What's all this nonesense about Objectivists not "Initiating" violence?
Posted by Joby117 11 years, 6 months ago to The Gulch: General
One name:
Ragnar Danneskjöld
I'm all for peace, but not when the only way out is to fight your way out.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
I'm all for peace, but not when the only way out is to fight your way out.
Are we to the point where an honest man could make the choice Ragnar made? I believe it was an honest choice, he reciprocated force for force. I also believe that we have likely reached the point that this could be an honest choice. Is it yet the right choice; I do not know for sure.
I am a religious person, I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, the Mormons. In the book of Mormon there is a military captain named Maroni who wrote these words on a banner they fought under.
"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children"
I think that a good description of the things we go to violence over when they are threatened. So the question is are these things under threat of being removed from me?
God/Religion - Everyone has religion. It is whatever value system you live by. The only people who do not are those that are anti-ideologies. Is your belief structure under threat of being removed from you? Mine is
How about your ability to live in peace and be left alone to live as you see fit, so long as you do not take that away from others? Mine is
How about your families, are they at threat yet? This one I think they are not yet there, but give it time.
I am not ready to call for war, but I am ready to make sure every person in my life, and Representative in state and local government knows that I am getting closer and exactly what is pushing me in that direction.
I do think it is time to have a war of words and philosophy with everyone around you whom does not get it, perhaps it is late in coming but its time to have that battle. If that fails, it will eventually be time for a civil war, but I hope that it never comes to that.
Since taxation is enforced through implied violence, is the implication equal to the application of actual violence? This is Ragnar's justification.
Rational violence is an interesting concept. No syllogism, no matter how eloquent, could have saved the Jews from the Nazi paradigm. Logic did not stop the Nazis, force did. In more recent context, no amount of "rational" logic is going to deter religious fanatics taking orders from God. Force and the threat of force will.
The bottom line is that there is not one nation on Earth which does not owe its existence to violence and the assumption that you will always have a rational opponent with whom to argue is a complete fallacy.
Sometimes force is more than the opposite to reason, it is the arbiter for survival. When conflict is immanent, waiting for your opponent to strike the first blow is a great way to lose the fight.
The ballot box and the courts are also battlegrounds, but the 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of the understanding of the founders to the principal that violence may become necessary to ensure " the security of a free state" from forces domestic or foreign.
I do not think we have reached a point justifying insurrection or rebellion and I still have faith in the ballot and the courts, but I think it is a good thing for the looters to remember that America is armed and can fight, if necessary.
For example was the tax on tea an initiation of violence against the colonies? Under the context of a 1% tax on tea to cover expenses of protecting the colonies from violence, it would not be. That is often all that is covered, if even that, in many historical text today.
The reality is that it was one of 17 taxes put in place that the Burgess counsels of the colonies rejected. The Kings response was to have the bergess disbanded. He later reinstated the burgess counsels and revoked all the tea tax. With the understanding that the message was sent with the tea tax that the king could do whatever he wanted and colonies you have no say, the Boston tea party makes sense, and was justified in my opinion as a retaliation against violence.
To jump to current times. In ways I think Obamacare is our modern era tea tax. As it is not wanted. It took 17 states getting special exemptions from this item or that one to get it to pass. It is so large and leaves so much latter regulation which is even larger than no one will be able to follow it. Like Sherman Anti-trust laws it will lead to people being jailed with no way to reasonably avoid it or know what they could have done to stop it until they are tossed in the jail without a court case, or end up being found guilty for something they that could have been interpreted so that they were guilty regardless of any action other than taking no action.
Should we have a Obamacare tea party? Its happening right now with cut hours, cut jobs, doctors and hospitals dropping medicare.... it is meeting force with force.
52% of people voted for security at the cost of liberty. We are done at the ballot box until we can sway the philosophy and religion that people live by in the country.
Since the 1960ies the courts have been largely the preview of case law, which is a slippery slope. What little justice there still is in the court system is slipping away slowly.
In the 1930ies social security was deemed unconstitutional because it forced everyone to participate. They made it option in order to pass it. By the 1960ies the court no longer recognized the unconstitutional aspects of social security and it was altered to have it be program funded by force. The courts are not much a battle ground any longer.
We have a few resources yet before this becomes a arbiter for survival which is when physical violence will be necessary, but those resources are few.
Valid petitions from the legislators of the states for succession are one tool we could still utilize. Others are rejecting federal money within a state and going it on our own within the US. The states still have power to refuse and I think that power will be exercised in regards to obamacare in particular.
Unfortunately I reside in a state which is one of the most left leaning in the nation, but I think the other tool we have is the internet. At least we can stay informed of what is almost never reported to us through regular media channels.
The internet is taking up the role of the broadsides in colonial America. Never underestimate the power of a motivated public.
This question assumes a negative view of human nature. Rational, psychologically healthy people would follow the law because it's to their disadvantage to not follow the law. The harmony of people's interests is a key premise of objectivism and Lockeian Contract Theory.
Jumping around from thread to thread, reading only the newer posts, can do that.
I'm sorry.
It is SO refreshing to find a discussion forum where Deep Things (sounds like something from a Lovecraft story, eh?) can be discussed and don't normally turn into a flame war.
Speaking of which, I'd like to compliment the designers of this site on their moderation system. It is truly keeping the trolls at bay.
This is true only so long as the law has enough rational behind it to satisfy the psychologically healthy people.
Once the laws defy natural/rational law or the laws no longer apply reasonably to all citizens it then requires force to keep the citizens from breaking those laws which are no longer rational or no longer applied to all.
Our laws are so complexly overwhelming that they now confound the definitions of epistemology. Not only has no one read them all, it is a physical impossibility for any person to read them all. Take just the tax code for example:
Here is a quote from U.S. Representative J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK)
"The heart of IRS abuse lies in the existing tax code. .... At 3,458 pages, twice the length of the Bible, it's impossible for the average taxpayer to know, understand, and accurately apply its provisions. ...Even tax experts cannot do so reliably."
Let's look at speed limits. If there was no possibility of getting a ticket, what would be the point of posting limits. Almost no one obeys the speed limit as is. The vast majority drive at 5 to 10 miles over the limit, with an occasional maniac driving by everyone going 90. Why do the majority drive at 5 to 10 miles per hour over? Because the Highway Patrol will not cite you until you drive at 11 mph over the limit. Enforcement sets the de facto limit not the law.
Don't even get me started on building codes, business permits and reporting requirements. Then there is this new law called Obamacare, 1,147,271 words of regulations published so far—270% as long as the text of the actual PPACA statute and growing! You couldn't obey this if you wanted to. There are several contradictions that still have to be resolved, but parts of the law are already in effect so many businesses are technically in violation of the law already.
The big laws like thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal or thou shalt not sexually mess around outside your marriage are easy to agree upon, but even with enforcement, these laws are broken all the time (just review the court dockets wherever you live and take a look at our last CIA Director).
Pragmatically, people obey what is enforced. Law as it presently exists does not promote "the harmony of people's interests", it provides job security for lawyers.
I'm still reserving judgement because I haven't yet read any of his works (still working my way through Hayek and Mises, won't start Rothbard until I finish the former) and I want to consider his ideas, in his own words, before choosing my position. But at this point I just don't see how anarcho-Capitalism can actually work in the real world.
Truthfully, it's not only the evil people we have to worry about. People make mistakes. People have problems. That's why there is a need for government. The question is just where to draw the line.
Though I've only seen the first season and a bit of the second, I've found Sons of Anarchy to be good demonstrate of how anarchy leads to violence by favoring the evil.
When it comes to economics, there are ideas that make sense and ideas that do not. And then there are ideas that are flat-out insane until you realize that they actually WORK in the Real World, and work better than any other ideas...
