Distractions from Objectivism

Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years ago to The Gulch: General
88 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I like this format. It makes statements and replies a little more clear. I'll stick with it. Sort of.

    "you have chosen the lesser of two evils"
    That is essentially correct. ----------- I and apparently many others here would say you are wrong but you based that choice on the knowledge you had at the time and your own values. No one is expected to be all knowing and if we all had the same values none of us would be here. "The truth must be the final arbitor."

    "we do not believe in forced taxation for anything"
    I've heard some comments here about a gov't funded by all voluntary contributions. I'm intrigued by the idea. It would obviously better to fund gov't w/o taking by force. -----------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.

    "gov't can't fund anything that is not the proper responsibility of gov't. Period."
    This seems like begging the question, i.e. it is not proper for gov't to fund certain things because they're not the property responsibility of gov't. ---------- Maybe easy to twist but it means exactly what it says. Not certain things, anything that is not the proper function of government. What is handed out must be taken first. It is not voluntary.

    You may know more about Objectivists, libertarians, and fans of AS etc because I sloppily lump them together. I only recently learned that some libertarians do not respect IP rights.
    ----------- Many/most/some? libertarians reject the notion of the necessity of a proper philosophical base. I.E. the "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, (a proper government is expected to retaliate against initiated force) and it can't be defended (Your opponent is expected to accept it without reason). It is not an axiom.

    Can you clarify what you're saying about gov't never being helpful? This started with my guess at what goes through other people's mind, just led to confusion. Maybe you could say what you think is the proper role of gov't or ask me if I think some specific thing is within the role of gov't --------------- 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.
    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. In these three legitimate functions of government there is no means to help anyone. To help someone is to step outside of the legitimate functions of government and it can only do that by initiating the use of force. EVIL. As you come to understand that, youll get angry too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Eudamonia,
    I think I have gone to check it out a couple times but keep getting distracted before I can look around. I will check it out. Thanks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Neither did I when I joined just over a year ago. It is enjoyable being among those of like mind, and definitely worth the $40 yearly fee.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Until very recently I thought Objectivist, libertarian, and AS fan were almost the same thing. I'll have to read at least one non-fiction Objectivist book.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "the size of the government as a number by itself is irrelevant"
    It's only part of the story. Size and intrusiveness matter. It could be small but intrusive or bloated but not intrusive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "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 found Fountainhead first. At first I thought I'd never make it through, but I suddenly found it interesting. I found AS next.

    "you have chosen the lesser of two evils"
    That is essentially correct.

    "we do not believe in forced taxation for anything"
    I've heard some comments here about a gov't funded by all voluntary contributions. I'm intrigued by the idea. It would obviously better to fund gov't w/o taking by force.

    "gov't can't fund anything that is not the proper responsibility of gov't. Period."
    This seems like begging the question, i.e. it is not proper for gov't to fund certain things because they're not the property responsibility of gov't.

    You may know more about Objectivists, libertarians, and fans of AS etc because I sloppily lump them together. I only recently learned that some libertarians do not respect IP rights.

    Can you clarify what you're saying about gov't never being helpful? This started with my guess at what goes through other people's mind, just led to confusion. Maybe you could say what you think is the proper role of gov't or ask me if I think some specific thing is within the role of gov't.



    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Still reading Khallings suggestion, then we'll see.

    16th amendment if I had to guess, though I was thinking it was a little later.

    .
    .
    .
    Nope. That was it. I agree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    OBJECTION!! Argumentative!!
    Lol. Always wanted to say that.

    Seriously "It's obvious from my comment" was a completely unnecessary part of that sentence.

    Here's something I may not get much agreement on (not sure) but I'm going to say that the size of the government as a number by itself is irrelevant. It must be the size it must be to carry out it's proper functions. The area of concern is the proper functions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    My noodle was fairly twisted growing up in a very religious household and carrying the guilt of failing in the blind faith department for 40 years. Applying Objectivism to my noodle has straightened it out pretty good.

    Sorry. Did that sound dirty to anybody else here?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    My straight jacket is on order just in case.

    Oh, and you guys don't have to watch if it is too painful. Lol. Although I was hoping someone out there will help make sure my premises stay in line as well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
    Difficult to read, difficult to follow and difficult to understand. One of my favorite Objectivism books. Completely changed the way I hear people speak and read what they write. But I haven't read any of them twice.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo