Distractions from Objectivism
Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago to The Gulch: General
I am shocked by the negative comments about me on the “What the Gulch Is” thread. I knew people disagreed on stuff, but I didn't realize people were thinking about not using the website just because of me or that so many people think I'm anti-Objectivist. I agree with the tenor of the vast majority of what I read here, so I assumed people similarly agreed with me.
Some comments focus on things I know most people disagree with me on:
Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW will likely have huge costs in the future. It's one of the biggest problems of our time.
President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't.
PPACA – It's a mixed bag and a huge improvement over the system we had based on vestiges of WWII-era price controls. We need to get away from gov't “systems”, but IMHO the law did more good than harm.
Welfare Programs for the Poor – They're not always alms. If it's moral to do forced taxation for a proven program to catch an incarcerate criminals, it's moral to do forced taxation to provide something like job training if it's proven to reduce criminal behavior.
Religion – Most educated religious people of the world are moderates whose worldview is informed by their cultural traditions but who generally accept reason and religious pluralism in their daily lives. The raving Bible-thumper, the Islamist militant, child-molesting priest, and the people who promote essential oils are the exception to the rule, the man-bites-dog cases that grab our attention. We need to promote pluralism and avoid needlessly taking on someone's Olive Tree (in the Thomas Friedman sense of the phrase).
How these fit into Objectivism is a very good question beyond the scope of this post. All the things I agree with most people here on are also beyond the scope.
I don't apologize for disagreeing with people, but I sincerely apologize to anyone I've been cranky with regarding my pet peeves. My peeves are arguments that sound like this:
- “My life is ruined because of [President Obama, Wall Street, monetary policy, etc].”
- “You voted for President Bush. That means you're personally responsible for Medicare Part D and the invasion of Iraq.”
- “I keep yelling at people about how stupid they are, but for some reason they won't respond by changing their minds.”
- Any argument that says something is non sequitur or based on faulty premises without stating the logical fallacy or faulty premises.
I am sorry about when I let my peeves make me rude.
I feel weird responding to any posts with this thread out there of people carrying on condemning me. Should I just respond with my ideas on a posts about things like ham radio, being cautious of the tidy narrative that the US was founded on purely libertarian principles, or about John Adams and imposing democratic gov't and central banking on the world, without regard for all the people saying they don't want me to comment at all? I don't want to bother people when there's a universe of people, maybe people you might consider anti-Objectivist, to talk to.
I feel awful about distracting people from Objectivism, and I want it to stop.
Some comments focus on things I know most people disagree with me on:
Anthropogenic Global Warming – AGW will likely have huge costs in the future. It's one of the biggest problems of our time.
President Obama – He is doing a decent job, as mainstream politicians go. No one person can stop the trend toward more intrusive/costly gov't.
PPACA – It's a mixed bag and a huge improvement over the system we had based on vestiges of WWII-era price controls. We need to get away from gov't “systems”, but IMHO the law did more good than harm.
Welfare Programs for the Poor – They're not always alms. If it's moral to do forced taxation for a proven program to catch an incarcerate criminals, it's moral to do forced taxation to provide something like job training if it's proven to reduce criminal behavior.
Religion – Most educated religious people of the world are moderates whose worldview is informed by their cultural traditions but who generally accept reason and religious pluralism in their daily lives. The raving Bible-thumper, the Islamist militant, child-molesting priest, and the people who promote essential oils are the exception to the rule, the man-bites-dog cases that grab our attention. We need to promote pluralism and avoid needlessly taking on someone's Olive Tree (in the Thomas Friedman sense of the phrase).
How these fit into Objectivism is a very good question beyond the scope of this post. All the things I agree with most people here on are also beyond the scope.
I don't apologize for disagreeing with people, but I sincerely apologize to anyone I've been cranky with regarding my pet peeves. My peeves are arguments that sound like this:
- “My life is ruined because of [President Obama, Wall Street, monetary policy, etc].”
- “You voted for President Bush. That means you're personally responsible for Medicare Part D and the invasion of Iraq.”
- “I keep yelling at people about how stupid they are, but for some reason they won't respond by changing their minds.”
- Any argument that says something is non sequitur or based on faulty premises without stating the logical fallacy or faulty premises.
I am sorry about when I let my peeves make me rude.
I feel weird responding to any posts with this thread out there of people carrying on condemning me. Should I just respond with my ideas on a posts about things like ham radio, being cautious of the tidy narrative that the US was founded on purely libertarian principles, or about John Adams and imposing democratic gov't and central banking on the world, without regard for all the people saying they don't want me to comment at all? I don't want to bother people when there's a universe of people, maybe people you might consider anti-Objectivist, to talk to.
I feel awful about distracting people from Objectivism, and I want it to stop.
As for the Libertarians--perhaps things have changed since the early days when I really wanted a political party to support. What I found was a morass of in-fighting about seemingly every point in any platform on the national level, and once a Presidential candidate finally emerged from the process, the first thing out of his mouth when he finally got a hearing was something to the effect that he would cut taxes by 50%. I'm sure it sounded noble to the supporters to have such a champion, but all I could see was a person who immediately lost all interest from anyone not already a believer--and for good reason. Can't anyone see that if such a tax cut were actually enacted the country would probably descend into anarchy, given the inroads the Actual Government had made into the day by day life of the country? Perfectly serious and honorable and principled men with no political sense (it seems to me) would immediately get themselves label crackpots, and as far as I've seen over the succeeding years is that they still can't get a seat at the table to discuss the practical side of Libertarianism.
