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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Holy craaaap.
RMP said type slower, you might try reading slower as well. Take time to understand what is said. After thinking about it a minute I realized that may be a cause of some of the misunderstandings. Look at my comment and your reply as an example.
If you like satire, please stop by papapossum.com where I post original pieces of political satire in verse.
It is not the type of satire which The Peoples' Cube engages in.
Rather, it is "Juvenalian" in style, which means it is less comedic and more (much more) dripping sarcasm and venom.
Enjoy, or not.
Don't be too thankful for my interest yet, I was thinking of it more as morbid curiosity. (hope you got a sense of humor)
I was led to Atlas Shrugged by a large number of references to it on ThePeoplesCube satirical website. Look it up, it's awesome. I investigated it, bought it, and almost never put it down till it was done. All my family read it just to see what the hell got into me. Then I devoured everything I could get my hands on and I liked the non-fiction even more because it helped me to understand so much better. I hope you like it and stay with it.
To the rest of your reply, I've been trying for hours to figure out what to say to that. My first thought was "he didn't answer the f^%$king question." Please don't be offended yet. I'm sure I'll do better sooner or later. I've read it and re-read it and I can't figure out how that answers the question I asked. The closest I can get is that, in your mind, to your knowledge, you have chosen the lesser of two evils. I would have to disagree but I know I would have a hard time arguing that considering the last two choices we had. I am surrounded by energy industry (coal, electricity, natural gas, and some oil) and my shop is support for those industries so, as you can imagine, we're hurting right now. All that is to say that an energy friendly socialist would be my choice for the lesser of two evils.
Your last paragraph does show a misunderstanding of Objectivism , though, because we do not believe in forced taxation for anything and this sentence: " My understanding (possibly misunderstanding) of many Objectivists is they're saying gov't can't fund anything that at all smacks of being at all helpful because it too easily turns into alms, a bloated budget, and a back-door way for gov't to control people." I had to quote it to be exact about where it is wrong. Objectivists say the gov't can't fund anything that is not the proper responsibility of gov't. Period. Your understanding is proper for conservatives and some libertarians, (duck), but it does not fit Objectivism at all. It is not the gov't responsibility to be helpful. At all. Not. Just.... not. Simply because the gov't cannot be helpful without first taking from someone else.
Since then I've read most of her output multiple times (exceptions are the collected early works and The Objectivist Epistemology).
I have even supplemented my contextual knowledge by taking courses in philosophy at a local university.
And even after all of that, I am still *very* hesitant at calling myself an Objectivist.
Maybe after I've built up enough historical and philosophical context to be able to competently tackle The Objectivist Epistemology, maybe then I'll consider calling myself an Objectivist.
But certainly not until then.
I guess I'm so used to people talking that way I didn't even catch the condescension (thanks spellcheck) in that remark. Perhaps that will work to my advantage for now as I have not reached the level of frustration that some of you have so, maybe, if I can't reach him I might at least be able to understand him.
I understand your anger at the health care act although my shop has been lucky so far and our insurance policy has received a stay of execution twice now so increases have been minimal. You do bring up an interesting point that I have been wondering about recently and maybe would be a good topic for a different conversation and that is the ACCRAAPAA whatever is force. The initiation of force, even. At what point does this initiation of the use of force demand the retaliatory use of force? If you have already discussed that one please point me to it. Love to see what others think about it.
That part was kind of intended to hopefully keep CG focused on the question as I have noticed a tendency of his to pick at the questions others have asked instead of answering and my vocabulary (or lack thereof) may leave my questions open to that. I do appreciate the offer and though I think I have a decent understanding of Objectivism this, um, exercise, may lead me to some questions I didn't realize I had.
I would like to make an objective point and reference cg's "My life is ruined b/c of X" condescending remark.
I take this remark personally and I have an example of how bo IS ruining my life...
Since we are now forced to pay more than double for health ins. then we did two years ago, how is that NOT a move toward ruining my life? It is thievery by way of stealing the value of my productivity (MY money), when your property, what you've worked for and earned, is forcibly taken, that IS stealing your life. Financially it's a HUGE hit to us (which is beside the point), but it's painful and difficult and we can't even opt out. This is not only theft, it is use of force, which is anti freedom. When you take away the freedom of individuals and use force that is slavery. Theft of life. Does slavery and financial theft some how NOT ruin people's lives?
CG's remarks are often not in line with objectivism. Appreciating a writer's fiction does not make one an objectivist. cg's A does not equal A and he refuses to see it. (Forced charity, by way of taxation, is also something he supports.)
Actually, you don't speak for any Objectivists CJ. While I am certain you are a fan of Rand's fiction, you are not an Objectivist - nor do you possess an understanding of what Objectivism is.
Please refrain from labeling yourself an "Objectivist", or implying in any way that you represent "Objectivism", or that you know what Objectivism is, in the future. Questions are fine of course. Assertions, not so much. I do not want to confuse new members.
Like most here, you are a student of Objectivism. And, we welcome your questions and opinions.
Thank you CJ.
I too agree gov't should be small and am supportive of private charity.
No one is going to attack you or point out the "weakness in my writing." This is an introductory site for Objectivism. Consider making a post that asks some questions. We're present and interested.
This is NOT what Objectivists think. Objectivists support a proper government which is necessarily small. They do not support incarceration of people taking or selling drugs. They ARE supportive of PRIVATE charity.
You are purposely mis-representing what Objectivism is, as usual.
I do not think any mainstream national politician is promoting reducing the size and scope of gov't. Instead it's a laundry list of things they thing the gov't can insert itself into.
We need IMHO to be able to say gov't shouldn't do something without that implying it shouldn't happen. Gov't shouldn't be at war with people who use drugs or guns, but that doesn't mean we want people using them all the time. It means we just don't grant gov't power in our lives over those areas. It's the same thing with paying for middle-class medical care, cancer research, or having an enormous military to respond with tens of thousands of troops when ISIS or other evil people do ghastly things.
Most people believe in forced taxation to pay to policing because we cannot exclude those who don't want to pay. I do not claim to speak for most Objectivists, who may want a purely voluntary system or something else I'm not even aware of. My thought is if similar programs that help the poor provide a similar non-excludable benefit, forced taxation can be used to fund those programs too. "Helpful" programs are addictive and hard shut down. My understanding (possibly misunderstanding) of many Objectivists is they're saying gov't can't fund anything that at all smacks of being at all helpful because it too easily turns into alms, a bloated budget, and a back-door way for gov't to control people. They would rather spend $100k prosecuting and incarcerating someone than spend $10k in job training because they think "this program would reduce crime or increase productivity" as a facile excuse that can be used to justify any gov't spending.
Load more comments...