What's Happening?

[Selene]

Peter:

Good - Now put the Free Range Anarchist in the same junk pile.

Adam

[Peter]

Msk wrote:

If a person excludes biology from ethics, he cannot claim his ethical theory is based on human nature . . . That is, unless he wants to claim that biology has nothing to do with human nature. And in that case, I would have no way to communicate since I don't understand that language . . . In short, I don't agree that ethics (a code of values for humans) should exclude human nature.

end quote

I agree. I would never say that, but Anarchists continually imagine mythical beings who are all rational, all the time, and never do anything stupid. I am a long way from being a Determinist, but I think we volitional humans have the capacity for the infinite expansion of our knowledge. We have the capacity to be rational and we have the capacity to be venal. Certain propensities may be hard wired into us. Sexuality may be one such propensity. I would like to hear what others think of our “hardwired natures.” What is innate and what is learned?

No one disagrees with the idea of “reflexes.” I had the following letter in my archives, labeled reflexes, but it did not show the author. If I had to guess it was either Bill Dwyer or Roger Bissell.

Start of letter:

Jeff, with all due respect, the philosophical explanation you offer that these behaviors are "choices" is not very plausible. You see, the infant, ALL infants at BIRTH (unless they have neurological damage) elicit these behaviors given a particular stimulus. They are called reflexes because of the consistent stimulus-response pattern and that the infant has not had the opportunity to learn them, and what's more, most of these reflexes DISAPPEAR as the infant ages.

You'd think that if the behavior were chosen, the infant would behave differently from time to time given a particular response. The baby does not. The reflex is consistent, depending on the stimulus. You'd also think that if the behavior was chosen, it could be performed at any age, but as noted, most of the reflexes disappear in time. The proof? Here is a list of reflexes, some observed as early as 1965. [source: Child Development, 1997, 4th Ed., Laura E. Berk]

Legend: Reflex--Stimulation--Response--Age of disappearance--Function

Rooting--Stroke cheek near corner of mouth--Head turns toward source of stimulation--3 weeks (becomes voluntary head turning at 3 weeks)--Helps infant find nipple. [Note that in making this observation, voluntary behaviors are distinguished from reflexive.]

Sucking--Place finger in infant's mouth--Infant sucks finger rhythmically--Permanent--Permits feeding.

Swimming--Place infant face down in water--Baby paddles and kicks in swimming motion--4-6 months--Helps infant survive if dropped in a body of water.

Eye blink--Shine bright light at eyes or clap hand near head--Infant quickly closes eyelids--permanent--Protects infant from strong stimulation.

Withdrawal--Prick sole of foot with pin--Foot withdraws, with flexion of knee and hip--Weakens after 10 days--Protects infant from unpleasant tactile stimulation

Babinski (my favorite)--Stroke sole of foot from toe toward heel--Toes fan out and curl as foot twists in--8-12 months--Unknown!

Moro--Hold infant horizontally on back and let head drop slightly, or produce a sudden loud sound against surface supporting infant--Infant makes an "embracing" motion by arching back, extending legs, throwing arms outward, and then bringing them in toward body--6 months--In evolutionary past, may have helped infant cling to mother.

Palmar grasp (something I observed as a young child when interacting with infants)--Place finger in infant's hand and press against palm—Spontaneous grasp of adult's finger--3-4 months--Prepares infant for voluntary grasping.

Stepping--Hold infant under arms and permit bare feet to touch flat surface--Infant lifts one foot after another in stepping response—2 months--Prepares infant for voluntary walking.

[Peter]

7 of 9th Doctor wrote:

"What's the deal with slapping someone with a fish? Seems there's got to be a deeper meaning to it that I'm missing."

Monte Python never misses. The fish slap is either from The Bible, or Warner Brothers.

Your picture makes me unconfortable. You look like a maniac, or someone who is ejaculating in public. Change your picture to a nice smiling photo, suit and tie optional, or to a cat.

Peter

[Selene]

7 of 9th Doctor wrote:

"What's the deal with slapping someone with a fish? Seems there's got to be a deeper meaning to it that I'm missing."

Monte Python never misses. The fish slap is either from The Bible, or Warner Brothers.

