clarification BB: The only thing I am "at someone's throat" about is sjw claiming that AR said Objectivism was a religion. Later he claimed she just implied it. And he refuses to document his claim. I don't take well to people who are fast and loose with the truth.

No, I never meant to imply that Ayn Rand *literally* said Objectivism was a religion. That would be such ridiculously big news that we'd all have known it by now. So clearly that's not what I meant. You are pathetic.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

No, I never meant to imply that Ayn Rand *literally* said Objectivism was a religion.

You said: "It's [Objectivism] a religion. That's how she defined it ..."

You said that Ayn Rand defined Objectivism as a religion. The meaning of the words you posted is unmistakable. A is A and no amount of spin will change it.

[tjohnson]

This, I submit, is a modern form of slavery, where the citizen is subservient to the demands of its government. They don't have us picking cotton in chains, but they still think they own us and the fruits of our labor.

I don't what is meant by "a modern form of slavery". 'Slavery' has a pretty specific meaning, for example;

"Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to perform labour or services. The term also refers to the status or condition of those persons, who are treated as the property of another person or household. ..."

Now while you may feel you are too heavily taxed as a small business owner I don't think you fall under this category. These kind of arguments are designed to incite emotional responses and if one uses emotionally charged language then the discussion is not likely to be very rational and so I would think Objectivists would avoid such behaviour.

[tjohnson]

This means that something exists which is independent of humans which I agree with, however, the moment we perceive it, it is no longer independent of us. Furthermore, our feelings, whims, hopes or fears can affect the way we perceive reality and if we are not careful they can predominate one's outlook.

I perceive a mountain range that is visible from my window. That I perceived it does not change anything about it. If I dislike it, it does not cease to exist. If I hope for a bigger or smaller mountain, it does not correspondingly change in size. If I am afraid it will fall over and crush me, its structural stability neither increases or decreases. If any change occurs, it occurs in me, and not in the mountain, unless or until i walk to the mountain and start digging into it with my pickaxe.

Our perception of reality has no effect on reality.

Sorry, I didn't word that well. I meant to say that we each have a different perception of reality and even though it exists independent of us our "takes" are very much dependent on our own personal predispositions. Since we all have different views we must have ways to compare them and this is what language enables us to do. Language enables us to come to agreement about our perceptions and "knowledge" is born, so to speak.

[sjw]

No, I never meant to imply that Ayn Rand *literally* said Objectivism was a religion.

You said: "It's [Objectivism] a religion. That's how she defined it ..."

You said that Ayn Rand defined Objectivism as a religion. The meaning of the words you posted is unmistakable. A is A and no amount of spin will change it.

Well, it is how she defined it. She didn't use the word "religion", but that is the precise meaning and effect of her statements in TOF. Instead of arguing with that point, you're quibbling over your petty refusal to comprehend my initial statement in spite of the fact that it has been quite adequately clarified. Barbara accused us all of bickering, but in fact you are the only one here who is bickering. You have a mosquito mind, and even though you've said you'll stop pestering me with your pettiness, you're still doing it. Which makes you a hypocrite too. So how about you stop being a hypocrite and a tiny-minded pest and buzz off.

Shayne

[georgedonnelly]

'Slavery' has a pretty specific meaning ...

Actually it has several. One of those is:

a state of subjection like that of a slave

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery)

And one of the definitions of slave is:

One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slave)

Persons legally working in the USA are in a state of servitude to the IRS. A significant portion of the value we produce is considered the property of the USA, against the wishes of many. Force is used to secure this property.

If you think the words 'slave' or 'slavery' are too emotional, perhaps you would like 'serfdom' or 'servitude' better. 'Imprisonment' would also be nice since if you do not submit to their forced seizure of the fruits of your mind/labor, that is what they do to you.

[tjohnson]

Actually it has several. One of those is:

a state of subjection like that of a slave

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery'>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slavery)

And one of the definitions of slave is:

One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slave)

Persons legally working in the USA are in a state of servitude to the IRS. A significant portion of the value we produce is considered the property of the USA, against the wishes of many. Force is used to secure this property.

If you think the words 'slave' or 'slavery' are too emotional, perhaps you would like 'serfdom' or 'servitude' better. 'Imprisonment' would also be nice since if you do not submit to their forced seizure of the fruits of your mind/labor, that is what they do to you.

A definition of 'slavery' with the word 'slave' in it begs the question. You are not considered property of the IRS or the USA. You can't have high concentrations of humans living in close proximity of each other without having laws. If you break them then you risk imprisonment. I agree there is too much taxation and tremendous waste of money by governments but I hardly would call my situation "slavery". What do you expect?

[georgedonnelly]

What do you expect?

... that force will not be initiated against me. Pretty simple.

[Dragonfly]

The irony is that this use of the word "slavery" is a typical example of what Rand would call an "anti-concept". It is as silly as the slogan "taxation is theft" or as calling an abortion "murder". I suppose Rand dutifully paid her taxes. So Ayn Rand was a slave, right?

[BaalChatzaf]

The irony is that this use of the word "slavery" is a typical example of what Rand would call an "anti-concept". It is as silly as the slogan "taxation is theft" or as calling an abortion "murder". I suppose Rand dutifully paid her taxes. So Ayn Rand was a slave, right?

I define a slave as a person deprived of the fruit of his labor against his will and deprived of the liberty to choose his actions (barring the obvious strictures against murder, fraud and theft). We are deprived of part of our income. We are compelled to perform actions (by law) we otherwise would not consent to and we are prevented (by law) from consuming or using certain items fashion.

Governments squeeze and constrict our lives, limit our choices and steal our money.

Governments do to us things that if done by private parties would be classified as crimes.

Are these "anti-concepts"?

Here is what Pierre Joseph Proudhom has to say about government:

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

Is what he has to say anti-conceptual?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 16, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

I define a slave as a person deprived of the fruit of his labor against his will and deprived of the liberty to choose his actions (barring the obvious strictures against murder, fraud and theft). We are deprived of part of our income. We are compelled to perform actions (by law) we otherwise would not consent to and we are prevented (by law) from consuming or using certain items fashion.

Governments squeeze and constrict our lives, limit our choices and steal our money.

Governments do to us things that if done by private parties would be classified as crimes.

You can define 'slave' however you want to, but if you want to communicate with people it helps to use dictionary definitions so we know where we stand. Of course governments can do things that private citizens can't, how could they function otherwise? Yes, the IRS sneaks into your house and steals your money

[georgedonnelly]

Of course governments can do things that private citizens can't, how could they function otherwise?

[edit: need to rethink my reply]

Edited February 17, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Barbara Branden]

a point of clarification BB: The only thing I am "at someone's throat" about is sjw claiming that AR said Objectivism was a religion. Later he claimed she just implied it. And he refuses to document his claim. I don't take well to people who are fast and loose with the truth.

BB: "Yes, but which pholosophy is it? Your statement is of no assistance in determining whether one is or is not an Objectivist."

Unfortunately it seems we have multiple threads of discussion going on in this forum thread. sjw says Objectivism is a religion. I simplied replied that it was a philosophy, and most definitely NOT a religion.

At no time was I attempting to assist in determining whether one is or is not an Objectivist. I chose not to get involved with UncleJim's points because, while I understand what he was saying, I found it too amorphous to comment on intelligently.

I hope this clears that up for you BB.

[edit: fix typo]

Yes, George, it does clear it up. Thanks.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

A suggestion -- which I don't really expect will be accepted: We are not all great writers, skilled at stating exactly what we wish to convey. Why not try to understand one another's views from an attitude of good will, ask for clarification when we can't be certain we understand, and try to grasp the context from which others speak, instead of gleefullly pouncing on literal words and phrases and commas, many of which are irrelevant to the person's overall thesis? Are we here to understand and perhaps learn, or to score points in a debate?

This emphatically is not addressed to everyone, but if the show fits....

Barbara

[Wolf DeVoon]

Governments do to us things that if done by private parties would be classified as crimes.

You can define 'slave' however you want to, but if you want to communicate with people it helps to use dictionary definitions so we know where we stand. Of course governments can do things that private citizens can't, how could they function otherwise? Yes, the IRS sneaks into your house and steals your money

Got lucky and found an unsecured wireless hub. The tangent on slavery is closely linked to the idea of general consent, mentioned in my initial post. Tom Paine's breakthrough premise was to distinguish government from constitution. A government cannot author or amend its constitution. Only We The People can give our consent to be governed according to the terms of a constitution that creates and binds government to act accordingly. So, the problem of slavery is social, not legal. Personally, I like Hank Rearden's statement of individual rights: If it is now the opinion of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say the public good be damned (or words to that effect; I don't have the text in front of me).

Objectivist philosophy of law was pretty much a blank page 25 years ago, and there's a big gap separating Paine's consent and Hank Rearden's. I welcome others to labor in the field. I did as much as I can, primarily to draw a distinction between ethics and law. The thrust of my initial post hereinabove was ethical ("Please transmit"). It is not legally obligatory. See inter alia Principles of Internet Law and The Rule of Law

W.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon