Glenn Beck in D.C.

[kiaer.ts]

Again, you drop context. I said that you cannot pretend that we are morally more advanced than the founding fathers and you respond that if I think things are so good I should look at what the modern media reports? I say that humans of 64,000 years ago were no different in nature from us, and you say in response that we haven't changed from the end of the ice-age, 13,000 years ago? You are so wrapped up in your cynicism and desire to contradict that you can't keep the story straight from one post to the next.

I drop no context. We are, and we have been for at least 150,000 years the smartest primates on the planet. Our main distinction from our forbears is that we have accumulated knowledge because of a trick learned about 10,000 years ago. It is called writing. Other than that we are not much different at the emotional and mental level. But we have learned to wear shoes, dispose of our shit and we keep our houses reasonably clean.

I see little glory in the past.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Your point changes from post to post, Bob. Your only constant is to gainsay what was last said to you. I prefer conversations which stay on point. Not interlocutors whose only interest seems to be to contradict.

Read the sentence in bold:

America's Divine Destiny? Who but a clown could utter such nonsense?

Bob,

I don't know...

George Washington?

Thomas Jefferson?

Rabbi Daniel Lapin?

The usual clowns...

Michael

Geo. Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived mostly in the 18th century so they didn't know any better.

Shame on Rabbi Lupin. There was only one Divine Nation, (Ancient Israel) and they blew it over 2000 years ago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, atheism, secularism, and critical thinking were all discovered in Brooklyn in the 1960's, and the entire corpus of Greek philosophy was unknown to the founding fathers, since it was only discovered in some jars in a cave in Palestine just after WWII.

God you are selectively ignorant, Bob.

In general it is moderns who should know better, but don't, and the educated classes of past ages who put us to shame.

I have made my point, and you, with you admonition to me to watch the news to see the moral state of modern man, seem to have forgotten yours.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The net result is that I will never get CHRISTIAN to look at my arguments. He thinks I rewrite history just as much as I accuse Christians (and Progressives) of doing (and I agree that there have been some humongous tampering from the Christian end).

You can call it the agenda-driven rewriting of history if you want to. You can claim that you are the one honestly reporting the facts. In fact, you are defending one interpretation of the facts and ignoring an alternate, equally legitimate viewpoint. That's what I call selective omission.

Dennis,

I do not know how to reconcile this except to say that you are wrong. My words are there and I meant them. I wonder if you missed them when you read my post.

At any rate, my standard is, and always will be now that I have started reading history, to consult original sources as the baseline standard for judging historical people. As Washington was not a proven liar or spin doctor, I hold that Washington's own words are far more credible in ascertaining what Washington thought than any speculation by any of the gentlemen that you mentioned. Against Washington's own words, I do not find any viewpoint by those people, or by any Christian or Progressive historian, "equally legitimate."

Truth-wise, their views--all of them--must submit to Washington's own words, not the contrary.

That's my standard. You are free to hold another if that is what you are proposing. I just can't take such a standard seriously.

EDIT: Also, I do not equate Paine and Beck, although you have written a couple of times as if this is what I am doing. Nowhere have I said that. I merely used the book to point out that I have not seen any evidence of your claim that Beck was trying to distort (or forget) the fact that the American experiment was the "brainchild of the Enlightenment."

Incidentally, Beck has also discussed Paine's lack of religion on his shows several times. You mentioned a list of Beck's" recommended books." I do not know of any official "recommended books" list endorsed by him other than the section on his site called, "Books Featured on the Show." He obviously recommends those, but I don't think the omission of Paine's other books there means anything other than he did not feature them on his show. In compensation, you will find Atlas Shrugged and The Voice of Reason on that list.

I am defending the need to be accurate in looking at what a person actually says. I don't think caricatures are useful in judging someone's thought. I'm not saying you do this to the actual caricature extent Bob K does, but I do feel such strong hostility against religion emanating from you that I do not believe we are on the same wavelength about the need to sell our ideas to religious people who uphold individual rights. I feel that you merely wish to dismiss all of them rather than persuade any of them. (I admit I might be wrong in my perception.)

But it's hard to dismiss half-a-million or so people who show up to a Restoring Honor talk in Washington, DC--people, I might add, who do not have the habit of doing this kind of thing.

They exist. They vote. Every one I saw there was a decent honorable human being.

I think it's worthwhile to discuss things with them, not dismiss them. That is one of the reasons why original sources should not be discarded in favor of the speculations of an historian--ever.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

The Framers were attempting to create a "free" nation which for the first time in recorded history sought to make individual rights within each person directly from God or Nature.

To then transport this to Ayn's attempt to develop a purely secular ethical and moral justification for laissez-faire is irrelevant to the Framers problem.

Ayn's definitional use of altruism as a moral imperative made its point with me, but misses the mark with most folks because most folks get a selfish pleasure out of helping their fellow man.

I understand your point about Ayn and capitalism and agree with you.

Adam

Adam,

I will have to make this brief. It is late, and my computer just erased a much longer response.

I don’t see that we have any disagreement about the Constitution or the founders’ views on religion. If you see a disagreement, please point it out.

It is not my intention to argue that the founders were looking for “a purely secular ethical and moral justification for laissez-faire.” I think we already agreed that the founders were, to some extent, influenced by religion. The founders were struggling to find a radical new base for a society, but their mixed premises led them to build numerous contradictions into America’s foundations. Certainly a fully rational philosophy would have helped resolve many of the dilemmas the founders faced, but that is 20-20 hindsight and therefore, as you say, irrelevant.