Your picture makes me unconfortable. You look like a maniac, or someone who is ejaculating in public. Change your picture to a nice smiling photo, suit and tie optional, or to a cat.

Peter

Change your photo - stop being a pussy!

[George H. Smith]

Peter:

Good - Now put the Free Range Anarchist in the same junk pile.

Adam

I have read dozens of Peter's screeds against anarchism, and in not one of them did I find anything approaching a serious attempt to deal with the essential philosophical issues that divide libertarian minarchists and anarchists.

Peter is probably the most anti-intellectual "Objectivist" that I have ever encountered -- and I have encountered quite a few. His contempt for philosophical reasoning has manifested itself time and again in a manner that reminds me of James Taggart's opening lines in Atlas Shrugged, with this slight difference: "Don't bother me with philosophical arguments, don't bother me, don't bother me."

Peter has pronounced anarchism impractical, while peppering this grand declaration with sweeping historical generalizations drawn from a reservoir of historical knowledge that wouldn't fill a thimble -- and that's all that he needs to know.

To make matters worse, Peter gorges himself at the table of Ayn Rand's philosophy, selectively eating anything that appeals to him but only half-digesting it (and that may be overstating the case). Thus, if he disagrees with you, he will accuse you of using "floating abstractions" instead of dealing with your arguments.

In all honesty, if I were a Randian minarchist I would be acutely embarrassed by Peter's theatrics. I would fervently hope that he converts to anarchism so he could discredit that position, instead of giving the misleading impression that defenders of minarchism are dolts, which most of them are not. (To be fair, I should note that there are some dolts among the defenders of anarchism as well.)

One more thing: If you upset Peter, he may retaliate by reposting old and irrelevant messages by you that have nothing whatever to do with the topic being discussed, if he thinks these might embarrass or discredit you. This was clearly his intention in reposting that thread from Atlantis on drugs and addiction. But that didn't accomplish its purpose, since for years I have openly discussed my history with drugs in various venues, not only on elists but in public lectures as well, and I have no qualms about discussing it some more.

This was a pathetic attempt at ad hominem by Peter. But since Peter cannot or will not formulate an argument with logically connected parts, I suppose not much else is available to him. Nevertheless, incompetence is one thing, while vicious incompetence is quite another.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant wrote:

I think Barbara dislikes "psycho-epistemology."

end quote

If that is so, I apologize to Barbara. Crap. I thought she coined the phrase.

Peter,

She did.

And she wrote somewhere here on OL that she wish she didn't.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Your picture makes me unconfortable. You look like a maniac, or someone who is ejaculating in public. Change your picture to a nice smiling photo, suit and tie optional, or to a cat.

Peter

I’m pleased to read that the photo is having the intended effect, I’m keeping it. You seem to think it’s a Star Trek reference, in fact it’s Doctor Who. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_doctor Note that Rowan Atkinson was also the Ninth Doctor, which means I feel free to make Black Adder references in the first person with impunity. And if you don’t like it, and continue to harp on it...…

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Edited February 15, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Selene]

Peter:

Good - Now put the Free Range Anarchist in the same junk pile.

Adam

Peter is probably the most anti-intellectual "Objectivist" that I have ever encountered -- and I have encountered quite a few.

To make matters worse, Peter gorges himself at the table of Ayn Rand's philosophy, selectively eating anything that appeals to him but only half-digesting it (and that may be overstating the case). Thus, if he disagrees with you, he will accuse you of using "floating abstractions" instead of dealing with your arguments.

This was a pathetic attempt at ad hominem by Peter. But since Peter cannot or will not formulate an argument with logically connected parts, I suppose not much else is available to him. Nevertheless, incompetence is one thing, while vicious incompetence is quite another.

Ghs

George:

Your calls about him seem to fit my impressions of him, but again, I am a virgin when it comes to forums.

He has tried the ad hominem fallacy with me accusing me of x,y and z.

The internal weakness in the structure of his writing explodes out of his posts. I have spent my whole life with argument, rhetoric and persuasion so I see this "stuff" through a different lens.

I was most offended by the subtle bigotry in his posts. I am of Northern Italian genes and we were well aware of the bigotry and prejudice that was applied to us in school admissions, professions and other ancillary bigotry. For example, it is well known that Columbia University had a seventeen percent (17%) Jewish quota on admissions throughout the 1930's 40's and 50's. There was also an Italian quota.

