Defining Anarchy

Peter · January 30, 2010

I should wait for a reply from my last letter, from you Xray, but I will just touch upon some things from your last post. With you only writing five letters a day, I will fill this one up with a lot of stuff.

I wrote:

You are here on OL because you gravitate toward the rational and benevolent.

Xray answered:

What precisely makes you think that?

Well, the opposite would be that you gravitate towards the irrational and misanthropic hatefulness. Or you could be a mixed bag of spiteful contradictions. If so, I would suggest that to you, “All we are is just another brick in the wall. We don’t need your black sarcasm in the classroom. Hey Teacher! Leave those kids alone.”

Wow. That rocked. Let me use some even more insightful psychology on you 8 -) It is snowing pretty hard here, and I have the time. About ten years ago, I got myself recertified to teach grades 5 through 12 in the State of Maryland, but then I did nothing with it. I decided I really did not want to teach again. Perhaps you are like I was, and crave adult discussions after a day of teaching. For a Kindergarten teacher it might be even more crucial to recharge you batteries with adult intellectual stimulation.

Do you, as a teacher, think kids should use a spellchecker and calculators? “Inquiowing” minds, want to know, you wascally wabbit.

I wrote:

Will you give Ayn another chance?

Xray replied:

Should I ever read anything from Rand which changes my opinion of her philosophy, I'll let you know.

End quote

Do you think we are Anarchists? Is that why you answered this Anarchist thread with your “precious, my precious,” five letters per day?

Leonard Piekoff writes in, “Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:”

“If words have to stand for objects in reality, then the only referent of “anarchism” – the only possible political system it designates – is some variant of statism. This is why Objectivism dismisses as foolish the notion that republican government is a “middle of the road” between statism and anarchism. Statism is one extreme; individualism is the other. Anarchism is an unusually senseless form of statism; it is not an extreme of “freedom,” but the negation of the concept.”

end quote

We believe in free will. We are not determinists. Since we are on an Anarchist thread I will quote an Anarchist (AND remember Objectivists are not anarchists). The irony is, most Objectivists would agree with the following from an Anarchist about Determinism:

Rothbard's article, "The Mantle of Science," was published in the anthology *Scientism and Values* (ed. Schoeck and Wiggins, Van Nostrand, 1960).

"If we are determined in the ideas we accept, then X, the determinist, is determined to believe in determinism, while Y, the believer in free will, is also determined to believe in his own doctrine. Since man's mind is, according to determinism, not free to think and come to conclusions about reality, it is absurd for X to try to convince Y or anyone else of the truth of determinism. In short, the determinist must rely, for the spread of his ideas, on the non-determined, free-will choice of others, on their free will to adopt or reject ideas. . . . In fact, if our ideas are determined, then we have no way of freely revising our judgments and of learning truth - whether the truth of determinism or of anything else.

"Thus, the determinist, to advocate his doctrine, must place himself and his theory outside the allegedly universally determined realm, i.e., he must employ free will. This reliance of determinism on its negation is an instance of a wider truth: that it is self-contradictory to use reason in any attempt to deny the validity of reason as a means of attaining knowledge. Such self-contradiction is implicit in such currently fashionable sentiments as 'reason shows us that reason is weak,' or 'the more we know, the more we know how little we know.'" (pp. 161-2)

end quote

While Objectivists might agree that an IQ Test or the SAT’s are a fair predictor of future success, we don’t say that is all there is to a person, because we also know people have the ability to raise and lower their mental level at will. Character matters. Volition matters.

I am perplexed. If you think Rand would be coming to take you away if you were not her “follower” then you know little about Rand. Would you tell me specifically what in her philosophy you disagree with? I am beginning to agree with Michael. You know little about Rand. You refuse to learn anything about Rand. You refuse to think.

Let’s just ask the Wizard for his opinion :

“Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have! But they have one thing you haven't got - a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitatus Committeatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of Th. D...that's Doctor of Thinkology.”

Wow. He gave you a brain. Now that your noggin is workin’ Angela, do you like female writers, and Psychology?

From “Beautiful Lies” by Lisa Unger, page 318 in Vintage Books paperback.

“Carl Jung believed in a shadow self, a dark side to each of us that we learn to hide. Within this darkness dwells our forbidden appetites, our secret beliefs about ourselves and the world around us, the ugly traits and flaws that we hate and seek to bury. But Jung held that there was no denying this part of ourselves, that the more we tried to hide it, pretend it didn’t exist, the more audaciously the universe would conspire to reveal it. He maintained that this shadow craved more than anything to be recognized and embraced. Only when we have forgiven it can we truly be whole, truly be free.”

And for some feminine inspiration from the same book, page 249.

“When you start to really know someone, all his physical characteristics start to disappear. You begin to dwell in his energy, recognize the scent of his skin. You see only the essence of the person, not the shell. That’s why you can’t fall in love with beauty. You can lust after it, be infatuated by it, want to own it. You can love it with your eyes and your body but not your heart. And that’s why, when you really connect with a person’s inner self, any physical imperfections disappear, become irrelevant.”

End quote

Do you like Star Trek TNG? A lot of Objectivists do.

Guinan: It's an earth drink... prune juice.

Lieutenant Worf: A warrior's drink!

Guinan: [on seeing the anomaly] No...!

Guinan: Every fiber in my being says this is a mistake. I can't explain it to myself, so I can't explain it to you. I only know that I'm right.

Capt. Picard: You must have some idea how things have changed.

Guinan: I look at things, I look at people, and... they just don't feel right.

Capt. Picard: What things? What people?

Guinan: You. Your uniform... the bridge...

Capt. Picard: What's the matter with the bridge?

Guinan: It's not right!

Capt. Picard: It's the same bridge. Nothing has changed.

Guinan: I know that. I also know it's wrong.

Capt. Picard: [sighs] What else?

Guinan: Families. There should be children on this ship.

Capt. Picard: What? Children on the Enterprise? Guinan, we're at war!

Guinan: No we're not. At least we're not... supposed to be. This is not a ship of war. This is a ship of peace.

Capt. Picard: [ponders about this] What're you suggesting?

Guinan: I'm not suggesting. That ship from the past is not supposed to be here. It's got to go back!

I am running out of steam. Obviously this letter is in jest. If you prefer, there is not need to answer.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Edited January 30, 2010 by Peter Taylor

Xray · January 31, 2010

I am trying to figure out what YOU THINK she would have done about IT.

Basically, it's politics as usual. Rand has already demonstrated that by her past involvement in politics. I think she would have followed her beliefs; mainly that value is objective with a one-size-fits-all attitude.

Would you say that freedom is simply a matter of the absence of initiation of force and coercion? Individualism and freedom is simply a matter to leaving each to his own as long as initiation of force and/coercion is left out. Agree? If not, why not?

If a person is actually an advocate of individualism and freedom, all non invasive choices are left up to each individual in regard to personal preferences making up a life style. As long as there is no imposing, it's nobody's business what those choice are. Right?

If this is the case, and individualism and freedom is butt out of individua personal business, what Rand's "rational values" and "life proper to man" stuff all about. Laying out directives for another or other individuals'lives doesn't look individualism to me. Perhaps, you would care to try to reconcile a claim to advocate individualism while presuming to determine their "rational values" and "life proper to man."

"Man" is an all-inclusive category encompassing literally every individual. What I'm asking is how do you get around the contradiction of individual personal valuations negated by the idea of "universal values" as in "life proper to man?"

They are opposites concepts and simply will not and cannot mesh. Do you think that just because some words are spoken or written magically turns this contradiction into reality?

'Non-imposing' equates with individualism, freedom, peace, and free market. Without the first, the others cannot exist no matter what the word game rhetoric of denial.

"If" an individual prefers freedom, peace, and free market, "then", the only means suited is non initiation of force and non coercion. There is no need for any "morality" spiel. It's all a matter of subjective personal preference and means to achieve the goal.

What more is there to say? Rand had plenty to say about how all "ought" to live their lives. In other words, she proposes to go both ways. While she pays lip service to individualism, her directive ideas go into the opposite direction.

Individualism is all about tolerance of non-imposing choices and actions. Did Rand adhere to this idea? To the contrary. What we see in practice illustrating her actual philosophy is that her intolerance of disagreeing opinion and personal valuations alienated nearly all her close associates.

To imagine she believed one philosophy, but practiced another is a contradiction denying natural law.

When there is a conflict between words and action, look to the actions to tell the truth every time.

There is much talk about Rand's "precise definitions" and "clear presentations". Yet, the divisions within the Rand camp tell a different story. Apparently, there are several versions of the "precise definitions" and "clear presentations." This doesn't happen by "precise definitions" and clear presentations."

It happens by individual emotional "interpretations" of what "Rand meant". In other words, it's the same old argument over "the true religion."

The question that always looms large in any and every proposal is: How is this going to work in practice? We know how it worked in Rand's own life.

More in the next few days.

End quote

No rush. Let me recover from this dental procedure.

Peter

Steve Gagne · February 1, 2010

I think that the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist claims fail on one essential point. They seem to think that if you don't have a formal institutionalized system that calls itself government, you don't have a government.
I think that even with a system of multiple individual defense agencies, arbitrators, etc. you would have government--it would operate informally, and would consist of all those agencies, arbitrators, etc.
The purpose of government is protect individuals from aggression and coercion. Whatever does that in the society you set up would be the government, regardless of the formalities.
And that leaves aside the assumption that free market competition would be in and of itself the only thing needed to keep those private agencies honest, which ignores the problem of 'who guards the guards?' If you want to defend against aggression, you have to make sure that your defenders decide to do some aggression against you.
Jeffrey S.
PS--Biblical Israel before the Monarchical period was not a capitalist anarchy; it was ruled by a system of tribal elders, prophets and priests and the Judges of the Bible, who once they were recognized as "Judges" tended to hold a position of authority for the rest of their lives.

Jeffrey

I agree with your idea concerning government being "informal" in decentralized societies. Regarding "who guards the guards", this must become the crux of the argument when the anthropological etiology of government is ignored. It is irrelevant, though, when the human purpose of government is studied:

Every institution of civilization owes its existence to being a specialized extension of the basic nuclear family, which is based on one man and one woman, with whatever posterity they might bring into the world. If that family goes, so does everything else. What do you then have left? A Brave New World of government-mandated cloning stations and genetically-engineered castes? Is that kind of pre-programmed, sub-human existence your idea of an "ideal"? If you deconstruct marriage as the union and responsibility that it is, and view it only as the "right" to get your rocks off, then you are left with nothing but a society of masturbating, narcissistic, isolated, atomistic eunuchs, without the spiritual privacy, partnership, and strength, in short, without the balls it takes to withstand the corruption of the world, a society that is easily misled into slavery and misery. It isn't like history, or reality for that matter, has left you with too many other choices....
In a state of nature, if a child is born and the mother cuts out, her child will most likely die. So she must stay and care for the child, else (by the cycle of sevens) there would soon be no human race. But in the state of nature, that single woman with an infant typically is not a sustainable economic unit. So the provider -- the father -- must also stay to be the support for both, else, again, there would soon be no human race. So life is maintained. But in the state of nature, there is no reason for the provider to enslave himself, supporting children who are not his own, as would be expected from even a rudimentary concept of freedom. Therefore the birth of the family, where the man willingly supported his own children, claiming them as his own, through the exclusivity of his relationship with the woman, i.e., a marriage. (I'm not even going to get into complementarity here.) With the development of these rudimentary concepts of property, it then extended to the first institutions external to the nuclear family, which provided for conflict resolution in the first "inheritances". So here we have the natural law principles of LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY; anybody speaking against the traditional nuclear family is speaking against these fundamental principles. All else, including "rights", "justice", "mercy", or the "pursuit of happiness", are necessarily subsidiary considerations.

All institutions are extensions of the family, and if derived from any other source, are nothing more than a floating abstraction used to justify the actions of "the bullies".

And regarding pre-monarchical Israel, please note that I spoke to, not only its existence, but to its rise and fall. During that time, there was a generally-agreed-upon monetary standard, no police, no legislators, no standing army, but generally there was freedom, peace, private property, and prosperity. The problems that ended this era arose when "public opinion polls" revealed that "the people" were not satisfied with the informal, decentralized system that had been in place previously, demanding that the prophet-judge Samuel "make us a king to judge us like all the nations":

It came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations."
But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them." (I Samuel 8:1-9)

So that is exactly what Samuel did, but not without warning the people about what the cost of a centralized force would be:

Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said,
"This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you:
He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day."
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, "Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king." And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, "Go ye every man unto his city." (I Samuel 8:10-22)

Conscription, confiscatory taxation, slavery, and no moral sanction to reject it. This, then, is the "promise" of any centralized government, no matter what proposition or pretense is used to justify its formation.

steve

Xray · February 1, 2010

Oh, all right. History. I am in a BB mood. Doesn’t Ariana sound like Xray?
From: BBfromM@aol.com
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: Re "Analytical Philosophy"
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 01:51:09 EST
Ariana wrote, about the Sophists:
<< Ayn Rand and others have lamely IGNORED these word (and world) destroyers -- and silence here implies consent. >>

I get the impression that you erroneously believe I'm "Ariana", but I have no idea what that discussion was about. Where are these quotes from? A forum? A blog? An email exchange? Could you please give a link so I can read it all to get the picture.

PT:President Newt Gingrich has slashed every law and regulation proclaimed through Presidential edict....

Hold the phone! How about a rewind with an explanation of how "President Newt Gingrich" came to be in this exalted position with all the "authority" to slash and burn.

Is this a script for an off Broadway play? Never mind the theatrics, what do you have for answer to the question: How is this going to work in practice in the real world? That's all I'm asking.

He surpassed former President Reagan's forty thousand deletions, by another one hundred thousand deletions of unnecessary red tape. Within ninety days of President Gingrich's swearing in, Congress has enacted sunset laws on all taxation, The Supreme Court has affirmed the opinion of Rand vs.The Government of the United States, that neither the President nor The Congress can exceed their strictly defined duties as enumerated in the Constitution.

Responding to this fantasy in a effort to bring things down to earth, tell me the precise route by which this "Constitution" came into being. Did it just fall out of the sky? Did some person, or persons, create it? Merlin the magician?

What are these "strictly defined duties?" Who or what came up with these? Where did all this "authority" come from? As for "The Supreme Court", same questions. Also, if affirmation by "The Supreme Court" is the law, what's all the other trappings about?

Unless you can produce a magic wand mysteriously creating your twilight zone governmental system, there has to be a process involving causal actors.

Why is it you give no information about either?

In his first State of The Union Message President Gingrich said, "The People are my boss......"

Another problem. There is no such entity as "people." "People" is a subjective category. Are you suggesting a "collective mind"? No? What about "Democracy?" Is that what you have in mind? At radical level, doesn't this come down to "two must be right" and one must be wrong? Where's the individualism in this?

I guess this takes us to Rand's ideas on voting:

"Voting

The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system — and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters' power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny" .(AR)

Here we are at the constitutional thing again with the same questions. Is she advocating democracy or not? If "voting" is THE POWER, who or what limits it? A little bit of "majority rule is ok, and some "majority rule" is not. Specifics including examples, please. Tell me about this "standard" by which some "majority rule" is ok, too much "majority rule" is "tyranny"?

I'm really interested in this revered "constitution". Origin is of primary interest. How did it come into being independently of initiation of force and/or coercion?

How does this piece of paper with some words on it become master of all including its creators independently of initiation of force and/or coercion?

Our constitutional government is there to protect individual rights.....

Gee that sounds familiar. This constitution thing, where did it come from? Again, let's rewind and you tell me all about the arrival of this constitution and all its magical powers to insure peace, tranquility and all that kind of stuff.

The President surrounds himself with talented people. His closest advisor is Ayn Rand. Rand is primarily a philosopher but is happy to be there for her adopted country.

Oh my, the Founding Mother has been reduced to "advisor"? I can't see Rand going for that.

"What Rand will do is advise. She will work on systems of voluntary taxation....

Oh, what kindness of words to allow for such contradictions unhampered by the real world. What is her next project: The Department Of "A Little Bit Dead", or a "Bureau Of Partially Pregnant?" Please explain. Can't wait to hear how "voluntary taxation" works.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Xray

Peter · February 2, 2010

Cosmic Ray wrote:

Oh, what kindness of words to allow for such contradictions unhampered by the real world. What is her next project: The Department Of "A Little Bit Dead", or a "Bureau Of Partially Pregnant?" Please explain. I am fascinated about how "voluntary taxation" works.

end quote

Sorry. Can't help you.

Peter

Selene · February 2, 2010

Cosmic Ray wrote:
Oh, what kindness of words to allow for such contradictions unhampered by the real world. What is her next project: The Department Of "A Little Bit Dead", or a "Bureau Of Partially Pregnant?" Please explain. I am fascinated about how "voluntary taxation" works.
end quote
Sorry. Can't help you.
Peter

Peter:

No one can help her. I want to donate her back to the Catholics for a martyr to be named later.

Adam

little baseball humor there

Michael Stuart Kelly · February 2, 2010

Sorry. Can't help you.

LOLOLOLOL...

I almost fell off my chair laughing.

God, I wish I had said that to Ms. Xray ages ago...

Michael

Xray · February 5, 2010

[All quotes: Peter Taylor]

Wow. He gave you a brain. Now that your noggin is workin’ Angela, do you like female writers ...?

This question makes about as much sense as asking me if like male writers. I don't think categorizing makes any sense here.

And for some feminine inspiration from the same book, page 249.
“When you start to really know someone, all his physical characteristics start to disappear. You begin to dwell in his energy, recognize the scent of his skin. You see only the essence of the person, not the shell. That’s why you can’t fall in love with beauty. You can lust after it, be infatuated by it, want to own it. You can love it with your eyes and your body but not your heart. And that’s why, when you really connect with a person’s inner self, any physical imperfections disappear, become irrelevant.”
End quote

Your point being? I fail to see the connection to the discussion.

The same goes for the following quote:

Do you like Star Trek TNG? A lot of Objectivists do.
Guinan: It's an earth drink... prune juice.
Lieutenant Worf: A warrior's drink!
....

No, I don't like Star Trek, since my interest in science fiction is zero. Again, your point being?

[Xray]: I am fascinated about how "voluntary taxation" works.
PT: Sorry. Can't help you.

So you obviously can't explain how a "voluntary" taxation works. Nor can I. How many do you think would pay taxes if it were voluntary? Would you pay?

