 |
Comments |
|
 | Monday, October 5, 2009 at 6:38:43 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Tod
URL: http://www.cleverlikeafox.com/blog
Most important thing first. Can we take up a collection for his legal expenses?
There are so many things wrong here. It's so wrong. The culture is so screwed up. I realize this may be a case of Officer Power Trip in one town somewhere. The fact that it's possible anywhere, for even a minute, is horrifying. Even if the prosecutors know they don't have a case, they will probably use a plea bargain against him to save face. That is, give him the offer he can't refuse of going to trial and facing six years in prison, or accepting a month in jail and some fines. The authorities could be perfectly wrong, but they have so many methods of putting the screws to him, I fear for his safety. And don't you think that his general attitude of disobedience would be unpalatable to a southern jury? Or any jury?
I hate what my country has become. I can barely handle it any more. I know that I need to take action and fight these assholes, yet I will explode if I read one more story like this. I'm too angry to do any thing right now except shut off my computer. Anyone have any advice on how to cope with the stories like this that come every day now? |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 7:29:29 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Matt F.
E-mail: amicusaristoteles(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://sleepisthebrotherofdeath.blogspot.com
Forgive the pessimism, but I don't believe this is America anymore. And I mean that in all seriousness. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 7:58:58 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Tod
URL: http://www.cleverlikeafox.com/blog
One more thing before I go. Would it still be illegal to encourage others to break a certain law, even if that law would (or should, or could) be found unconstitutional by our courts? I could see how, given our perversion of a justice system, Dan could still be found guilty of those charges. The issue is not that he himself violated an unconstitutional law, but that he encouraged some minors to do so. And maybe there is some legal principle that says that while he would escape prosecution for breaking a law later overturned on constitutional grounds, he would have to be prosecuted if he encouraged a third party (or a minor third party) to break that same law. Also, we all know how crazy people get when any thing involves minors. There is a different standard. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 8:06:48 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Dan Edge
E-mail: i.am.dan.edge(at)gmail.com
URL: http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/
Big thanks to Diana for posting this.
At this point, I don't need any money for legal expenses. I'm going to be defending myself at the Preliminary Hearing, assuming the City doesn't throw out the case before then. Several have told me that I should get legal counsel for the Prelim, and I truly understand the sentiment, but please believe me when I say I am well prepared. Prelims place big limitations on what the defendant can do, so it's not that difficult to prepare for. If by some (highly unlikely) travesty of justice, my case proceeds to trial, then I will need legal council, but not before.
I will definitely need a lawyer (or a team of them) if I decide to wage a 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against the city. I am hoping to find a Civil Rights legal group to represent me pro bono, or someone with whom I can work out payment pending a successful case.
Several have asked me: what can one do? Here are some ideas:
1) If you know any Civil Rights attorneys who do pro bono work, send them my way!
2) You can write to the City, The Greenville News, others in the local Greenville press, or anyone in the national press. I've made a list of email, address, and phone contacts here: http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/several-folks-have-aske ...
3) Post information about my case elsewhere -- on your blog, in email to friends, etc.
4) Write me an email or comment on my blog if you sympathize with my plight. Dealing with this has been extraordinarily draining, and any moral support goes a long way. My brothers in spirit provide fuel to keep up the fight.
Thanks again to Diana, and thanks to all who read about this and care,
--Dan Edge |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 8:08:42 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Dan Edge
E-mail: i.am.dan.edge(at)gmail.com
URL: http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/
Darnit, in the post above the link has a period at the end of it, so it doesn't go to the right place. Can you fix that, Lady Hsieh?
--Dan |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 8:20:34 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
I've fixed it, Sir Edge! |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 9:47:32 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Lemuel
E-mail: synthesist(at)ymail.com
Tod said, "Anyone have any advice on how to cope with the stories like this that come every day now?"
(I don't mean to infer more than you implied in that single post, so don't take the following outside of that context, but ...)