So admittedly, I am overly alert to the stereotyping of Italians as mobsters, thugs etc.

Peter used language like that in several descriptions. He also made a slip with his daughters student populations. The more I read of his "writings", the more suspect I become as to his narrow minded, authoritarian, effete approach to folks.

Not someone I would want in a foxhole.

Adam

Edited February 15, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on, guys.

Can't you try to make this thing work?

Perter thinks I'm brilliant.

I want to pretend I'm indifferent, but that feels good.

It's not like I get something like that everyday...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

To be secure in your ideology is to be at peace. Rand was secure in hers but "voluntary taxation" is an oxymoron. I just see "anarcho-capitalism" as a strategic retreat from Rand's impractical Utopianism to a more defendable position that re-enforces the moral basis of Objectivism while cutting the practical politics adrift. But the peace is maintained.

--Brant

Your analysis is ingenious, but I think the problem runs far deeper than Rand's call for voluntary government financing. (I don't believe Rand actually used the expression "voluntary taxation," since she seemed to understand that this is a contradiction in terms, e.g.: "In a fully free society, taxation-or, to be exact, payment for governmental services-would be voluntary.")

The root of the problem lies in Rand's endorsement of the principle of "government by consent." As she states in "The Nature of Government":

The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed." This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

This puts Rand in a tradition that may be broadly described as "Lockean," though it had many proponents long before Locke defended the principle. And this principle caused as many problem for earlier Lockeans -- Real Whigs, Radical Republicans, Classical Liberals, etc. -- as is does for Rand. By this I mean that one of the most common criticisms of Lockeans was that their principle of government by consent must logically end in anarchism. This "specter of anarchy" argument, as I call it, was first formulated in the 1640s by Sir Robert Filmer (who became Locke's dead adversary in the Two Treatises of Government), and it was later echoed by some of the biggest names in political philosophy, including Edmund Burke, David Hume, and Jeremy Bentham. Burke, for example, dubbed the Lockean principles contained in the French Declaration of Rights a "digest of anarchy," and Bentham castigated natural rights, which constitute the foundation of consent theory, as "anarchical fallacies."

This is a very complex story -- it is closely linked, for example, to the anarchistic implications of the rights of resistance and revolution. I have written about this issue elsewhere in considerable detail. For now, suffice it to say that most Lockeans sought refuge from the charge of implicitly promoting anarchism by invoking the doctrine of "tacit consent," or "implied consent" (which isn't the same thing) -- an escape that virtually gutted consent theory of its significance and reduced it to a catch-phrase.

Rand, so far as I know, never invoked tacit consent as a method of overcoming the anarchistic implications of consent theory, and this is to her credit. Instead, immediately after the passage that I quoted above, Rand says:

There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.

This is perhaps the most ambiguous passage in all of Rand's writings on political theory. Especially troubling is what she means by "must." Does she mean that rational people should delegate their right of self-defense as a matter of self-interest? Or does she mean that people can legitimately be compelled to "delegate" that right, whether they deem this to be in their self-interest or not?

There are a host of other problems as well. For example, Rand surely cannot mean that individuals must delegate to government their right of "physical self-defense" in all cases, for this would mean that we could not morally defend ourselves when attacked by a violent thug. This extreme interpretation would also rule out the rights of resistance and revolution against an oppressive government -- the selfsame rights that Thomas Jefferson defended in the "Declaration of Independence," which Rand quotes in the same article that I have referenced here.

Without going into more detail on this problem, which could easily fill a book, my point is that anarcho-capitalism arose as Objectivist-types, such as Roy Childs, attempted to eliminate what they saw as ambiguities and inconsistencies in Rand's inadequate treatment of consent theory. They took seriously statements by Rand like the following from "Man's Rights":

Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.

Anarcho-capitalists then asked why, if objective justice could be obtained from agencies other than an established government, people should be forcibly prevented from delegating their right of self-defense to those competing agencies. In other words, even if we agree that individuals "must" delegate their right of self-defense in some sense, it does not follow that they "must" delegate it to a coercive monopoly that calls itself "the government." For where did this government get the moral authority to compel this sort of thing?