America was largely the product of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the resurgence of reason. It was the flourishing of reason and free thought which helped to overthrow the authority of the church, thus clearing the way for free markets and the industrial revolution. Reason and faith are much more fundamental issues than the clash of altruism and self-interest. That is the danger of the conservatives’ attempts to recast America as having been founded on a Christian base—undermining the importance of reason and rationality to America’s birth and eventual rise to being the greatest nation in the history of civilization. To repeat, if we open the door to faith, we open the door to altruism and self-sacrifice, and capitalism is doomed.

If we can demonstrate the supreme value of reason over faith, altruism will fall of its own weight.

[Dennis Hardin]

But it's hard to dismiss half-a-million or so people who show up to a Restoring Honor talk in Washington, DC--people, I might add, who do not have the habit of doing this kind of thing.

They exist. They vote. Every one I saw there was a decent honorable human being.

I think it's worthwhile to discuss things with them, not dismiss them. That is one of the reasons why original sources should not be discarded in favor of the speculations of an historian--ever.

Michael

Michael,

My position is simply that we cannot ignore available evidence. I'm glad that you recognize that Christians may have done their part to distort the historical truth, but I did not notice that you were using that premise in your arguments. You seemed to assert that the Christian interpretation is the correct one.

You say that the only standard you will "take seriously" is "Washington's own words." I take this to mean that the words of other witnesses to what he said and did are irrelevant, which means the context of Washington's words is irrelevant. And you think I should take such a position "seriously"?

As far as Beck is concerned, I was referring to his list of recommended reading in Common Sense. You would think that if he thought so highly of Paine, that he would have cited Paine's other works. He didn't, of course, because his other works clearly clash with his "faith-based America" agenda.

You are correct to say that you sense a "strong hostility against religion emanating from [me]." I'm going to repeat what I said in my response to Adam:

America was the product of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the resurgence of reason. It was the flourishing of reason and free thought which helped to overthrow the authority of the church, thus clearing the way for free markets and the industrial revolution. Reason and faith are much more fundamental issues than the clash of altruism and self-interest. That is the danger of the conservatives' attempts to recast America as having been founded on a Christian base—undermining the importance of reason and rationality to America's birth and eventual rise to being the greatest nation in the history of civilization.

Your well-intentioned goal of selling a rational defense of individual rights to people whose philosophy is founded on faith is futile. Religious people do not feel the need to see any relationship between rights and man's nature when they have God as their source for everything. Your efforts are pointless. They may nod and smile politely—religious people are big on that sort of thing--but they will go home and pray for your salvation.

We either advocate the absolutism of reason over faith—i.e., we either convince a majority of Americans that they do not need superstition to prop up their lives--or we perish. Anything less is a band-aid on a massive, uncontrolled hemorrhage. And time is rapidly running out.

[Jerry Biggers]

But it's hard to dismiss half-a-million or so people who show up to a Restoring Honor talk in Washington, DC--people, I might add, who do not have the habit of doing this kind of thing.

They exist. They vote. Every one I saw there was a decent honorable human being.

I think it's worthwhile to discuss things with them, not dismiss them. That is one of the reasons why original sources should not be discarded in favor of the speculations of an historian--ever.

Michael

Michael,

My position is simply that we cannot ignore available evidence. I’m glad that you recognize that Christians may have done their part to distort the historical truth, but I did not notice that you were using that premise in your arguments. You seemed to assert that the Christian interpretation is the correct one.

You say that the only standard you will “take seriously” is “Washington’s own words.” I take this to mean that the words of other witnesses to what he said and did are irrelevant, which means the context of Washington’s words is irrelevant. And you think I should take such a position “seriously”?

As far as Beck is concerned, I was referring to his list of recommended reading in Common Sense. You would think that if he thought so highly of Paine, that he would have cited Paine’s other works. He didn’t, of course, because his other works clearly clash with his “faith-based America” agenda.

You are correct to say that you sense a “strong hostility against religion emanating from [me].” I’m going to repeat what I said in my response to Adam:

America was the product of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the resurgence of reason. It was the flourishing of reason and free thought which helped to overthrow the authority of the church, thus clearing the way for free markets and the industrial revolution. Reason and faith are much more fundamental issues than the clash of altruism and self-interest. That is the danger of the conservatives’ attempts to recast America as having been founded on a Christian base—undermining the importance of reason and rationality to America’s birth and eventual rise to being the greatest nation in the history of civilization.

Your well-intentioned goal of selling a rational defense of individual rights to people whose philosophy is founded on faith is futile. Religious people do not feel the need to see any relationship between rights and man’s nature when they have God as their source for everything. Your efforts are pointless. They may nod and smile politely—religious people are big on that sort of thing--but they will go home and pray for your salvation.

We either advocate the absolutism of reason over faith—i.e., we either convince a majority of Americans that they do not need superstition to prop up their lives--or we perish. Anything less is a band-aid on a massive, uncontrolled hemorrhage. And time is rapidly running out.

Dennis,

Well said. I couldn't agree more....

Oh, wait!...here's a brief message (and a reminder) from our 'sponsor’,

Ladies and gentlemen, let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism. Or, putting the issue more broadly and fundamentally: no middle-of-the-road is possible between mysticism and reason. You cannot combine them.

In a free society, men must be left free to believe whatever sort of ideas they wish, however irrational. Therefore, there can be no question of forbidding religious belief. That’s not the point. The context in which I’m speaking here is philosophical, not social or political.

In philosophical terms, no intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, no middle-of-the-road is possible between a belief in God and Objectivism—or, more widely: between a belief in God and a philosophy of reason—or, more widely still: between any form of mysticism, on the one hand, and reason, on the other. You cannot combine them.

