Proposition: America Could Not Have Been Founded By Objectivists
Posted by deleted 10 years, 2 months ago to History
Check out the Founding Fathers... the *sacrifices* they made way outside the reward they got. Many of them were financially ruined. Many had their health ruined. Many never lived to see the rewards which their sacrifices wrought.
George Washington could have been king; had he been an objectivist, he might well have become king, or been the cause of another becoming king.
Here he argues the men of the military into sacrificing value-for-value.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/was...
" "Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
In that single moment of sheer vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying another word, realizing their sentiments."
John Galt would never manipulate his men so. Then again, he'd never have "his men". Except in Rand's fictional world where she can induce the emotion of undeserved loyalty from the aether.
George Washington could have been king; had he been an objectivist, he might well have become king, or been the cause of another becoming king.
Here he argues the men of the military into sacrificing value-for-value.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/was...
" "Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
In that single moment of sheer vulnerability, Washington's men were deeply moved, even shamed, and many were quickly in tears, now looking with great affection at this aging man who had led them through so much. Washington read the remainder of the letter, then left without saying another word, realizing their sentiments."
John Galt would never manipulate his men so. Then again, he'd never have "his men". Except in Rand's fictional world where she can induce the emotion of undeserved loyalty from the aether.
This assertion misepesents the pinciples of Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand).
No individual who is an "Objectivist" (or lives by "Objectivist" principles) would be willing to become the King of anything, or want anyone else to be King, either.
I would like to know from whom "in Rand's fictional world" John Galt sought "undeserved loyality."
I do not fully agree with this. There are exceptions. It depends upon your hierarchy of values. If you love someone or something so much that you could not bear to see them or it (a loved one, your nation and/or the freedom of your descendants etc.) perish you may sacrifice your own life willingly. "If one wants to measure the intensity of a particular instance of love, one does so by reference to the hierarchy of values of the person experiencing it. A man may love a woman, yet may rate the neurotic satisfactions of sexual promiscuity higher than her value to him. Another man may love a woman, but may give her up, rating his fear of the disapproval of others (of his family, his friends or any random strangers) higher than her value. *Still another man may risk his life to save the woman he loves, because all his other values would lose meaning without her.* The emotions in these examples are not emotions of the same intensity or dimension. Do not let a James Taggart type of mystic tell you that love is immeasurable."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.h...
To the one sacrificing their life, they may be receiving the satisfaction of knowing their will, will be done and the continuance of something they value more...
The principle applies universally.
Respectfully,
O.A.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an *establishment of religion*."
"Weapons are not allowed in this establishment".
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Yes, the Founding Fathers were opposed to an American version of the Anglican Church, which became the official state church of England when the Catholic Church dared to tell Henry the 8th, "no".
So "ecclesiastical establishments" is declaiming official brick and mortar churches, not Christianity.
Can you say Ghengis Khan, Ceasar, Che, Mao, or Kim Il Sung just to name a few?
The other half of your evidence rests on the assumption that communism is NOT a religion. It was. It had all of the external evidences and much of the internal structure of a religion.
All human organizations - especially complex organizations (see the works of Charles Perrow and Ronald Westrum) - follow known patterns. But the students of Heisenberg did not throw bombs into the biergartens used by students of Bohr. At the Solvay Conferences, they argued long into the night - but no one was burned at the stake or tortured for a confession of false belief.
Philosophy overthrew religion in the 6th century BCE: coinage replaced farm goods as money; philosophy replaced religion; writing replaced public speaking; public processes replaced hereditary kings. Thales, the father of geometry and a founder of philosophy was also an astute businessman. In a thousand years, the Epicureans did not persecute the Peripatetics. The Cyreneans were free to espouse self-interest and self-doubt.
(And no one was persecuted for having coins of the wrong stamp or weight.)
but 'Philosophy overthrew religion in the 6th .', I did not know you were a romantic! I assume a paper is forthcoming.
The definition of what is a religion usually is based on the definers views which has often been the belief in a deity, one or more non-humans of superior power. My view is wider like yours, a religion is a set of beliefs that attempt to order and give meaning and value to human efforts. (Just making this up). The word belief is important, if evidence and logic are used it becomes a philosophy. So, communism and and such like are clearly religions. As for gross mass cruelty, altruism is sufficient, the bad are to suffer that the good shall benefit.
All Objectivists want to do is keep insisting that mutual respect and autonomy is the only "rational" perspective, despite eons of history that shows that that is not true.