Since I am the last person to realistically jump into the fray and try to make a difference from within the infighting groups, I opted out. Just how much of one's life and work can one be expected to give up for the sake of such political life? I'm not a quitter, even when I quit !! I just chose to focus on areas where I could perhaps end up making an actual difference.
Thank you Mamaemma for the compliment, that is very encouraging.
I also seem to have lost the option to edit. Not sure when, I haven't needed it today till now. I used it the other day to delete a comment I managed to duplicate.
Oh, and that joke seemed funny in my head when I posted it, but maybe, not so much now.
Thank you.
It is a comfort to know that you are on the journey too.
Thank you for responding. I appreciate your candor.
I too have had a tough start in life. It left me with
a "tendency" to shoulder the burden of those who will not stand up for themselves and who do not "think" only react. They require, from those who are stronger and have direction (earned by sweat, blood and tears), time, patience, cajoling, sympathy, counseling, etc.
I know where you are coming from and I understand your endeavors towards those who are disadvantaged and "needy". It is a hard line to draw, yet it must be done.
Time is surely among the most valuable assets we have. Those that are traveling the difficult but rewarding path of Rand's philosophy could use the camaraderie of like minds. If one elects to reduce the value of his time by giving it to those who just don't get it and probably never will... is that not a sacrifice?
I profoundly believe that you can distinguish an individual that has an innate sense of "A = A". You can just tell from their reasoning. While they may not always employ logic or they stumble out of the realm of reason (when emotions kick in) you just know that you both turn on a center point of reason which allows you to freely exchange ideas and work without the conflict that arises from
non reasoning individuals that do not understand "value for value" or that "A = A".
I use this premise and ask myself, "would a D'Anconia take up his time with me to discuss an alternative to living in this world as it is, in other words, would I be one of those honored to be invited to their Gulch?" I strive to be worthy of such an honor and it is a daily struggle which I do not often win.
And if CG learns something that's great.
And if I learn something... Well... What are the chances of that happening?
Hey! That was funny!
Edit: left a word out
As for the commenting part, you guys have dragged me out in the open. I'm here now. I may not always be as active as I am right now (when I get my head into a project, other things tend to fade away) but I will be here.
And I will be checking out the interview you mentioned.
Not everyone in life is given the same hand of cards when they start out. Forgive me, but the concept that "All men are created equal" is bullshit. I came from a household of abusive parents, which was actually the least of my problems. As time went on I eventually developed a personality similar the charter played by Hugh Laurie on the TV show "House". Only I was a bit more irritable and I was certainly more vicious if someone crossed me. Lucky for me I gravitated towards people who used reason and spent time thinking in their daily lives that saw something in me that I hadn't seen in myself.
You are absolutely correct: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". But when you have someone that has come to the water hole, and is trying to drink, why would you chase him away just because he is making a few obnoxious noises?
That would get you the best information. That one is deeper than I am able to put into words without just copying and pasting a bunch of quotes. "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" would give you the most thorough answers, I believe, but, as noted elsewhere, it is difficult and perhaps not the best place to start.
I will say this, though; Axioms are not based on reason, we use reason to arrive at and understand axioms. Simplest - "existence exists". It can have no further explanation and needs none. To explain why in words on a page is beyond my ability and wouldn't fit here anyway. You will have to find your way there. I will help with any questions you may have to the best of my ability if you're interested.
"These things do help by enforcing natural rights".
I have seen the term "natural rights" referred to many times in these pages and elsewhere. Natural rights do not exist. At least not outside the context of living human beings. Rights are concepts based upon the nature of human beings and the law of identity. They are arrived at through a process of reason and observation of nature (the nature of human beings). I believe this is what most on this site refer to by saying natural rights. It is important to know the difference because when some refer to natural rights, they mean something that exists independent of the human mind and that you can neither fully "know", nor argue with. This is where the word rights becomes bastardized, I.E. animals have rights; the earth has rights, governments have rights, corporations have rights, (or don't depending on which side you're misusing the term for). Only humans have rights and only because we recognize the nature of human beings. Again, keep reading the non-fiction stuff because there is much more to it than what I can put into words.
"I'll just say gov't shouldn't IMHO be doing charity work."
Reinforce this by saying gov't CAN"T do charity work. The gov't does not legitimately have anything to give away. It must first TAKE from somebody else in order to give it away. That cannot be charity. Merely theft.
Yes!
"That would be the optimum long range goal. We all know that it aint happenin anytime soon but that is no reason to ever justify the current theft system. "
Yes!
""Do no harm" "Axiom" of the libertarians. But why? Why do no harm? Without the philosophical base it can't be accepted, (you are expected to accept it without reason) it can't be enforced
I do not understand how axioms can be based on reason and am planning to read more.
"The proper role of government is really boiled down to one thing, the protection of the INDIVIDUAL rights of it's citizens. From threats foreign and domestic. "
I agree with that claim.
"Only individuals have rights. The rights of one individual cannot supercede the rights of another. Not even by majority vote. The government has no rights. Only the individuals within have rights. The government protects those rights by means of the military, the police, and the courts."
Yes, to all that.
"In these three legitimate functions of government there is no means to help anyone. "
These things do help by enforcing natural rights. I'll just say gov't shouldn't IMHO be doing charity work.
This has been far more brain exercise than lurking in the shadows and keeping my comments inside my own head. The thoughts have to be much more concrete when you try to write them down. Which is, of course, part of the reason for the hesitation to do so.
I'm not a plant though. And my honest goal here is to educate, or be educated as the case may be. I just like to bring a little humor along the way.
Load more comments...