Xray wrote:
"Man" is an all-inclusive category encompassing literally every individual.
What I'm asking is how do you get around the contradiction of individual personal valuations negated by the idea of "universal values" as in "life proper to man? They are opposites concepts and simply will not and cannot mesh. Do you
think that just because some words are spoken or written magically turns
this contradiction into reality?"[ (end quote)
PT: Yawn. You want me to explain "The Virtue of Selfishness," to you? No thanks.

Never mind your emotional "interpretation" of the confused book. What I'm asking is how do you get around the contradiction of individual personal valuations negated by the idea of "universal values" as in "life proper to man"?

First you know nothing, and now you know Randian History?

As far as Randian history, much is a matter of record including her campaigning for certain politicians as well as public appearances promoting her own political agenda of "objective value."

It took me a while, and I had to insert some words, but I think I know whatyou mean. Rand said you are free to do as you wish as long as you abide by the NIOF principle, but at the same time she never failed to pass moral judgment on other people, or in other words, Legal does not equal Moral. Oh,come on. Everybody, knows somebody they don't like, without calling 911.

Individualism and "ought" are mutually exclusive.

And with Rand, imo there would only have been a small step going from ought to action: take a look at how she justified her fictional heroes' actions lke e. g. Roark dynamiting the building.

The argument that it is "only" a work of fiction is refuted by Rand herself whose own words we have: "I mean it." (see afterword of AS). So she was clear as a bell regarding the messages given in her novels: She meant it.

Xray: Individualism is all about tolerance of non-imposing choices and actions. Did Rand adhere to this idea? To the contrary.

PT: Sure she did. She may not have liked nattering, but as long as you chose to
natter you were free to natter. She just did not need to sit there listening to you natter."

Sure, it was her "tolerance" of differing opinion that resulted in her followers being chastised for disagreement of Rand's personal values. Of course, it was her "tolerance" that resulted in driving away all her associates except the faithful Peikoff.

Peikoff is often harshly criticized by other Objectvists, but who says Rand would not applaud Peikoff behaving as he does if she could see how things are going today? Who says she would not praise him as the preserver of the unaltered Objectvist dogma?

I believe Rand knew exactly what she was doing when selecting LP as her intellectual "heir". For this was the kindred spirit who would fight tooth and nail to preseve the guru's mental heritage and do everything to keep her image from being tainted. For example by books daring to criticize her (see the current debates about A. Heller's book, where Peikoff denied Heller access to info).

Rand speaks about "implementing a society's basic principles".

What does Rand have to say about "society?"

"Society is a large number of men who live together in the same country, and who deal with one another." (Rand)

Actually, the term, society, denotes interpersonal relationships as opposed to each individual living in isolation. In any event, if society is about relationships, then the same term cannot logically denote an entity. Ergo, there can be no "society's basic principles."

"Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members." (Rand)

Rand criticizes collectvists while doing the same as the collectivists by speaking of "society's basic principles".

Edited February 5, 2010 by Xray

Selene · February 5, 2010

Ms. Xray:

Sure, it was her "tolerance" of differing opinion that resulted in her followers being chastised for disagreement of Rand's personal values. Of course, it was her "tolerance" that resulted in driving away all her associates except the faithful Peikoff.
Peikoff is often harshly criticized by other Objectvists [Objectivists] sic, but who says Rand would not applaud Peikoff behaving as he does if she could see how things are going today? Who says she would not praise him as the preserver of the unaltered Objectvist [Objectivist] sic dogma?

You seem to be just as intolerant, isolated and dogmatic as you accuse her of being.

Now I understand why you came to OL.

Adam

feeling much better about Ms. Xray's participation on OL at least she sees Piekoff as the faithful dog.

Brant Gaede · February 5, 2010

Xray, by not making proper citations you spike the value of what you write qua scholarship. "Rand" is not a proper citation. VOS p. 24 or CUI p. 101 are adequate. Suppose someone is researching Objectivism a few years from now and comes across your postings on OL and is interested in your arguments but sees all your inadequate citations which would make his own research a tedious bore to follow up on or verify. After ascertaining you have no testimony to offer--just a bunch of arguments--he'll just write you off and make more productive use of his time.

Anybody can slice and dice Rand into little pieces and make a personal feast of homemade gruel. The problem with that is it has little or no effect on her ideas, life work and influence. If you can't find value there others will. That's the point: are you constructive or destructive? There is, of course, creative destruction, but the guys who flew the airplanes into the WTC towers weren't about that.

--Brant

Edited February 5, 2010 by Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede · February 5, 2010

Ms. Xray:
Sure, it was her "tolerance" of differing opinion that resulted in her followers being chastised for disagreement of Rand's personal values. Of course, it was her "tolerance" that resulted in driving away all her associates except the faithful Peikoff.
Peikoff is often harshly criticized by other Objectvists [Objectivists] sic, but who says Rand would not applaud Peikoff behaving as he does if she could see how things are going today? Who says she would not praise him as the preserver of the unaltered Objectvist [Objectivist] sic dogma?
You seem to be just as intolerant, isolated and dogmatic as you accuse her of being.
Now I understand why you came to OL.
Adam
feeling much better about Ms. Xray's participation on OL at least she sees Piekoff as the faithful dog.