I repeat that Objectivist DO NOT insist that mutual respect and autonomy is the only 'rational' perspective. They do insist that would be a better world, but we don't live in a la-la land of peace and flowers. We fully expect to have to defend ourselves and our property from those that would loot. Further an Objectivist would never try to force or coerce another into acting or believing anything, though they might try to demonstrate the rightness of their philosophy in the face of the other's failures.
You seem to believe that it is some communal power, but isn't that contrary to Objectivism? Why would I put my safety and welfare in the hands of a group even if I am part of that group?
The Objectivist argument is always that it is only rational that mutual respect and autonomy will result in each person seeing that they cannot violate the "sovereignty" of another. That is poppycock as history is replete with contrary examples.
If you want to place your security in the hands of the group, then you are nothing but a collectivist, and not an Objectivist. You can't have it both ways.
And since the fundamental tenet is not based on fact, it is only a belief, thus is religion.
For your baddest ass, I may have to obtain bigger weapons, I may have to hire more help, I may have to find like minded individuals and form a government to provide a larger protective force than I can afford on my own, I may even have to shrug the whole situation - but I never have to nor will I put my safety and welfare in the hands of a group nor will I willingly give up my natural individual rights derived from my existence.
I've never made a comment that even comes close to suggesting that every human I encounter is going to act rationally and have mutual respect and autonomy and that they won't try to violate my sovereignty. I fully expect and have had to defend my individual rights more times than I have room in these posts to begin to list. More, I recognize those same rights in every other individual I encounter.
I realize that you believe you've found some kind of flaw in the rationale and reasoning of AR in describing her philosophy, but I think you have a blind spot when it comes to the exercise of the rights inherent to the philosophy. There is no pacifism in Objectivism as there is in Christianity. I won't turn my cheek and I won't give unto Caesar nor God what someone presumes to tell me is their's instead of mine. Nor will I live my life for another, nor expect another to live their's for me. But if you're unwilling to exercise your individual rights, then you've no business trying to live an Objectivist life.
There is a non-aggression or more rightly put, non-initiation of force against another, set of principles based on the concept that each individual has the right of personal property and to enjoy the profits and earnings of his labor and mind. This is all based on rational objective, reasoned and logical observation and understanding of the world around me it's a personal philosophy of life without the need of mysticism or religion to give me reason or permission. There simply is nothing more important to me than my life and what I do with it and I refuse to allow anything or anyone or any super being to interfere with that.
You are certainly open to believe what you will and so long as you don't interfere with what I choose to believe, and don't infringe on my liberty, we can live alongside one another in peace. But that is only so long as you continue to choose to not infringe on my liberty. Since you prescribe to no deity, therefore no accounting for your actions other than to your own conscience, I will always have a wary eye. History is replete with those who did not respect their fellow man.
Yes, you can point to plenty of those who are among the "faithful" who have committed atrocities, as I can just as well point to those without faith who have committed atrocities. I say that the force of faith has prevented hundreds of times more atrocities than it has ever lead to. I'm sure you'll disagree, since proving a negative is impossible.
If that's not communal power, what do you call it?
All human perception is subjective, not objective. Trying to drive your car down the street based purely upon analysis of reality will result in you being the cause of traffic jams and car accidents. You'd be hated for the time it took for you to analyze the light coming from the traffic light to determine if it was an exact shade of yellow, of pulling out a measuring tape and calculator to ensure that you began slowing at precisely the point at which the law requires... hell, you'd need a radar range finder to ensure you followed traffic at the exact distant the law prescribes for a given speed. And who can calibrate a speedometer on the fly?
You perceive the world through the filter of your life experiences and learned preconceptions.
how are those learned then. There is a objective reality, your senses interact with that reality and there's a way of discerning objective reality. All of science is based on this. Logic and reason move the world forward. Emotionalism has succeeded in killing 100k people in the last century in the name of socialism and another 100k people in the name of environmentalism.
I have a terror of doctors and hospitals. It's not rational. It's born of my experiences as a baby with a near-fatal ear infection. I won't elaborate here, as that's not the point.
However, my decisions regarding my health care, for example, are colored by my preconceptions, or prejudices, about doctors and hospitals.
I disagree with your description of human perception as subjective. I suppose it can be if the individual refuses to apply rational and logical thought and to use his reason to determine the objective reality of what his senses perceive. I doubt that any Objectivist would accept your definition of traffic law requirements as the rational and objective way to drive. I'm not even sure that the requirements written in law can be defined as rational and objective, since they are really up to the subjective analysis of the traffic cop that wants to increase his quota for looting to pay for his salary.
none of our knowledge is instinctual. Even the most basic-see, hear, touch-even Helen Keller-touched.
Until a human being can integrate their senses with the world, they can't formulate a thought. a fetus sucking its thumb-that is a reflex reaction. Think of a person with no senses-how could they ever formulate a thought about the world? No feedback. You have to be able to interact with the world to formulate thoughts
So, our knowledge is gained through our senses. How does that counter the "BAOTB?" postulate?
I still say that history is replete with innumerable examples where one human has subjugated his fellow man. Sometimes this leads to his ultimate downfall (but I would also say, usually at the hands of another BAOTB), but sometimes not. I would also postulate that this philosophy stems directly from the "selfish interest" that is at the core of Objectivism.
So, if selfish interest can lead just as reasonably to either mutual respect and autonomy as to BAOTB, then it is irrational to base one's personal security on that foundation. And to believe that selfish interest will result in mutual respect and autonomy is just as much a belief in faith as is a belief in a deity.
This is not an atheist vs religious conversation.
just because someone was atheist and evil does not mean the atheism was fundamental in their evilness. On the other hand, 100s of millions have died in the name of religion or God/gods.
This shows that religious people fought the oppressive institutions of government many times over. These free thinkers became the individualists who broke with traditions and chose how they wished to conduct their lives. They created a diverse nation of diverse philosophies that brought rejection of royal authority, the ideas of balance of power, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state to the table, it was not limited to one group, one man or one philosophy and probably laid some other early seeds that led to the age of enlightenment in western civilization.
However, for those without a theological foundation, I think my proposition of the "baddest ass on the block" holds true. Without a belief in a final accounting for one's life, these people have assumed tremendous power and committed terrible atrocities specifically because they had no belief in a higher power. On the other hand, there are innumerable instances of those who have caused great goodness to occur in the world due to a belief. You probably hold Mother Theresa in great disdain because of her altruism, but her life not only provided comfort for thousands, but inspired millions to be better people.
Maybe you're not saying that, but I took it you were saying the final consequence of such beliefs, whether or not they're true, is good, so we should encourage people to believe things without evidence.
The difference is that if enough of my fellow humans believe in the deity, and that there is a reckoning of the conduct of one's life, that will tend to stabilize overall behavior. It does not require that all believe, just that enough believe that those who do not absolutely reject the deity are caused to question and therefore conduct themselves accordingly.
There will always be those who reject, and are absolutely narcissistic, who will be evil. Those society needs to deal with accordingly. It is those in the middle, those who could go either way, who are more likely to be swayed towards good rather than evil.
The lack of a deity leaves those in the middle only with the choice of doing good because of - why? Selfish interest would say do what ever is in your interest and don't worry about the other person. Doing good, when it does not directly promote ones self interest, does not seem rational, thus will be rejected. It is the idea that one will have to answer for ones conduct that sways the choice in the direction of good.
Your comment indicates that you have given up your natural rights, but NATURAL RIGHTS do exist just the same as geometry, government, and love.
don't EVER put a comment like that on this board again or you will be gone
I see you weren't saying that.
No-true-Scotsmans is the coolest-named fallacy, though.
At most, Moses was accused of killing one slavemaster.
But, this example then goes to demonstrate that you accept miracles.
Hundreds of millions have died in the name of atheism, too. Just ask the victims of the Soviets, the Chinese, the N. Koreans, the Cubans and every other collectivist society (all of which agree with objectivism on the perfection of atheism) on the planet.
The choice in adhereing to a religion is the acceptance of a mythic interpritation of events designed to explain away mysteries not easily proven. Many Objectivists have decided that they are not willing to accept things on faith--and need to build their world on observable fact. This is not the same as imposing the will of a collective group whether it be religious people, or even Objectivists into imposing themselves upon individuals with coerceon. A lack of respect for individual value is the root cause of death and religious zeal--and communism is every part of that root.
And the communist collectivists used force to impose atheism on others.
This venue is not an Objectivist enclave. There are plenty of those. This is an open forum for those interested in the movie, and as an off-shoot, the book Atlas Shrugged. One does not need to be an Objectivist to find AS meaningful and insightful. And those, seemingly like you, who insist on some sort of Objectivist "purity" degrade the ability for all of us to work together for our ultimate good.
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
― John Adams
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter." Thomas Paine
As deists, they believed in a creator and a higher power and always prayed to God for guidance, wisdom and strength to do what God placed on their hearts. They read the Bible, which gave them a sense of right and wrong, different from the direction the Church of England espoused. It is this and not the religion that drove them to declare their independence from the King.
Must one move to Atlantis to be a producer, and not a looter or moocher?
You know more about Jefferson's bible than me. Thank you for the history lesson. ;)
Modernized spelling and language usage, recall that in excess of 150 years had passed since the completion of the KJV.
Organizational - the three themes of scripture weren't placed into as organized groupings in the KJB as Jefferson desired. He sought to place the historical, poetic and prophetical divisions in a more reasoned order. He wrote that he believed that this would allow easier access to new converts, would this have been a better method over the existing date based style found in the KJB. Since he abandoned this attempt, we are not sure.
Lastly he wanted a pure product of American production as I already have mentioned.
As for the interactions between Adams and Jefferson, yes their history was varied over the many decades they knew one another. I'm not at home right now and missing my computer and library, I'm sailing such waters with just a single paddle. I'll just be forced to pass on any further comments about them until I get out of this hospital and back home.
Good night all.
"Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain." John Adams
"When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing." Galt's Speech
In "Continental Drift", Eddie Roarke uses this fact to stick it to the progressives once again :)
but now they are inventors, not just laborers
Workers are much more in the vein of Galt's speech than you give credit.
I also propose that the best example of this is companies that have an employee stock purchase program, thereby allowing the worker to become owners of the company in a small part furthering their personal investment in their work and the business overall.
In reference to Robbie's comment, I agree that modern management theory includes the input from the workers but they don't usually get additional permanent compensation for their participation unless they are stockholders or participate in a ESPP. I do have to make an exception for Wall Street where folks make continual astronomical bonuses for continually fleecing investors.
I still think the Galt speech was true in that the factory made the jobs possible, not that the workers were entitled to a cut of the profits.
It's still true today, but work is becoming more creative, less systematized, and has lower barriers to entry.
FIFY
The point is even if they weren't religious, they knew that in order to believe what they wanted, they could not force their beliefs on others.
I don't think that the BoR would look too much different than it does, except that it would be much more specifically qualified and defined in the terms of its premises. I've read a LOT of Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson; I think that they could get along just fine.
Your reply reveals a dislike of Rand in the way you ask 'which part would be left if written by Rand,' implying that you think it would be less substantial if she wrote it. I disagree, I think it could be a much stronger document for the purpose which it was intended; to limit the power of government and protect the rights of man, all men.
Also, your question lays on me something that I can't answer, nor should I be expected to know: How would Rand's Bill of Rights look? Are we talking if she wrote it back then(1790) with the knowledge available at that time? Or in her time with available knowledge? Or now with the knowledge available? You're asking my opinion, because I can't read her mind. I could tell you what I might think it would look like based on everything I know about her philosophy, I'd probably be pretty darn close; but it would be little more than conjecture, and therefore pointless at addressing a question that lacks context, or an exact answer from anyone other than Rand herself.
The only way I could Imagine that there would be no BoR, is that she would have taken the time to right up a Constitution that would not need to be amended after the fact with a BoR; as it initially happened. All the meat of it would be in the one, well-framed document.
Also, deleting a comment is not to be done lightly. If you say something, stand behind it. I've put my foot in my mouth a time or two; I'm sure you could still find 'em if you were so inclined. The fact is that deleted comments drive me freakin' crazy and makes the thread and subsequent comments less coherent and sometimes without context. Just a thought.
Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions.
Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered). ??? He has a voluntary agreement.
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary???, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.
Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, ??? nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.
There are no “rights” of special groups,???? No freedom of religion
There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals. ??? All her rights are based on what she called obectivism which is only justified with some physical evidence.
a nation is only a number of individuals
If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. ??? that cancels out religion.
WOLA I wondered if Ayn Rand wasn't really implanting a kind of communism where the business community was the master and the rest were it's tools.
1. You think a Hank Rearden hoarded money? No. He invested. this is clearly demonstrated in the book and movieand is Capitalism! The first nation in the History of the world that built a system of government around the philosophy of Capitalism! In 150 years we went from a new nation, struggling to the strongest country on earth.
2. Hank just wanted the government out of his way and second handers. That's reasonable-but not the basis of the founding of this country.
3.We are founded on natural rights-straight from Locke. You own yourself. Therefore you also own the products of your labor. Neither of these rights is divinely attributed to you. They are intrinsic with your life.
You don't like it when I'm glib about important stuff.
http://www.krusekronicle.com/kruse_kroni...
I own a few M1As SOCOM, Nat Match, and a couple standard M1As. I build a AR every few months for myself or somebody else. That great package is so much cheaper to build and own. About 2 1/2 ARs to 1 M1a.