Simply complaining about it isn't going to change things. We don't live in a totalitarian state yet, and you still have the ability to affect real change in America - but you've GOT to get involved. A few things Dan Edge did can provide some inspiration:
1. Take on what you able to. You're not going to change Obama's mind on health care or get the USA out of the UN (and vice versa), but you *can* fight an unjust law in your own community. You can become a thorn in the side of city council by speaking against whatever runaway community legislation you're prepared to battle. Do this enough, and you'll eventually achieve a victory, and others will join you. If you set your sights unrealistically high, you'll achieve little if anything, even if your intentions and methods are good. This push back against government power has to take place wherever there's a corrupt government - be it Washington, DC or BFE, Wyoming.
2. Don't wait until the law steps on *your* throat personally to get involved. Dan would not have been as specifically affected by the curfew he protested as much as other individuals, but he saw the implications of such power and chose to get involved. Encroaching legislation is made possible by apathy -- too many people saying "well, I don't smoke, ride a motorcycle, or live in Community X, so I don't care about smoking bans, helmet laws, or the city banning further development in Community X". By ignoring them in that way, by the time the laws *do* reach your doorstep, your protests may be fruitless; fight them when they're small and powerless, and you don't have to fight them *backed by an entrenched state bureaucracy* later.
3. Inspire yourself with stories of success. Read about the Founders, and how they stopped the tyranny that tried to crush them (the Tea Party wasn't the only protest of the era). Watch videos of speeches given at Tea Parties, and spread them around. Learn from those who got involved and won; learn from those who failed as well -- where did they go wrong, what could they have done better? The bureaucrats, corrupt journalists, and "Bicycle Bad Cops" of the world *can* be defeated.
4. Shameless shilling: *Continue reading this blog*. Drs. Hsieh both have been involved in advocacy for some time now, and not only can you see how they continue getting better and better at this, and are both achieving more and more recognition, but they also share their secrets with their readers - if something works, they blog about it; if not, they blog about it. This blog, the Objective Standard, the ARC blog, Objectivist scholar websites, and other resources are immensely valuable if you want to affect positive change; even if all you have the time or power to do is fire off an email or two daily, there is a TON of very useful advice here. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 10:08:22 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Just one more extension of Lemuel's point.
Tod has helped provide free website design services for the FIRM site for the past few years, including some of the recent updates that list "All Articles/Editorial" (as well as subpages broken out by author):
http://westandfirm.org/articles.html
Several people have told me this makes it easier for them to disseminate our work to friends, family, co-workers, etc.
Hence, Tod has done has contributed greatly to our success in spreading our message. As an example of the virtue of justice, I want to publicly recognize and commend him for his contribution. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 10:39:25 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Tod
I am very sorry if it came across as complaining. I am extremely careful never to be pessimistic in front of the people who need convincing, especially young people. I agree with all of your suggestions. I take many of those actions. I don't talk about it, but the fact is that the emails I send people have turned many minds on to NoodleFood over the years. What I really wanted to say, but did not want to because I should not get into a personal issue on a story like this, was about my own personal feelings of sadness and doom, despite action to the contrary. I must have a faulty premise somewhere, because fighting evil ideas should make one feel good, right? Anyway, this stuff from me has no place here, so please ignore it or delete it. Thanks. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 11:00:11 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Tod, I don't think that you have a faulty premise somewhere. The fact is that America is on the fast train to hell -- along with our freedom, our wealth, and ultimately, our very lives. It's frightening -- and we might not have the time and resources to make the necessary cultural about-face.
Honestly, I'm scared for the future. Sometimes I'm hopeful, but I'm often very pessimistic. I'm also disgusted with Objectivists who claim to want a better culture, yet do absolutely nothing to achieve that. (About 500 people gave Yaron and Onkar a standing ovation for their "Cultural Change" lectures -- in which Yaron said that we have about 20 years to effect a cultural u-turn. How many of those people have done anything noteworthy since then? I suspect it's less than 10%.)
When I get pessimistic, I consider three things:
(1) If I and others give up the fight, then we are sure to fail. If we fight, then at least we have some chance of success.
(2) Even if we fail, even if my final days are spent in a gulag, I want to be able to honestly say that I did all that I could, that I fought the best fight I knew how. It will be awful, but my soul will be clean.
(3) About the do-nothing Objectivists, I think to myself what Rearden said about the compromising businessmen: "I am sorry, gentlemen, that I will be obliged to save your goddamn necks along with mine."