As soon as Rand saw what Peikoff did to Atlas Shrugged by writing an Introduction to it, the "intellectual heir" would be out on his ear.

--Brant

Selene · February 5, 2010

Ahh...wow, that took all of 22 seconds...

"Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members."

“Collectivized ‘Rights,’” The Virtue of Selfishness, 103

Adam

trying to help the little girl

Peter · February 5, 2010

Xray wrote:

So you obviously can't explain how a "voluntary" taxation works. Nor can I. How many do you think would pay taxes if it were voluntary? Would you pay?

End quote

Good question, Angela.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing—how to determine the best means of applying it in practice—is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

End quote

I doubt that the Federal Government could exist on the voluntary system Rand promoted in an emergency, or war. She places voluntary taxation as one of the last ideals to be implemented once government is shrunk to its proper size. I see a "fully free society" as Utopian.

I do NOT see taxation as immoral, until the state withers away. That’s meant as a joke. It won’t. Joking aside, avoiding excess taxation is moral while evading taxation is not, because the consent of the governed is implied if you continue to live in this geographical area. Cough up your fair share of taxes to pay for the government that protects your rights, or immigrate to Somalia or Darfur.

However Rand definitely wanted taxation kept to a minimum. How to do that? Rand had the idea of legal paper. Legal paper is government stamped paper that entitles the document to be used in a civil suit. Essentially it is paying for the services of the courts. Originally Ayn estimated the price would be around a penny a copy (times billions of documents.) But with inflation I would now say 10 cents a page, or more. The paper would have a watermark from the paper mill, so when you bought a ream of “legal” paper you would pay for it by paying the paper mill, or vendor. Or you could hike the per-page price for quicker access to the courts.

If a contract was not written on legal paper, then you could not address the courts for redress. Hand shake deals work all the time, and there is also contractually agreed arbitration, as in Baseball, so a person does have alternatives to the courts.

However, war bonds, savings bonds, etc., added to paying for other services, and a national lottery, could keep mandatory taxation to a minimum. Could we have defeated the world domination of Hitler or The Soviet Union without mandatory taxation? No.

Toll roads would work. Free market space exploration could work.

Paying for services is an ideal, but I see problems with police departments and the military too. What if a person did not pay their FBI or local police department tax, and their rights were violated?

Does this open the door for competing defense agencies that may not uphold the Constitution? No. Would a cop ignore a crime if it were committed upon a person who did not pay the police tax? No. And how would the cop know you didn’t pay anyway? The imponderables with a voluntary police tax, also moves the idea into the Utopian range.

I think I am talking to a troll. You sound like Mr. Selene. Xray are you an anarchist? I guess your answer will tell.

Peter

Peter · February 5, 2010

"Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members." (Rand)

I don’t know that quote. Where did it come from? The terminology “some supernatural entity” does not sound like Rand.

Ah ha. Adam says, after 22 seconds of research, that it was Rand. Adam is Xray. You are not trustworthy Adam.

Anyway, Xray responded to the above quote:

Rand criticizes collectivists while doing the same as the collectivists when she speaks of "society's basic principles" and "life proper to man."

You are equating her opinion of you, and her idea of a good life, with a collectivist holding a gun to your head. Your association with Rand is voluntary. Your association with Stalin, Mao, or Hitler would not be voluntary. Rand built no Berlin Wall keeping you in.

The gulf between voluntary association and servitude is vast. Are you somehow equating an Objectivist’s “cult mentality” with a totalitarian’s threat of death?

From the Review

The Ayn Rand Cult,

by Jeff Walker.

Open Court, 1999, xvii + 396 pages.

Ayn Rant

R.W. Bradford

If there ever was any doubt that the movement that Nathaniel Branden built around Ayn Rand was a cult, it was removed by the publication of Nathaniel Branden's Judgment Day (1989). In this basically sympathetic portrait of Rand and those around her, one can see ample characteristics of a cult: the beliefs that "Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who ever lived, . . . Atlas Shrugged [Rand's masterwork] is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world, . . . that Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius is the supreme arbiter of any issue . . . no one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue . . . since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her 'intellectual heir,' and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself . . ." (Judgment Day, pp 258-9).

End quote

Wow. Nathan was her intellectual heir, like Leonard.

Wayne in “Wayne’s World” said:

“I’m not worthy!”

Perhaps I am giving Xray too much credit.

Well. Cults did exist. Here is my first hand experience with one.

I remember a day in the late sixties in the San Francisco Bay Area. I went to an Objectivist conference in San Francisco. I was there about an hour early, and some time before the conference, a personal (female) acquaintance, whispered to me.

Those women are coming.

Who? What women?

The Lesbian Alliance.

Oh. The commune?

Yeah.

And then they entered. First one women, acting like the secret service, scouting the territory for threats, then more. Then, a hyper alert bunch of them. Watching. Missing nothing. And finally the queen, in a cape, looking and acting like Ayn Rand, I kid you not. She was impressive, like a goddess. A bit heavier than Ayn but it could have been her.

I had to see this for myself. I stealthily crept closer. The whole gaggle were on some drugs. The pupils of their eyes were huge. I mean the black portion seemed to fill up their eyes. They were constantly quoting Rand verbatim.

That’s weird, Man., I thought.

I went back to my female friend. What are they on?

The same as Ayn.

Later I found out Ayn was on uppers and downers simultaneously, though some say just dexies.

Weird, Man. They scared me, and I was invincible.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Xray · February 6, 2010

[All quotes: Peter Taylor]

I think I am talking to a troll. You sound like Mr. Selene.

Lol, I suppose Mr. Selene will pass out when he reads that. Priceless!

"Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members." (Rand)
I don’t know that quote. Where did it come from? The terminology “some supernatural entity” does not sound like Rand.
Ah ha. Adam says, after 22 seconds of research, that it was Rand. Adam is Xray. You are not trustworthy Adam.

So Adam is Xray, you say. I'm sure the signore has passed out in this little cyber ring by now. That comparison was too much of a shock for him, Peter. Please get a wet towel, some smelling salt and and try to put him on his feet again. Tell him everything will be okay and try to calm him down. He has no thermostat, you know. We have his own words on that. ;)

Anyway, Xray responded to the above quote:
Rand criticizes collectivists while doing the same as the collectivists when she speaks of "society's basic principles" and "life proper to man."
You are equating her opinion of you, and her idea of a good life, with a collectivist holding a gun to your head. Your association with Rand is voluntary. Your association with Stalin, Mao, or Hitler would not be voluntary. Rand built no Berlin Wall keeping you in.

There were more than enough who voluntarily associated themselves with Stalin, Mao or Hitler.

As for Rand, since she did not have the political power to put her ides in practice, we can't have any record of her acts in that field. But what is recorded is the way she dealt with people whose opinions did not match her own.

The gulf between voluntary association and servitude is vast.

Not always. For example, there exists voluntariy assocation into servitude by all those who uncritically run after a guru, giving up their own independent thinking. The world is full of cult leaders thriving on their followers' voluntary servitude.

Are you somehow equating an Objectivist’s “cult mentality” with a totalitarian’s threat of death?

It doesn't always take threats of death to keep followers in line or to 'take revenge' on those who have fallen from the guru's grace. Rand's trying to take revenge on N. Branden is just one example.

Wow. Nathan was her intellectual heir, like Leonard.

Until his fall from grace, yes.

Well. Cults did exist. Here is my first hand experience with one.
I remember a day in the late sixties in the San Francisco Bay Area. I went to an Objectivist conference in San Francisco. I was there about an hour early, and some time before the conference, a personal (female) acquaintance, whispered to me.
Those women are coming.
Who? What women?
The Lesbian Alliance.
Oh. The commune?
Yeah.
And then they entered. First one women, acting like the secret service, scouting the territory for threats, then more. Then, a hyper alert bunch of them. Watching. Missing nothing. And finally the queen, in a cape, looking and acting like Ayn Rand, I kid you not. She was impressive, like a goddess. A bit heavier than Ayn but it could have been her.
I had to see this for myself. I stealthily crept closer. The whole gaggle were on some drugs. The pupils of their eyes were huge. I mean the black portion seemed to fill up their eyes. They were constantly quoting Rand verbatim.

I'm trying to visualize it - you must have crept very close to see those dilated pupils, and also must have looked them directly in the eyes. Didn't they wonder what you were doing?

That’s weird, Man., I thought.

Maybe they thought the same of you too? Creeping up so close?

I went back to my female friend. What are they on?
The same as Ayn.

Was "The same as Ayn" the answer your friend gave you?

Edited February 6, 2010 by Xray

Peter · February 6, 2010

Xray wrote:

As for Rand, since she did not have the political power to put her ideas in practice, we can't have any record of her acts in that field. But what is recorded is the way she dealt with opinions not matching her own.

end quote

Her ideas were brilliant. SHE DID NOT SEEK POLITICAL POWER. Her ideas should have been put into practice. Her opinions were her ideas. Another person’s ideas are not forced on you unless you live in a totalitarian state. If you accept her ideas, and make them your own, this is a voluntary action. I never knew Ayn to hypnotize anyone.