The belief in God is the rejection of the foremost premise of Objectivism, namely, the supremacy of reason as man’s sole means of understanding and grasping reality. It is one or the other. You can have faith in God, or you can have man, reason, and this earth but, ladies and gentlemen, you can’t have both. Don’t deceive yourselves. The choice is yours to make—but know that a choice is involved here.

- Nathaniel Branden, an excerpt from Ch. 4, The Concept of God, pp 118 – 119. The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

Within the present context of Obama's socialism being turned into law, do you think it wise to spit on people who preach individual rights because of a difference in philosophy?

Sorry to be blunt, but this reminds me a bit of the people who were playing cards while the Titanic was going down.

We can get back to the philosophy as a primary consideration after the disaster is no longer at hand. If you think Objectivism is hard to spread when most people around you are religious, try doing it under communism.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

Boy did I screw up.

If not for you, I would not be able to reconstruct Dennis's post.

Give me a second to fix this...

EDIT: I had hit the "Edit" button instead of "Reply" to Dennis's post and simply made my own post over top of his. When I looked a little later, I thought it was so weird to see my post with his picture beside it.

It's fixed now. Many thanks, Jerry, even though you didn't know I screwed up.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You say that the only standard you will "take seriously" is "Washington's own words."

Dennis,

Only standard for seriousness?

Only?

This is where bias will get you in trouble with correct understanding--not just with me but with anyone.

If you read my words correctly, you will notice that I did not say that and I did not even insinuate that. Nor does that have anything to do with my writing--in any area in fact--up to now. This means over several years of me writing in public. All you have to do is read what I write.

If you do, you will also notice a strong pattern. If I am unclear (and sometimes I am), I usually do my best to clarify and if I conclude I am wrong (and that happens), I do my best to correct it.

Here is what I actually said. After concluding that Washington's words are credible since he is not known to be a liar or spin doctor, I said:

Against Washington's own words, I do not find any viewpoint by those people, or by any Christian or Progressive historian, "equally legitimate."

Truth-wise, their views--all of them--must submit to Washington's own words, not the contrary.

I will presuppose you misunderstood this, even with your bias, because I did not express myself well. So I will assume the onus of clarity and try to make it clearer.

If there is a contradiction between what Washington is on record as saying--like a document drawn up by him--and what a historian speculates, I will go with Washington's words. That is my standard--when there is a difference.

I cannot take seriously any standard that prioritizes a speculation of a historian over Washington's own words. This does not mean that I only use Washington's writing to determine what went on with him and his life.

In other words, I am talking about a main standard for judging evaluations of Washington's thought. When there are conflicting views, we go with primary sources. To me, this is obvious. I find it odd to have to defend primary sources as being the best standard, but I will not belabor this point.

The main thing is that my meaning and words do not exclude other standards for judging sources. They merely establish the most important one I use for arriving at the best explanation when there are conflicts in conclusions.

If you want another standard, here's a good one I use. For secondary sources--and I have written about this back during the time Barbara's book was under attack (see here, but I even mentioned this before on SoloHQ)--I use the one I learned from the "Forward" of Greek Fire by Nicholas Gage (biography of the Onassis-Callas romance):

I have rigorously maintained the standards of an investigative reporter, validating each fact with at least two independent sources—two individuals who concur but don't know each other—or an original document.

This is a bare minimum. When looking at someone distant in time like Washington, it helps if you can get concurring accounts from people who not only knew Washington and did not know each other, but also did not know--or did not agree with--myths publicly reported about him at the time (if such are relevant). Three or more such sources is even better.

And here's even another standard for judging sources. If I see a whole lot of preaching going on and not too many footnotes, I tend to put this into the "check and doubte-check everything this dude claims" category if I find an idea interesting. I certainly will not take claims from such a source as truth just because the person said them. At best, I will consider the viewpoint and do further research.

There are even other standards and considerations, like a person's changing views over a lifetime. No person's mind is carved in stone, so often there will be contradictions in what he says in his own original documents from different eras of his life.

I take this to mean that the words of other witnesses to what he said and did are irrelevant, which means the context of Washington's words is irrelevant.

I hope my explanation above shows that what you take my words to mean here has nothing to do with what I really did and do mean.

Anyway, for someone to claim that I support ignoring context in light of the entire body of my writing is just too far removed from reality to be anything other than amusing. It's like claiming that Ayn Rand was a Muslim.

(And I mean this in a benevolent way, not as mocking.)

Your well-intentioned goal of selling a rational defense of individual rights to people whose philosophy is founded on faith is futile. Religious people do not feel the need to see any relationship between rights and man's nature when they have God as their source for everything. Your efforts are pointless. They may nod and smile politely—religious people are big on that sort of thing--but they will go home and pray for your salvation.

We either advocate the absolutism of reason over faith—i.e., we either convince a majority of Americans that they do not need superstition to prop up their lives--or we perish. Anything less is a band-aid on a massive, uncontrolled hemorrhage. And time is rapidly running out.

Since we are talking about context, I see several contexts missing here. But I will have to go into this later. (If I keep this up, I will never get my report on the Restoring Honor rally finished.)

Just one question, though. How do you expect to convince "a majority of Americans that they do not need superstition to prop up their lives" when you dismiss talking to the majority of Americans as futile? (The majority of Americans are religious.)

It's good to state your position clearly and often. But that's not all that's involved with convincing anyone of anything.

What is the persuasion method you suggest, especially when you judge most people as beyond being persuadable?

I say start with clear standards that people can check for themselves and give good reasons for prioritizing them. Like using primary sources over others when looking at historical figures. That gives you credibility before anything else gets going, and that goes a long way in persuading later on.

Just look at Beck's popularity. One of the main secrets to it is right there.

Believe me, half a million people or so did not show up at Beck's Restoring Honor rally because they are evil evaders wishing to impose whim and superstition on reality. You may find this odd, but religion was of secondary import. It was a prop, a thematic organizer, almost a MacGuffin, to be honest.

What really drew the public was not religion. They can get that in church or on TV. It was something different, something strongly individualistic. The overwhelming sentiment I perceived from the people at the rally was that they are sick and tired of being lied to and manipulated. They wanted to stand with each other--even if for only 3 hours--and say, "I am good. I am an American and I am good."

There's a hell of a lot you can build on that if you only see it.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

Within the present context of Obama's socialism being turned into law, do you think it wise to spit on people who preach individual rights because of a difference in philosophy?

Sorry to be blunt, but this reminds me a bit of the people who were playing cards while the Titanic was going down.

We can get back to the philosophy as a primary consideration after the disaster is no longer at hand. If you think Objectivism is hard to spread when most people around you are religious, try doing it under communism.

Michael

Michael,

I agree that rearranging deck chairs (or throwing them at one another) is not a wise course for those left on The Titanic. That sort of futile behavior has been exhibited by NR-type conservatives on one side and some ARIans on the other. They don't seem to grasp fully what is at stake. No doubt, various "White Russian" remnants, as well as assorted Trotskyite factions, continued to squabble with each other . Until the real communists explained to them the error of their ways, via firing squads.

Yes, it is quite true that it is highly unlikely (specatacular understatement!) that Objectivism will become so influential a factor in American political life that it will overwhelm the influence and numbers of any of its major opponents, certainly not the conservatives. So we have to cooperate with conservatives to the extent that we agree upon common political and economic goals, and no further. But that does not mean that we should "throw the baby out with the bath water, and embrace 'Faith, Hope, and Charity'."

I fear, however, that the Mormon faith has definately won the battle in Glenn Beck's mind. Many of his recent programs have been indistinguishable from religious revivals. And it was not Yaron Brook addressing Beck's crowds with him at the Kennedy Center or on the Mall. The message was entirely about Faith, Hope, and Charity as THE answers for America, "bringing it back to God." I did not expect Beck to start reciting Galt's Speech at the Mall (but, what an image that brings to mind!), but I didn't hear much that was consistent with any of the main messages of Objectivism.

If Beck has actually read AS all the way through and Rand's non-fiction works, then he is either ignoring or denying what he read there. Rand is hardly subtle about this issue, and discusses it repeatedly in everything that she wrote (choose a book, any book) after The Fountainhead: altruism is the ethical framework upon which all collectivisms stand; christianity advocates and endorses altruism; altruism cannot offer a viable support for capitalism. Instead, Beck clearly emphatically, strongly, vociferously advocates for faith.

Here's a quote from Rand, from the Q&A book: "What we can do is infiltrate the Republican Party, and try to influence them in the right direction: toward capitalism and away from conservatism. Defend capitalism against religion, which is what destroyed capitalism in the first place." Emphasis added (p.53 - Yeah, Mayhew may have "edited" it, but the quote is certainly in agreement with her earlier writings).

[Selene]

Jerry:

I would modify the religion statement to:

religion, and it underlying altruistic premise, was one of the primary "destructors" of capitalism.

I do not have a good answer for our Objectivist side as to the political course to take.

What I do know is that being apolitical just does not work to advance our ideas in the public square.

Tonight I will be speaking at an emergency meeting in our township. The mayor has sent out pink slips to all the secretaries, one fifth of firefighters and police officers.

Meanwhile, the property taxes continue to go up.

I will be announcing a referendum for the ballot to cut property taxes by 20%. I will be carrying a Rand book. I will also be stating that there must be cuts, but this type of fear based cuts is typical political pandering.

It will be a more than interesting evening.

It is pitchfork and torches time.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

It's too early for me to say, but after this imminent danger passes, and if we really do get a majority of Tea Party like candidates elected, you will probably see a shift in my focus with respect to Beck.

But I will never think badly about him for his defense of individualism, insistence on reading original sources, exposure of how deeply the New Left has penetrated our educational and political systems, making it cool to talk about the Founding Fathers again, etc., etc., etc.

I am enormously grateful to him for what he has done.

As to Faith, Hope and Charity, the way the people who showed up to the Restoring Honor rally take this message is not a bad thing. That crowd was one of the most polite and well meaning crowds I have ever experienced in my entire life. Not one arrest. They even left the Mall cleaner than what they found when they arrived--and nobody told them to do that.

Something good happened there. I get emotional when I think about it. I would not trade that experience for anything. My faith in the goodness of people was restored at that event. I'm glad I'm a human being, and I feel even prouder knowing that we can get together as individuals from all over the country--on our own volition--in a crowd that big and do something that nice.

Rather than reject this, I believe we should figure out what it is in language we can accept and use it ourselves.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

These are the real people of this country. I have found folks like this everywhere I have gone in this country from the time I was little.

I also believe that you and Kat presented a positive non-threatening image as well.

I know that is the way I conduct myself with people and 99.9999% of the time, that is what is reflected back.

Despite a propensity to be cynical about folks, most Americans are decent solid human beings.

The crisis, fear and divisiveness that has been cultivated by the marxist class envy competition just does not exist.

We need to remember that every day.

Good grief, I am turning into a Pollyanna!

[Dennis Hardin]

Jerry,

Within the present context of Obama's socialism being turned into law, do you think it wise to spit on people who preach individual rights because of a difference in philosophy?

Sorry to be blunt, but this reminds me a bit of the people who were playing cards while the Titanic was going down.

We can get back to the philosophy as a primary consideration after the disaster is no longer at hand. If you think Objectivism is hard to spread when most people around you are religious, try doing it under communism.

Michael

Michael,

I agree that rearranging deck chairs (or throwing them at one another) is not a wise course for those left on The Titanic. That sort of futile behavior has been exhibited by NR-type conservatives on one side and some ARIans on the other. They don't seem to grasp fully what is at stake. No doubt, various "White Russian" remnants, as well as assorted Trotskyite factions, continued to squabble with each other . Until the real communists explained to them the error of their ways, via firing squads.

Yes, it is quite true that it is highly unlikely (specatacular understatement!) that Objectivism will become so influential a factor in American political life that it will overwhelm the influence and numbers of any of its major opponents, certainly not the conservatives. So we have to cooperate with conservatives to the extent that we agree upon common political and economic goals, and no further. But that does not mean that we should "throw the baby out with the bath water, and embrace 'Faith, Hope, and Charity'."

I fear, however, that the Mormon faith has definately won the battle in Glenn Beck's mind. Many of his recent programs have been indistinguishable from religious revivals. And it was not Yaron Brook addressing Beck's crowds with him at the Kennedy Center or on the Mall. The message was entirely about Faith, Hope, and Charity as THE answers for America, "bringing it back to God." I did not expect Beck to start reciting Galt's Speech at the Mall (but, what an image that brings to mind!), but I didn't hear much that was consistent with any of the main messages of Objectivism.

If Beck has actually read AS all the way through and Rand's non-fiction works, then he is either ignoring or denying what he read there. Rand is hardly subtle about this issue, and discusses it repeatedly in everything that she wrote (choose a book, any book) after The Fountainhead: altruism is the ethical framework upon which all collectivisms stand; christianity advocates and endorses altruism; altruism cannot offer a viable support for capitalism. Instead, Beck clearly emphatically, strongly, vociferously advocates for faith.

Here's a quote from Rand, from the Q&A book: "What we can do is infiltrate the Republican Party, and try to influence them in the right direction: toward capitalism and away from conservatism. Defend capitalism against religion, which is what destroyed capitalism in the first place." Emphasis added (p.53 - Yeah, Mayhew may have "edited" it, but the quote is certainly in agreement with her earlier writings).

Jerry,

Great answer to Michael.

Michael,

Sorry for the delayed response. I wish I had more time for this. However, I see Jerry said exactly what needed to be said here.

BTW, I am not advocating spitting on anyone. I advocate cooperation with conservatives to the extent that we can do so, while avoiding any hint of sanctioning their viewpoint as to the base of individual rights.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I advocate cooperation with conservatives to the extent that we can do so, while avoiding any hint of sanctioning their viewpoint as to the base of individual rights.

Dennis,

I don't know about the hint, but I do believe that we have to make a good case for the source of rights and that we have not yet made it.

I have said on another thread what I will repeat here. I believe the Number One task we have as intellectuals is to provide a mainstream base for individual rights that is not God, but human nature instead. And it's a daunting task, too, given that the proposition that individual rights are a gift from God is in our founding documents.

I do not believe pretending history was other than what it was is the way to. Nor do I believe telling a good person that religion makes him bad--when his whole life is his conceptual referent and tells him differently--will be at all effective as an argument. In fact, that is probably the Number One reason Objectivism has not grown into a mainstream force even though Rand's novels have.

I am not in favor of religion as a way of life. I disagree with it on metaphysics.

I am in favor of correct identification. I believe demonizing religion as the source of evil--i.e., saying that it intellectually contaminates people and makes them choose to be evil--is not accurate. I look at vast quantities of good people who are religious and I cannot betray my eyes.

I think the choice to bully and deceive other people--on an individual level--is far more fundamental. The bully simply uses religion, Objectivism, or whatever he finds as a justification. And I believe that crowd control, where evil gets really nasty, is not caused or made possible by philosophy, but instead by vulnerabilities in the human mind. Choosing to be religious or atheist does not defend you against those vulnerabilities, but learning about them and recognizing the things that exploit them does.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

I advocate cooperation with conservatives to the extent that we can do so, while avoiding any hint of sanctioning their viewpoint as to the base of individual rights.

Dennis,

I don't know about the hint, but I do believe that we have to make a good case for the source of rights and that we have not yet made it.

I have said on another thread what I will repeat here. I believe the Number One task we have as intellectuals is to provide a mainstream base for individual rights that is not God, but human nature instead. And it's a daunting task, too, given that the proposition that individual rights are a gift from God is in our founding documents.

I do not believe pretending history was other than what it was is the way to. Nor do I believe telling a good person that religion makes him bad--when his whole life is his conceptual referent and tells him differently--will be at all effective as an argument. In fact, that is probably the Number One reason Objectivism has not grown into a mainstream force even though Rand's novels have.

Michael

Michael,

We seem to be at loggerheads over this history thing, so let’s acknowledge that both sides can make a plausible case for their P-O-V and move on. Let’s take a look at what would be required to convince a religionist of the validity of the Objectivist theory of the basis of human rights.

I want to share with you some of my experience in dealing with a religionist—specifically, Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. I frequently listen to his show in the morning when I am in my office. He is Jewish, but he steadfastly defends the view that America is a Christian nation and that The Ten Commandments are the ethical foundation of our culture. He also frequently endorses the viewpoint that God is the only basis for individual rights.

Prager has read Ayn Rand. He speaks very highly of We, The Living, as a brilliant portrayal of life in post-Czarist Russia, but regards Rand’s other works to be philosophically deficient. Basically, his position is that her ethical viewpoint is not essentially different from any other ‘modernist” approach; i.e., it is essentially subjective. Subjective, in Prager’s view, means that a human being decided the questions of right and wrong—in this case, the human being was Ayn Rand. He often uses the word “objective,” but for him, objective means only thing: derived from God. The Ten Commandments are the only “objective” code of right and wrong, because the code was not written by Man.

(Well, of course it was written by Man, but you will never convince him of that.)

I met Dennis Prager at a Denver airport bookstore years ago. I recognized him and introduced myself and told him how much I enjoyed his show for his common sense analysis of current events. I also mentioned that I was an atheist. Prager thought enough of our encounter to mention it on his show the next day, and took some pride in the fact that atheists listen to him on a regular basis.

Following that, I sent him an e-mail thanking him for mentioning our encounter and he responded favorably. He often announces on his show that he reads all of his e-mails, even though he can answer only a few. Having gotten his attention, I know he reads mine. Believe me when I tell you that I have written him over and over again explaining Rand’s view of the objective basis of ethics and rights, and pointing out that he is using the word objective incorrectly, since the Bible has to be accepted on faith. I try to make my e-mails brief, while clearly stating the essential points.

His comments on the show reflect zero comprehension of any of the points I have made. Prager represents the best of the religious minds out there, but his brain is completely insulated from genuine, clear-thinking rationality. And the reason is simple: for him to really think about my arguments and challenge his own beliefs, he would have to rethink the entire philosophical foundation of his life. Very few people are ever going to do that once they reach adulthood. Our only hope is to reach young people, before their way of thinking becomes cognitively petrified.

And I think we are doing a decent job of that, when you consider the sales of Rand’s novels and the number of additional books on various aspects of Rand and Objectivism being published every year. There seem to be more and more university professors sympathetic to Rand. So there’s hope, if the religionists can buy us enough time before the left destroys the last vestiges of America and freedom. But the best way atheists can encourage young people is by refraining from joining the religionists in any sort of “United Front.”

We need to let rational young people know they are not alone.

Dennis

[sjw]

And I think we are doing a decent job of that, when you consider the sales of Rand’s novels and the number of additional books on various aspects of Rand and Objectivism being published every year. There seem to be more and more university professors sympathetic to Rand. So there’s hope, if the religionists can buy us enough time before the left destroys the last vestiges of America and freedom. But the best way atheists can encourage young people is by refraining from joining the religionists in any sort of “United Front.”

We need to let rational young people know they are not alone.

Dennis

I think many young people are getting entrapped by anarcho-capitalism precisely because Rand didn't have a solid case for individual rights.

Shayne

[sjw]

I think many young people are getting entrapped by anarcho-capitalism precisely because Rand didn't have a solid case for individual rights.

Shayne

Just look into the greatest arena of liberty-oriented political activism today: Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Who provides the intellectual support? Lew Rockwell's clan of anarchists. Why doesn't ARI have credibility in that arena? Because they left the field, long ago, they are reduced to the same agenda as conservatives: gutter nationalism. Why? Because they can't intellectually compete; they are intellectual midgets when it comes to individual rights. Take a Lew Rockwell intellectual and put him up against an ARI intellectual and ARI will be completely trounced.

I was predicting this years ago, long before it happened. I was saying that the "barn is burning down" and here is ARI and the other Objectivists having petty fights instead of architecting the political future. And now here we are, with a massive amount of youthful energy in the Ron Paul movement, and Murray Rothbard is providing the intellectual vision and ammunition, not ARI. They are getting their heads pumped full of irrational anarchism, courtesy of the default of Objectivists.

The Objectivist leadership should be ashamed -- Rothbard has put them to shame, and it was their own intellectual default that did it.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Solid case" is the keyword.

I also don't think Objectivism presents a premise-level solid case for rights, since the case rests on an incomplete view of human nature. It presents a good case, but not a "solid case."

When Rand dismissed parts of human nature (mostly dealing with birth, growth and debilitation) as not essential to individual rights, she let religion and statism have them by default. At least in terms of the general public. When the general public asks, "What about xxxxx?" and the Objectivist literature dismisses it, but religious doctrine and the collectivist writings do not, the general public will read what they have to say.

Dismissal is not the same thing as a rational argument and it will not convince someone who has thought the issues through and come to a conclusion.

Michael

[sjw]

"Solid case" is the keyword.

I also don't think Objectivism presents a premise-level solid case for rights, since the case rests on an incomplete view of human nature. It presents a good case, but not a "solid case."

When Rand dismissed parts of human nature (mostly dealing with birth, growth and debilitation) as not essential to individual rights, she let religion and statism have them by default. At least in terms of the general public. When the general public asks, "What about xxxxx?" and the Objectivist literature dismisses it, but religious doctrine and the collectivist writings do not, the general public will read what they have to say.

Dismissal is not the same thing as a rational argument and it will not convince someone who has thought the issues through and come to a conclusion.

Michael

Rand loses her case for myriad reasons. The contradictions. The emotional effusions as a substitute for a rational argument. The casual dismissal of reasonable objections to her view as "whim worship" (the anarchists). Her stolen concept of government. Her failure to deal with the problem of consent. Her elevation of Capitalism as a kind of religion with property rights at the center of the rights universe. Everywhere you look the Objectivist case for rights is a mess, it represents a complete and total default on the entire field of rights. The only thing Rand really did for the concept is present a fictional context to provide the passion behind the concept. Her concept itself is an abysmal failure, which is the only reason someone like Rothbard could have an opening.