That being said, I am very much heartened by the Objectivists rising to the challenge, diligently working to promote good ideas and supporting other people who do so. I couldn't keep myself going without them. We're a small bunch -- a minority, even among Objectivists -- but we're definitely making some waves in the culture. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 18:01:55 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
Diana, I admire your activism very much, and am thankful for it, but I respectfully must disagree with your viewpoint. The choice to be an activist is a personal one, within one's desires, abilities, and judgment of self-interest. I personally enjoy intellectual activities and I share your fighting spirit, but I have no problem with someone who chooses not to be an activist. In fact, I admire someone who pursues their self-interest privately and takes no part in the public debate, if that is their inclination. For one thing, if they do not enjoy intellectual activism, they will be lousy activists.
In wartime, I suppose some soldiers may feel that they are unfairly burdened by carrying the rifle and fighting on the front lines, but if I were such a soldier, I would not fault the person who chose not to fight. The choices of both parties were made voluntarily and selfishly. Moreover, those people on the "home front" supply the soldier with food and ammunition. If someone cares enough about Objectivism to attend OCON, presumably they are providing the money-sustenance that ARI disburses to its full time intellectuals.
Of course, anyone who *pretends* to be something he is not -- say, an activist -- I would only have contempt for that. If that shoe fits, say among some who attended OCON and cheered Yaron's speech, let them wear it. But for those who cheered and simply chose not to be activists, I don't see a problem with it. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 19:59:09 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Ray -- I don't think that everyone needs to be an activist in the sense of engaging in the cultural debates like you or Paul do. (That's not what I said.) Undoubtedly, people can promote rational ideas in all kinds of other ways, including promoting and supporting the work of active Objectivist intellectuals.
However, an Objectivist who claims to value a more rational, more egoistic, and more free culture, yet fails to take action toward that goal over the course of years is someone who actually does not value such a culture. I mean that literally. A person's values are not mere wishes: they are the things that a person does, in fact, act to gain and/or keep. The same applies to the person who takes only perfunctory actions: they don't really value what they claim to value.
From what I've seen -- and I'm pretty well-connected activist-wise -- many, if not most, Objectivists are doing little to nothing to promote a better culture. Sure, they might donate some money to ARI, and that's good. Yet in that very lecture that got the standing ovation, Yaron explicitly said that donating money to ARI was *not* enough. He called on the audience to actively fight for good ideas -- now -- in the forums open to them. The culture cannot be saved by a few dozen people in an office in Irvine, plus a handful in DC. Nor can it be saved by the few hundred (maybe) Objectivists now actively working to change it. (By "actively working," I mean something like "spending an hour or two per week.")
People ought to spend such time working for a better culture, when possible. They should do so -- not because they have a duty to sacrifice their lives to the cause. They don't have any such duty. They should do so because their freedom, their wealth, and their very lives depend on it. If Objectivists sit on their laurels now, they will find themselves bound and gagged, unable to pursue any values at all.
Personally, I'm not willing to skip along merrily until I'm herded into a labor camp. And I can't see that anyone who values his life should do so. |
|
| Monday, October 5, 2009 at 21:10:09 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Dan G.
I would suggest that anyone who does what Dan did (planned civil disobedience), ensure that you have a friend or two, completely discrete and separate from you, filming the ENTIRE time.
Do you think that this bad cop would've faced any consequences without the video?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=cop+c ...#
Today's technology allows us to turn Orwell on his head (keeping an eye on big brother); and since the "professional" journalist are cowards, one should plan to video and disseminate by him/herself. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 6:41:42 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
Diana, I agree with this:
"However, an Objectivist who claims to value a more rational, more egoistic, and more free culture, yet fails to take action toward that goal over the course of years is someone who actually does not value such a culture."
And to the extent that description applies to a particular person, you are right.
However, one fights for those values in whatever forum is available to him, using the means that he has. I would not discount someone who applies rational standards to his career and in the issues that he confronts in his career. For example, a lawyer who rationally pursues the law and speaks out on issues that affect his profession (e.g., a requirement to do pro bono work) in the forums available to him, whether it is conversations with colleagues or letters and speeches to his professional association.
Another example is a mother who diligently works to develop the mind of her child, inoculating him from the irrational influences of the culture, and helping him to become a rational, self-reliant, and productive adult.
If one does understand the value of a free society, one will fight for it as one deems appropriate.
I suppose I can judge someone else's integrity on this issue, but there is a heck of a lot of individual context that applies. Where I have been able to observe that context, I have met people whom I admire who do not display any obvious outward manifestation of being activists.
Undoubtedly, there are Objectivists who are worthy of contempt for claiming to value a free society, and despite knowing that it is a battle of ideas do nothing about it. But that would include doing nothing along the lines of what I describe above. Such a person certainly would lack integrity. I try to steer clear of such people.
As for the large-scale intellectual battle of ideas, I enjoy that, and am constantly thinking of ways to broaden my scale of activity. I will keep fighting even if outnumbered and outgunned on all sides. Let's fight to win, which I define at a minimum as preserving enough freedom in my lifetime so that I don't face the prospect of going to a gulag, and hopefully beginning to roll back the tide of statism in my lifetime. Regardless of the outcome, the fight is worth it. |
|
| Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 21:43:13 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Ray: I don't think that you and Diana are disagreeing.
The point I took from her comment #10 was simply this one:
1. Values are heirarchical.
2. Freedom is a value.
3. Freedom is under a radically elevated threat.
4. Therefore, the fight for freedom should move up the heirarchy, whatever it happens to be, for every Objectivist.
I agree with that, and that's what comes up in my mind every time I hear the "The choice to be an activist is a personal one, within one's desires, abilities, and judgment of self-interest" line.
The point is not that there is a "duty" to fight (to which the above quoted sentence is the correct response). The point is that Objectivists ought to consider re-evaluating and adjusting their priorities in accordance with current facts, if they haven't done so.
I have done so; notwithstanding Yaron's comment, I now allocate what would have been IRA or 401(k) contributions ten years ago, to the ARI -- because I now consider the latter as having a potentially greater return on those dollars.
And that's without considering the inflation we'll see well before I reach retirement age. |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 7:09:56 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
Jim,
I like the way you describe the self-interest of your investment in ARI.
But perhaps there is an area of disagreement between Diana and myself, which may also represent an area of confusion in my own mind. To state my point in a little more extreme manner, I don't see a problem with someone who, as an Objectivist who understands the threat we face, simply pursues his career and makes money. Money is also an inoculation against an encroaching state, albeit one of increasingly limited value as statism grows. I, for one, could not content myself with such a choice, but that is because I enjoy participating in the intellectual world. In fact, I find my own pleasure and participation in intellectual endeavors growing as the months and years go by.
But is it somehow wrong for an Objectivist who does not enjoy such endeavors to never write a letter to the editor and do nothing more than speak up when called for in social situations or when personal exigencies demand it? Is it even wrong for such a person never to donate a nickel to ARI? I am not sure that it is.
The error I may be making is failing to appreciate what it means to truly grasp this statement of Diana's:
"However, an Objectivist who claims to value a more rational, more egoistic, and more free culture, yet fails to take action toward that goal over the course of years is someone who actually does not value such a culture. I mean that literally. A person's values are not mere wishes: they are the things that a person does, in fact, act to gain and/or keep. The same applies to the person who takes only perfunctory actions: they don't really value what they claim to value."
Is someone evading who does next to nothing to fight for a rational culture in the *social* sense, but does everything he can to create his perfect world for himself in his immediate environs? When I say perfect world for himself, I mean he seeks out the perfect spouse, raises the perfect family (if he chooses to have one), and ambitiously pursues the perfect career. Is any more called for than that to be moral?