All this, of course, was regarded by anarcho-capitalists as the logical application of Rand's maxim, quoted above: "Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others." Exactly whose rights do I violate if I delegate my right of self-defense to an agency other than a monopolistic government, so long as that agency operates by objective principles of justice and does not initiate physical force against anyone?

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

Fine exposition.

"Without going into more detail on this problem, which could easily fill a book, my point is that anarcho-capitalism arose as Objectivist-types, such as Roy Childs, attempted to eliminate what they saw as ambiguities and inconsistencies in Rand's inadequate treatment of consent theory. They took seriously statements by Rand like the following from 'Man's Rights':

'Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others.'"

Roy was a good man. Very important in developing the arguments you are putting forth so clearly.

Adam

Post Script:

Michael, there are some folks who also think you are brilliant and they have the ability to make that call. accurately.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Selene

[anthony]

I haven't visited this site in a long time. Where are the more interesting discussions taking place?

Ghs

It looks like right here.

Talk about a "self-fulfilling prophecy."

A fascinating to-and-fro.

[George H. Smith]

So admittedly, I am overly alert to the stereotyping of Italians as mobsters, thugs etc.

I am reminded of a great scene in "The Untouchables." This is a long clip; the relevant part begins at 1:40.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8pSj5dBUc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8pSj5dBUc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8pSj5dBUc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Ghs

[Peter]

9th Doctor wrote:

I’m pleased to read that the photo is having the intended effect, I’m keeping it. . . . And if you don’t like it, and continue to harp on it . . . application/x-shockwave-flash.

End quote

Some good lines there. Kind of reminds me of the Fort’s commanding officer in “Dances With wolves,” when Kevin Costner shows up:

“I’ve pissed my pants and there is nothing you can do about it.”

I won’t harp on it, but it really does create a bad impression. Why put yourself in a bad light? Do you really think people will want to correspond with someone who looks like a lunatic? That pose does not show reason, rationality, or benevolence, but to an extent it does express Laissez Faire. But Doctor, what if nobody is buying “anything goes”? Let the market decide.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand, so far as I know, never invoked tacit consent as a method of overcoming the anarchistic implications of consent theory, and this is to her credit. Instead, immediately after the passage that I quoted above, Rand says:

There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.

This is perhaps the most ambiguous passage in all of Rand's writings on political theory. Especially troubling is what she means by "must." Does she mean that rational people should delegate their right of self-defense as a matter of self-interest? Or does she mean that people can legitimately be compelled to "delegate" that right, whether they deem this to be in their self-interest or not?

George,

That has been one of the passages that has most bothered me in Rand's writing (there are several others). I have written about this several times.

How can you "delegate" something if you are forced to give it up? And how can you "renounce" or "delegate" anything as a newborn? If you don't do this stuff at birth, when do you do it? At 10 years old? At 18?

This led me to believe that the "Pledge of Allegiance" we all had to do in school was a sneaky way of gradually getting such "delegation."

This all reminds my of Brazil's name for taxpayer: "contributor."

Michael

[rhartford]

....

Exactly whose rights do I violate if I delegate my right of self-defense to an agency other than a monopolistic government, so long as that agency operates by objective principles of justice and does not initiate physical force against anyone?

Responding to George’s question with a comment and a question:

The goal of a valid institutional political framework is to “unfailingly [protect] political freedoms and unfailingly [constrain] those who would violate a political freedom.” (From my forthcoming article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies)

If any two agencies differ in practical application of that foundational theoretical principle, how would adjudicating the conflict differ when resolved by a third agency subscribing to the same theoretical principle versus being resolved by a “voluntarily-financed” limited government subscribing to that same theoretical principle?

[Selene]

The goal of a valid institutional political framework is to "unfailingly [protect] political freedoms and unfailingly [constrain] those who would violate a political freedom." (From my forthcoming article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies)

If any two agencies differ in practical application of that foundational theoretical principle, how would adjudicating the conflict differ when resolved by a third agency subscribing to the same theoretical principle versus being resolved by a "voluntarily-financed" limited government subscribing to that same theoretical principle?

Robert:

The ideal is to "unfailingly protect...[constrain]...those who would violate a political freedom."