Objectivists need to come to terms -- they have LOST the battle of ideas. It's over and done with. Just look at the vigor of Lew Rockwell's site, all the diversity of truly intelligent and creative people, the books (like Tom Woods, who even testifies before Congress), the political connections, the explicit endorsement by Ron Paul. And the reason they lost is their own intellectual bankruptcy.

I don't know what you're talking about RE human nature, but tangentially, look at the Amish. They should be free to govern themselves (as long as they don't hold captives), regardless of whether or not Rand thinks they are "capitalists." In other words, it is part of human nature to choose your own culture and values, irrespective of bare philosophic abstractions such as rights. A valid theory of rights needs to include this kind of free choice.

If you are saying that human nature means that if you have a baby that's deficient then it's your natural right to extract my labor to pay for it, then I disagree, strongly. But if you're saying that it's human nature to general prefer some kind of social insurance for this kind of charity, and I can voluntarily opt in or out of your "humane" culture, then I would agree. Welfare programs -- even government funded ones -- as such are not the problem, and this is yet another Randian failure.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

This is a great short Beck clip. Note his comments and his spot on skewering of Pelosi's mocking of the civil rights movement. Note his linking rights to being an individual human.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4334989/becks-crash-course-civil-rights-and-the-rights-of-man

Edited September 12, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Selene]

We will see a different event in Washington tomorrow with the 9/12 gathering.

Robert Tracinski will be there. TIA Daily • September 11, 2010

COMMENTARY

9/12 and 9/11 (and 11/2)

I'll be headed up again on Sunday for this year's 9/12 Tea Party rally in Washington, DC. This time, I'll be carrying an Atlas Will Shrug sign worked up last year by TIA illustrator John Cox, with his trademark Uncle Sam as Atlas. So if you're going to be there, keep an eye out for me and come by to say hello.

For your last-minute sign needs, check out TIA's Tea Party Resources page (www.TIADaily.com/teaparty), where you can download PDFs of this and other posters.

I have no particular expectations for the size of Sunday's event. I expect it to be smaller than last year, when we still thought that a sheer display of numbers could block the health care bill. Which is to say, back before we realized the depth of the Democrats' contempt for the governed. On the other hand, even a greatly reduced 9/12 rally will still be bigger than I initially expected from last year's event.

It's a Saturday today, which would normally be a day off for TIA Daily. But I wanted to say a few words about tomorrow's rally—and I am committed to never letting September 11 go by without commemorating this date. We must never forget the attack on America that was launched nine years ago, and we must never lose our resolve to wipe out the Islamist movement that started this war.

What makes the anniversary so difficult this year is the fact that our current political leaders have forgotten—or rather, they never let themselves absorb the reality of September 11 in the first place—and they show no resolve.

That's why the galling effrontery of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque is left to dominate the news on this ninth anniversary. Just as the hole in the ground where a new skyscraper ought to be leaves the mosque as the most important structure going up at the old World Trade Center site, so the hole where a vigorous military and foreign policy ought to be leaves the mosque as the only clear sign of initiative in the War on Terrorism. And it is initiative on the part of Islamist sympathizers and apologists.

That's why people are so worked up over the mosque. They sense the need to do something to regain initiative against the Islamists, and in the absence of any action by our top political leaders, opposing the mosque seems to be the only action we can take.

But there is something more important we can do, and that brings us back from September 11 to September 12. The most important thing we can do is to change the leadership in Washington, and tomorrow's rally will help us keep up our own resolve and sense of purpose in the final stretch going into this fall's election.

I want to repeat the comments I made this time last year, before the first big 9/12 rally.

"[W]ith Democrats now flipping back to defeatism on Afghanistan, and with the Obama administration demonstrating its complete indifference to the wider threat of radical Islam from Iran, we face the risk that our enemies will be allowed to bounce back. That, in my view, is another reason to break President Obama's domestic political power. If we can stall Obama's domestic agenda, we will free up time and energy in the national debate to focus on foreign policy, particularly with regard to the war in Afghanistan (and Pakistan), and the uprising in Iran. And that will generate more pressure on the Obama administration to take a stronger stand and show positive results in those conflicts.

"The defense of liberty is interconnected. When you defend liberty in one area, you make it easier to defend it in other areas. Defeat [update: repeal] the health-care bill, and you make it easier to defeat cap-and-trade. Defend liberty against socialism at home, and you make is easier to defend liberty against Islamofascism overseas."

If you want to do something about September 11, do something on September 12—and make very sure that you do something on November 2.—RWT

Check out the poster and signs page:

http://www.intellect...cle.php?id=1133

Edited September 12, 2010 by Selene

[Dennis Hardin]

"Solid case" is the keyword.

I also don't think Objectivism presents a premise-level solid case for rights, since the case rests on an incomplete view of human nature. It presents a good case, but not a "solid case."

When Rand dismissed parts of human nature (mostly dealing with birth, growth and debilitation) as not essential to individual rights, she let religion and statism have them by default. At least in terms of the general public. When the general public asks, "What about xxxxx?" and the Objectivist literature dismisses it, but religious doctrine and the collectivist writings do not, the general public will read what they have to say.

Dismissal is not the same thing as a rational argument and it will not convince someone who has thought the issues through and come to a conclusion.

Michael

Michael,

Could you please spell out what, specifically, you think has been dismissed by Objectivist literature? I have no idea what you mean by birth, growth and debilitation.

Thanks

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

There are several ways to define human life. I think the best way is to start with biology.