That would not mean never speaking out on issues, because no one can avoid being impinged upon by the encroaching state. So, at social gatherings or in one's professional organization, or at the workplace, or when necessarily fighting "City Hall" on matters that affect him personally (e.g., taxes, zoning rules, etc.), one fights or state's one's position as necessary, but otherwise has nothing to do with the broader debate. Is that properly selfish, or is that person failing to be selfish when the full context is taken into account? |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 20:29:26 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Steve Simpson
E-mail: ssimpson(at)ij.org
While I certainly understand Diana's frustration, I think I agree with Ray. A better culture is not like losing weight or getting better at playing the piano. Both of those values are achievable within a relatively short time frame with actions that will definitely produce the achievement of the value. However, there are certain values--changing the culture and ending states that sponsor terrorism are two that come to mind--that no one person can achieve on his own, that cannot be achieved in a relatively short period of time, and that are not certain to be achieved at all. I think a person can value these things, and even value them very highly, without working to try to achieve them by doing anything other than learning, changing their own views, and speaking out when appropriate (as Ray describes). Beyond taking those basic actions (that is, getting your own house in order, so to speak), it is not clear those values will ever be achieved, and certainly not in any one person's lifetime; it's not even clear that any one person's particular actions will contribute to their achievement at all. So I think a distinction must be drawn in this context between valuing a better culture and valuing the fight for a better culture. A person could well place a very high value on a better culture but not value participating in the fight for a better culture, for the perfectly rational reasons that he's not very good at it, does not enjoy it, does not think that a better culture will actually be achieved in his lifetime (a rational conclusion), and has other values he would prefer to pursue that he actually can achieve through his own efforts. Now, I think it is perfectly correct to say that that person does not value fighting for a better culture, but I don't think it's right to say they don't value a better culture.
Here's an example. Since 9/11--indeed, for my entire life--I have done not one thing to advance the value of ending states that sponsor terrorism. Nothing, other than adopting the right ideas and advocating the right policies when the subject comes up. I didn't join the military; I haven't tried to start an organization devoted to achieving this value; I haven't even written a letter to the editor or an op-ed. Nonetheless, I value ending states that sponsor terrorism very, very highly. There's just not much I can do to achieve that value that will have a predictable effect on advancing it. Now, if the opportunity arose to do something to meaningfully advance that value, I would jump at it. For instance, if the US government announced that they were going to launch a new effort to destroy the Iranian government and nullify it as a threat (which the gov't could achieve) but that they could only do it if American citizens privately funded it or volunteered, I would gladly volunteer or contribute a large sum of money toward that end. But I don't do anything to achieve that value now because there simply is not much that I can reasonably do to achieve or even to advance it, other than speaking up when the opportunity arises and, perhaps, voting the right way. Does that mean that I don't value ending states that sponsor terrorism?
If Diana is correct that failing to fight for a better world means a person does not value it, then there are a number of odd implications that seem to follow from that that just strike me as obviously wrong. Take me as an example again. I've devoted my career for the last 8 years to fighting for constitutional rights, primarily freedom of speech. But I don't do much to advance Objectivism other than in my own life and by donating a fair amount to ARI. The reason is simple: I'm tired. I spend between 8 and 12 hours a day fighting with the government. I really don't want to spend the few remaining hours I have trying to advance another cause. Does that mean I don't value promoting Objectivism? Do I get a pass because my day job is fighting for constitutional rights? And what about the other rights I don't fight for, like economic liberty, property rights, etc.? Is is correct to say that I don't value them? Campaign finance laws will lead to greater restrictions on freedom of speech and possibly even censorship in our lifetimes. The fairness doctrine and a handful of other speech restrictions run a close second. Very few of you do much about those laws at all. Does that mean you don't value free speech? And because I fight only for freedom of speech in the courts, but I don't really spend my time advocating a fully consistent, philosophical defense of free speech (because that's not possible in court) perhaps I really don't value free speech at all or even a free society, because we really can't achieve a fully free society without Objectivism.
Do you see my point? Judging whether someone actually values something they claim to value has to involve more than just determining whether they have taken particular actions to achieve those values; it seems to me it also has to involve the question of what they can reasonably do within the context of their lives and their other values to meaningfully advance that value.
Now, even as I say all of this, it's not completely satisfying because it seems that one cannot say one values something if one is not willing to pursue the means of achieving it. But I think the answer to that is that the achievement of some values is too uncertain and, for lack of a better term, too "big" to say that if one does not engage in some efforts to achieve them, one does not really value them. In any event, this is a very interesting and important issue, so I'd be very interested to hear your views on these points, Diana. Thanks.
T |
|
| Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 21:54:00 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Steve Simpson
E-mail: ssimpson(at)ij.org
Okay, I'm about to prove that I do in fact have more time to devote to promoting Objectivism by commenting on this issue again within minutes of my last comment, but I can't get this out of my mind.