Which of her ideas? I want to know. In "Brief Summary" (1971), Rand said:

"If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This--the supremacy of reason--was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism."

In 1962, in her column "Introducing Objectivism," Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own ~rational~ self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is ~laissez-faire~ capitalism. it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as ~traders~, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. it is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and ~no man may initiate the use of physical force against others~. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ~only~ in retaliation and ~only~ against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

End quote

I expect intellectually honesty in the people I converse with Xray. What ideas of Rand’s are you talking about?

And will you get off this “psychology is initiating force” idiocy? She shunned people who she felt were willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest. So do I. So if I share her response to shun dishonest behavior, how does that make me power mad? If I had “THE POWER” what do you think I or Ayn would do? Really have a snit or a conniption fit?

I wrote:

The gulf between voluntary association and servitude is vast.

Xray answered:

It doesn't always take threats of death to keep followers in line or to 'take revenge' on those who have fallen from the guru's grace. Rand's trying to take revenge on N. Branden is just one example. Until his fall from grace, yes.

Did Nathan’s balls shrivel and fall off? A curse is powerful only to the simple minded.

Xray wrote:

I'm trying to visualize it - you must have crept very close to see those dilated pupils, and also must have looked them directly in the eyes. Didn't they wonder what you were doing there?

end quote

They acted like the Queen Rand look-alike was a huge celebrity. It was many years ago. I wish I had written down what I saw in a diary, but I remember it was in a nice downtown SF hotel. They interrupted a person speaking. One of them said something loudly, just before SHE made her entrance. The young guard I moved in on was very pretty. I felt a sense of loss. She acted a bit scared, then angry, and turned away to look back. I am sure she wondered what I was doing, but needed to follow her Mistress’s entrance into the hotel lobby. They lived on the other side of the bay around Berkeley, I think.

Xray wrote:

Maybe they thought the same of you too? Creeping up so close?

end quote

A flash of annoyance and jealousy may have flashed across the Queen’s face. She smelled like incense. I was deliberately provocative, blocked their way, and made the entourage turn left. I was pissed. Impersonating Rand! And I knew I would never have the pretty “Guard.”

Xray wrote:

Was "The same as Ayn" the answer your friend gave you?

End quote

That may have been a composite answer, as we discussed the phenomena we saw, for about a half an hour afterwards. But yes, that was the essence. I don’t think I knew Ayn took any medicines before that discussion.

I have tried to confirm who the identity of the lady I was with. I don’t remember her name. We may have seen each other for a couple of months, periodically. She may have known Leonard Peikoff, but no one who might know, will tell me. Another time, she and I were sitting at an Obj. club meeting, and someone who I think was Leonard, came in and whispered in her ear. At the time, I may have known Leonard as an associate of Ayn, and in my memory it could have been him, and I was not impressed with his bearing. His eyes were pinpricks when he looked at me. (My Dad always told me to look a person in the eye, and have a hearty, hand shake grip ready.)

Wow. Memory lane photographs fade with time.

We are snowed in. Our power was off for nearly twelve hours.

Peter

Selene · February 7, 2010

Peter:

Twelve hours. Hmm, where is that emergency generator soldier?

Ms. Xray will be very happy that the evil productive Americans had their carbon footprint reduced by the global warming.

Next she will go for your hamburgers, chicken and heaven forbid that you might possess a fur hat!

She is a member of PETA.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you do notice that she will not answer any questions. But she can tell you give you this great example of fire...and water.... and a house and ...

I think she secretly wants to be the lonely farmer's daughter who is ravaged by Howard Roark while he is selling her father a Fuller Brush.

By the way, did you notice how she was attempting to fit you into the evil stalking male model that is so popular amongst the cultured European class of effete intellectuals.

I believe they are the first to go when the marxists or the Islamists take over Europe.

Adam

Edited February 7, 2010 by Selene

Christopher · February 7, 2010

This was an interesting thread for awhile, but you guys let Xray hijack it (i.e. you responded to her posts). Sad

Selene · February 7, 2010

This was an interesting thread for awhile, but you guys let Xray hijack it (i.e. you responded to her posts). Sad

Easy Chris:

Peter Taylor got engaged like a lot of folks by Ms. Xray.

We will get back to the issue once Peter, being a Randian, sees one of Ms. Xray's real intentions and does not engage her as many before him have decided.

I enjoy the banter, but then again I will argue about almost anything. To me it is mental gymnastics at one level. I rarely take the argument personally, but occassionally I do.

I detest what Ms. Xray represents as "goodness" or "education". Moreover, her intentional misrepresentations of statements seriously delimits her credibility for me.

Adam

GO COLTS

Kickoff in less than two hours - ahh I love the smell of violence at the Superbowl!

and the WHO performing

Edited February 7, 2010 by Selene

Defining Anarchy

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in