Define political in this context you are employing please.

Would you kindly restate the last paragraph above, possibly with an example or model explanation.

Interesting, as far as I understand the paragraph.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Responding to George’s question with a comment and a question:

The goal of a valid institutional political framework is to “unfailingly [protect] political freedoms and unfailingly [constrain] those who would violate a political freedom.” (From my forthcoming article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies)

I have a couple problems with this statement. First, no institution will "unfailingly protect political freedoms," and such perfection is not necessary to render that institution "valid." Honest errors can and invariably will be made from time to time.

Second, I don't see the point of the qualification political freedoms. The primary purpose of any justice agency, whether this be a government or not, should be to protect individual rights, and these rights include far more than "political" freedoms, as this term is normally understood in political philosophy.

If any two agencies differ in practical application of that foundational theoretical principle, how would adjudicating the conflict differ when resolved by a third agency subscribing to the same theoretical principle versus being resolved by a “voluntarily-financed” limited government subscribing to that same theoretical principle?

The first scenario would be voluntary, because the final arbiter would be agreed upon by the disputing parties. In the second scenario the government forcibly precludes such options. That's the difference.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote:

I think Barbara dislikes "psycho-epistemology."

end quote

If that is so, I apologize to Barbara. Crap. I thought she coined the phrase.

About thirty years ago I used the phrase in a pschology paper. The Professor wrote, "There is no such phrase. Where did you hear it?"

By the end of the terms the Professor was saying "psycho-epistemology," on a regular basis. It is a good term. I like it.

Live long and prosper,

Peter

Nathaniel Branden credits Barbara for this. I like the term. Taken by itself "psycho" has bad vibes, of course. But if you change the vowel in "shot" to "i" ....

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant Gaede (intelligent Air Force veteran) wrote:

Dumb army veteran. I should have joned the Air Force and got blown up in a B-52 over Hanoi.

--Brant

dumb and lucky

[9thdoctor]

I won’t harp on it, but it really does create a bad impression.

Sez you.

Why put yourself in a bad light? Do you really think people will want to correspond with someone who looks like a lunatic?

Yup.

That pose does not show reason, rationality, or benevolence, but to an extent it does express Laissez Faire. But Doctor, what if nobody is buying “anything goes”? Let the market decide.

Where do you come up with all this?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Brant Gaede]

Perter thinks I'm brilliant.

Perter? I tried to think of something funny to say, but came up short.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Perter? I tried to think of something funny to say, but came up short.

--Brant

Yeah, I had the same problem when you wrote: "I should have joned the Air Force...." 8-)

Ghs

[rhartford]

The goal of a valid institutional political framework is to “unfailingly [protect] political freedoms and unfailingly [constrain] those who would violate a political freedom.” (From my forthcoming article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies)

I have a couple problems with this statement. First, no institution will "unfailingly protect political freedoms," and such perfection is not necessary to render that institution "valid." Honest errors can and invariably will be made from time to time.

Second, I don't see the point of the qualification political freedoms. The primary purpose of any justice agency, whether this be a government or not, should be to protect individual rights, and these rights include far more than "political" freedoms, as this term is normally understood in political philosophy.

I agree "honest errors" are likely, but holding the ideal as a goal is still necessary.

My use of "political freedom" may be unusual and is based on the following: "The need for the concept of a political freedom arises when individuals choose actions that conflict and they cannot voluntarily resolve the conflict. Only one of the actions can take place. If one of the actions is a political freedom, the opposing action would violate that freedom. The proper resolution of the conflict protects the action that is a political freedom."

This use considers the facts of a political conflict, encourages resolution of the conflict by applying the ethics of egoism to the solution, enables justifying the use of force to protect the action that is the political freedom, and supports derivation of rights.

"Logically, a right is a principle that summarizes and describes political freedoms. Politically, a right is the basis for rule of law that recognizes and protects the political freedoms described by the right." As example of some political freedoms summarized by a right, "the right of freedom of speech captures some actions - with respect to voicing one’s ideas - that are properly free from constraint by others."

(The quotations are from my forthcoming article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies)

[Selene]

Robert:

I understand your use of the word "political" now.

Can you give me a specific real world example because I just can's see precisely what you mean.

Adam