When an egg is fertilized, you get unique individual DNA. And you get two people occupying the same body for a while. It doesn't help to say, "That doesn't count because that is not human." (Rand has practically said that several times. I posted quotes from here recently on another thread. I can try to find them if you wish.) Plain normal people, religious or otherwise, will not agree for the simple reason that being in the womb is part of human life. We were all there at one time.

This is not to say that abortion is a violation of the right to life, if you agree that a human being only acquires that right at birth. But in order to do that, you cannot use "human nature" as your standard for deriving rights. Rand solved this by denying that a fetus was human. In other words, she dismissed that stage of life. She was nasty about it, too. But calling names and dismissing is not the same thing as delving into the issue. Frankly, I believe religions and collectivists are pleased with this because they are more than willing to address it.

This is just the right to life, and it gets further complicated by another comment Rand made once. She said that infants and children are, by definition, not able to survive on their own--that someone had to care for them or they would die. (I can dig that one up, too, if you like.) That suddenly tuns the right to life on its head from a negative right to a positive one.

At least here, Rand did not claim that a child is not human. But how the right to life of a child should be protected is not too clear with her if something happens to the parents. The traditional solution I have read on Objectivist forums is that if nobody is found who is willing to take care of the child, then the child is out of luck--that right to life only means that nobody can kill him. And that is problematic if you define the child as unable to care for himself on pain of death.

Once again, religions and collectivists are more than happy to say that they will take care of all children. Your mainstream person looks at them, then looks at Objectivism and goes with them if he is worried about children.

These are just two problems. There are more, like with old age. I have been working over time on getting all these thoughts into one place so they can be worked on.

I originally became concerned with this once when I read in an ethics for dummies kind of book that Objectivist ethics is generally not accepted because weak phases of life like infancy, serious illness and old age are part of the universal human experience, i.e., we all go through them, yet they are not covered. That gave me pause because it is essentially true. We can say this or that, but the mainstream person looks and thinks there's an awful lot missing. Since religion and collectivism deal with these phases, he turns to one of them for ethical conclusions.

Rand defined rights as moral principles taken to the social level. If Rand's ethics do not take into account the entire human experience, it's obvious that her concept of rights will not.

I have discussed this at other times in our subcomunity, and I have been called everything in the book for my trouble. But it has to make sense to me before I can sing the party line. And this incompleteness is a real problem on a premise level. Some people seem to be fine with the dismissals. I can't be and call myself rational.

At the present, I am inclined to adopt a kind of sliding scale with rights, settling after the slide on an 80-20% ethical basis (or something similar) for individual to species considerations as basis for arriving at rights, but that is just an inclination so far. I do not have the details worked out.

I do know that if Objectivists adhere whole hog to Rand's dismissals and omissions about human nature, religion and/or collectivism will keep its influence by us defaulting, by us simply waling away from the issue. We need to have something for the mainstream person to consider as the good--and something consistent with our definitions--for these phases of life. Then we can compete with religion/collectivism for real.

Until then, at least Rand's fiction is selling well.

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Michael:

You bring up the following issues as “Rand's dismissals and omissions about human nature:”

(1) Rand justified abortion on the basis that the fetus is not human;

(2) Rand said that infants and children are, by definition, not able to survive on their own--that someone had to care for them or they would die.

(3) Based on your original reference to “debilitation,” I would also guess that you have a problem with Rand’s view that people who are retarded or otherwise severely handicapped somehow do not count we when we assess the nature of what it is to be human.

Without digging up Rand’s specific quotes on these issues, I will just answer based on my own understanding of her views. Or perhaps more accurately, my own views of a proper Objectivist approach to these issues.

Abortion:

I believe she did say that that the early stage embryo was not “human,” but she referred to the unborn fetus as a “potential” human in the sense of not yet being a separate living entitity. As long as it is biologically dependent on the mother, to endow the fetus with rights would be to turn the mother into a slave. That is why rights are only applicable to the mother prior to birth (or, IMO, prior to fetal viability). So I don’t think the abortion issue really turns on the question of whether the unborn fetus is human. I am certain she would have said the fetus was human at a certain stage of development.

Children:

This is also primarily an issue of ethics, not human nature. No doubt the author of the Ethics for Dummies book felt Rand was cruel because she said that orphans did not have the right to force adults other than their parents to provide for them. Again, however, the alternative is slavery. Of course, in fact, in a free society that was not overburdened with confiscatory taxation, orphans would normally be able to find charitable organizations to provide for them. Their right to life stops where the coercion of others begins, as is universally true for everyone.

Severely Handicapped:

The ethical issue here is the same as with the other two issues: need is not a claim. No one can force others to provide for them; people who cannot provide for themselves must rely on charity. If a free society is based on the idea that force is ruled out of human relationships, how could such people have a right to survive when that survival required force?

The third issue does potentially involve the definition of human nature, since Rand did dismiss “marginal” or “borderline” cases when she defined man as a rational animal. Obviously someone who is severely psychotic is not rational. This is where I can see some limited merit to your position that Objectivism has an “incomplete view of human nature.” Rand's dismissal of borderline cases as irrelevant to the question of man’s nature qua man seems somewhat dubious. This particular aspect of Objectivist theory probably could use some clarification, but I don’t see the issue of the rights of such people to be at issue.

I tried to come up with something to call you that is not in the book, but I couldn't, so I decided, what the heck, let's just have a friendly discussion. Pretty boring, huh?

[9thdoctor]

His comments on the show reflect zero comprehension of any of the points I have made. Prager represents the best of the religious minds out there, but his brain is completely insulated from genuine, clear-thinking rationality.

He sure doesn't come across well in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMH8SxpeJ9Y

Here's another Bible thumper giving it his best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVFtW7jNSwM