Which is what fascinates me about economics.
That said, ideas are merely interesting playthings (well, the ones about economics are mostly just playthings!) until they meet the test of the Real World.
So, through the centuries, we've discovered that Bastiat was right. Marx was wrong. Mises was right. Keynes was wrong. Friedman was right. Hayek was right. And Krugman wants to save the world by having space aliens invade Planet Earth.
The one thing in common with all of the economists mentioned above is that we have a historical record of times and places where their ideas have been tried -- and by now we have a pretty good idea what works and what does not.
One thing I would like to see is a real-world example of where Rothbard's ideas have been tried. But I've never heard of a place that has no Government Post Office, police, courts, and no public roads.
It's easy for me to get on board with the mainstream Austrians (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc.) because there are numerous places where their ideas have been tried. And have worked every time (that I know of). But where have Rothbard's ideas been tested? Any Rothbardians here (HA!) who would care to throw me a bone?
It sounds like you have read a bit of economic philosophy. I am a beginner in my reading on this subject and want to have a good starting point.
I have a good basic in fundamentals of economics (I run a small business so you have to in order to succeed) but would like to start reading a little more about it.
What book would you recommend from an Austrian economics expert to start off with?
I think about 85% of everything we laymen need to know about economics is contained in that short volume. Once you understand the first chapter, you understand the rest of the book, and also understand why NOTHING that is coming out of Washington today, from either major party, will ever work.
Bastiat wasn't himself an Austrian; he preceded them. But their work is built almost entirely upon his.
Pardon me for interjecting here, but I have been following this thread and in particular, your above discourse with some interest. I am a particular fan of Frederic Bastiat’s work, although it is along a different tack, one of my favorite short reads is “The Law” his last effort before death. It is a brilliant, concise examination of the rightful purpose, necessity of laws and what their limits should be for free men. For short economics reads, which are in my opinion enjoyable and entertaining as well as educational, I would recommend “Free to Choose” by Rose and Milton Friedmen, for a relatively modern perspective, and “The Road to Serfdom” by Friederich von Hayek for a prophetic perspective from seventy odd years ago.
Regards,
O.A.
"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."
To say it another way, I quote a friend:
"Religion is a specific type of value system that uses faith as the basic epistemological strategy instead of reason."
In short, I do not have a religion.
Based on the definition you provide Buddhist do not have a religion either. There is no faith there.
My own religion would not be a religion either based on your friends definition because of the removal of reason. My religion teaches that you must use reason in order to identify truth, and to find out for yourself if it is true.
Lets look at Atheism
Definition #1 in your post: I cant say I know on this one. Out of the couple of Atheist I know they have pretty strict ideas about the cause (big bang theory), purpose (existence), creation (evolution) and observer these beliefs with ritual observance. They also have a pretty strong moral code, often coming from some form of philosophy such as Buddhism or Objectivism. So they definitely qualify by this definition.
Definition #2 in your post: Completely qualifies, no explanation needed.
Definition #3 in your post: Completely qualifies, though in sub groups, Humanists Atheist in particular set of values and have a council and have people who adhere to the published belief set.
Definition #4: Makes no sense for most religions I am familiar with as entering religion does not require that you are a monk, nun or otherwise.
Definition #5: The practice requires faith that there is not a god as it cannot be proven or dis-proven either way. Atheism is a religion on this count as well.
So taking Atheism as a religion, it qualifies on all but one definition in the list. Its also the same number of definitions by which my religion qualifies based on the definitions you provide.
I do not believe my definition to broad, and any definition which removes reason from religion is far to narrow.
You said how why your religion uses faith within this explanation. Your religion "teaches" you to use reason to find the truth. You are accepting that statement on faith "use reason to find the truth." Buddhism is a religion in the same way. It accepts the statements of someone else as an unquestioned primary.
As for your critiques, let me respond to each definition:
"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
The key word here is "set." For it to be a religion, everything must be integrated into a set: cause, nature, purpose, and morals. The idea that "the universe is" is not an integration into a set of cause, nature, morals, and purpose. It is a fact of existence. The rest is derived independently by the individual. (The other key clauses here are "especially...superhuman agency" and "devotional and ritual observances.")
"2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion."
The key clause here is "generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." I do not know nor care if anyone agrees with me. The individual only seeks to prove truth to himself unless .
"3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."
The key here is "body of persons" and "beliefs AND practices." Just because a group of people agree on one thing, say their favorite color of red, doesn't mean they're a "body of persons" unless they also share PRACTICES are that belief. Of course, it is also "beliefS and practiceS" so sharing one belief and one practice does not a religion make. For instance, I go to a bar every Sunday to watch my favorite football team play, so do a bunch of other people. That is not a religion because it is only ONE belief and ONE practice.
"4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion."
The key here is "to enter a religion." The focus on monks and nuns is they make a conscious choice to take a vow and accept the religion. It's a mode of life beyond the natural state of being.
"5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."
The key word is RITUAL. You can have faith and not be religious if you aren't observing it RITUALISTICALLY.
Also, it does NOT take faith to not believe in god. Not believing is what? A lack of a belief. In the word's of Penn Jillete, "is there a god? I don't know." You either know something or don't. That's not faith.
How do you find any truth without first having a desire to believe and second acting on that desire in search of truth?
I wish to qualify this question as not being blind faith; but simply as part of a scientific process. You form a hypothesis, you then test the hypothesis. If you have no proof of the hypothesis until after its tested you must believe, have faith, in your hypothesis or there is no reason to test it.
How do you separate faith from this process?
To put it another way, my middle school science teacher concretized the scientific method as "Look at your fish." What do you see? Why do you think that is true? Ok, now test it.
Philosophically these ideas are in line with the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of objectivism.
-Metaphysics - the universe exists independent of man
-Epistemology - man is capable of understanding the universe through reason (and his sense faculties are not faulty)
-Ethics - the purpose of man's own existence is his life
The more knowledge you have, the better you can survive. That is where curiosity comes from--self esteem and intelligence.
You are making some assumption based partially on experience, knowledge and faith. You can not separate them.
If you know a thing you have no need to test against it, only if you believe a thing or have faith that a thing is true do you have need to test. You can attempt to spin the words but this fact is unavoidable.
To quote Leonard Peikoff, epistemological faith is: “...blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.
Furthermore:
"thinking it is true requires belief/faith. Without it there is no way to think something is true."
This statement contradicts the metaphysical and epistemological premises I stated above. Thinking is the opposite of faith. See Peikoff's definition above.
"If you know a thing you have no need to test against it, only if you believe a thing or have faith that a thing is true do you have need to test."
You test to see if the hypothesis is true because you think it MIGHT be true, not because you already believe it's true. (Once again though, saying "I believe this hypothesis is true" is saying "I have CONFIDENCE this hypothesis is true" NOT "I have (epistemological) faith this hypothesis is true.")
Should they have left Rearden locked up instead of shooting up the place and getting him out?
Romanticized, yes. But the reality would be bloodier and less nice. They already have us against the wall, how much more till we bite back?
Was it suicide for the founders of America to break it off with the King?
Ever read any of those pieces about what happened to the signers of the Declaration? They PAID for our freedom -- in blood.
I don't think most of the signers of the "Secession" petitions realize that yet. Chances are they will, someday.
I'll have to re-read the section under discussion and think about this some more.
Regardless of motive or justification, Ragnar becomes an outlaw, just as all revolutionaries ultimately must. If the revolt is successfull, the outlaw is remembered as a revolutionary. If unsuccessful... well Guy Fawkes comes to mind.
To answer your question in the title, Rand stated that the physical force was the opposite of reason. You can read more about it here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physic...