Dr. Peikoff has a great quote on his website. Saving the world is simple. All one has to do is think. (I think that's it, but in any even that's pretty close). In other words, the first and most important thing to do in changing the culture is to change yourself. That is one aspect of the culture that we all can control. One can certainly do more, but one must do at least that if one truly values a better world. So to be clear, I certainly agree that one cannot claim to value a better culture without getting one's own house in order.
But to say that one cannot really value a better world without engaging in activism of some sort immediately raises the question, how much and of what sort? According to what Diana said, the answer is presumably something more than the perfunctory. But why is that so? Why is it that we can say someone does not value a better culture if they only do something perfunctory (give $100 per year to ARI, let's say) but they do value it if they spend several hours each week engaging in activism? Why is several hours per week enough to say that someone values a better culture? Why not several days? Why not the whole week? Hell, why isn't the standard devoting one's entire life to changing the world?
The obvious response is, well, each person obviously has to judge for himself how much time to devote to achieving a better culture based on his other values and priorities. But that is exactly my point. And some people will decide that they don't want to devote any time to changing the world other than changing their own thinking and the other things Ray mentioned. I think that is entirely rational, for the reasons I stated in my last comment. It's not at all clear that devoting any time to trying to change the culture will actually achieve that goal or when that will happen.
To put it slightly differently, the extent to which you value a better culture is not determined by a sort of merit badge that you get when you spend a certain number of hours per week engaging in activism or you write a certain number of letters or the like. I don't see how there can be some minimum threshold of activism in which one must engage to qualify as a "valuer of a better culture."
Now, to play devil's advocate, why doesn't this same analysis apply to values like playing the piano? One cannot reasonably claim to value playing the piano if one never practices. But I think the answer is the distinction I made in my last comment between values that one can achieve with certain specific steps and within a certain time frame and those one cannot. But I'm not entirely sure that is correct.
So please comment. Thanks. |
|
| Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 13:04:59 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Daniel Iamoura
E-mail: Iamoura(at)ymail.com
Folks, this is a case of Inductive Advocacy NOT activism as I'm certain Mr. Edge will soon see, once the mist clears in his mind. All of the above commentary/reaction comes from the time of the suffragettes (get yourself arrested when you see injustice spend a day or two in prison and then lawyer-up, sell-out for convienience sake and let your name get lost in the barrage of others making the same protest. ie. get the pro-bono lawyer ask supporters to write letters to those in power, lose yourself in the non-Objective gibberish, get frustrated enough to cop the plea when the lawyer fees and eye-rolling gets you back home to those you love)
Ayn Rand made men of us all, albeit in fiction first the way it could and should be is the Primary. Faculty and Drs. Hseih have a tendancy toward portrayal of Rand's non-fiction answers which are the safe venues but not Intellectually Ideal.
Look to the most effective way of getting your message across and you'll see the lese majesty of three scenarios in the Ayn Rand Fiction:
1)Howard Roark vs. Hopton Stoddard
2)Howard Roark re. Cortland Homes
3)Henry Rearden & Kenneth Dannager vs. the state (Directive 10-2421)
In the 1)-st case Mr.Edge would replace the photographs of the Stoddard Temple with say... handing the judge a copy of U.S. The Constitution; followed by nothing more than Roak's line, that I swear that you'll never regret...never: 'Your Honor, the defense rests.'
In the 2)-nd case you'll have to prepare a more elaborate form of exactly what you are standing (and I do mean STANDING) for. Use the Roark speech as a guide if you have to inducing your own specific principles toward the general conclusion that you wish to make clear. Don't concern yourself with being misunderstood or falsely accused of a 'Kadafi-esque harangue'. No literate human being will stoop to such a twist-to-savagery. I know and have lived this scenario. I can assure you there is nothing but comprehension and deep respect that results no matter the final verdict - you will discover the meaning of Ego the way Miss Rand meant it.
For the 3)-rd case Dannager did a 'nolo-contendere' in the absolute sense. Notice that to the common culture; 'producers' & second-handers alike, he ran-out/deserted his friend. But to the few that truly know the meaning of the Rights of Man and its applications, the only response is 'withdrawl of your moral sanction'. Rearden on the other hand, has not yet realized this (much like everyone on this site). If you hold to their way of thinking you will achieve a 'victory' as Rearden did; but notice post-verdict/trial Hank feels a hollow and distasteful emotion that he can't explain. Re-read the Dr.Leonard Peikoff vs Library of Congress case and you'll see that if he had held to The Ego Principle - 'win or lose' is not the point & price is no Object - it's in what is right and wrong - for Ayn Rand Egoïsts there is no middle road.
I am posting here because there are up and coming younger minds have to know that no matter how great the standing ovation that Dr.Yaron's speech achieved - the activism they're advocating has a *Next-Ledge* and that is: *the looter's code must run for once, it's undisguised course* and that *You must learn that you do not have to convince or conquer the world* (* * - ref. JohnGalt in AtlasShrugged).
The source of Dre.Hseih's, and all of faculty's, frustration stems from ignoring this projection. The illusion that Objectivists applaud but fail to 'walk the walk' lies in the fact that *Striking* is activism, it just doesn't manifest itself at tea-parties. As long as your *what else* works toward the Objectivist's future its not frustrating nor futile, in fact it acts to resolve all of these inner conflict.
I $ I |
|
| Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 16:39:11 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Steve -- I think that you've seriously misunderstood my views here.
I'm most not saying that people are obliged to speak out on every issue. Given the state of the world today, that would be impossible, obviously. I'm also not saying that people need to be activists in the sense of writing LTEs or whatnot. That's not necessary, nor appropriate. People have different interests and different strengths.
The question I have is: Are many or most Objectivists -- i.e. people who claim to value a more rational, more egoistic, and more free culture -- doing anything substantial (i.e. maybe 1 - 2 hours per week) to promote that end? (If activism your day job, then unless you're totally unproductive, then the answer is obviously "yes.")
For example, do they speak up at a PTA meeting against "mandatory service" when that proposal is discussed? Do they attempt to rouse other parents against the proposal? Or do they just keep quiet?
For example, have they written their representatives brief letters (1-3 sentences) opposing the very dangerous legislation currently under discussion, like health care reform or cap-and-trade?
For example, have they forwarded links to the free Objective Standard articles to friends who might be interested? Have they given a gift subscription to a friend with some quasi-free-market views?
Given the abysmal state of the world today, I think that to fail to engage in that kind of very basic, very easy activism is a serious failure to actually value a more rational, more egoistic, and more free culture. For a person to just keep his head down means tacitly sanctioning the march to socialist (and religious) dictatorship. That march is ongoing; it will be measured in decades, with lots of pain for all of us along the way. Everyone who stood to applaud Yaron heard that. They heard the urgent call to action. They heard that donations to ARI are not enough, that people need to speak out when and as they can, in the course of their daily lives. Yet most Objectivists -- from what I've seen -- do nothing.
That's a failure of integrity, I think. It's totally fixable, of course. So I'd like to Objectivists who are doing nothing to pause to think about that -- and to think seriously. Then they can act as they see fit.
Notably, for any given individual, the appropriate kinds of activism (e.g. time, form, issues, etc) will depend on a host of factors. That doesn't imply that doing nothing whatsoever is perfectly acceptable. The amount and kind of food that a person should eat will depend on all kinds of facts about his body and his life, but that doesn't mean that eating nothing is a good idea. In both cases, the "nothing" option is self-destructive.
I'd like to say more on this topic, but that's all I have time for now. |
|
| Friday, October 9, 2009 at 5:24:58 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
Thank you, Diana and Steve, for the good food for thought. |
|
| Friday, October 9, 2009 at 8:58:19 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Dana H.
Steve Simpson wrote: "Do I get a pass because my day job is fighting for constitutional rights?"
Hell, yes you do (as does everyone else at IJ including the receptionist)! What you and IJ do is exactly the sort of effort Yaron referred to when he said that ARI can't do it alone. And just as ARI can't fight all the battles themselves, neither can any individual. So it would be ridiculous for you to worry that you haven't done enough to promote a rational foreign policy while you spend 8 to 12 hours a day fighting for domestic liberty. |
|
| Friday, October 9, 2009 at 10:54:22 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Steve Simpson
E-mail: ssimpson(at)ij.org
Thanks, Diana. I'm going to think more about your points and perhaps raise the issue again sometime. I'm in a bit of an odd position on this, because I agree wholeheartedly with your frustration with Objectivists who don't do much to try to change the culture, but I still have this nagging sense that there's something not quite right about saying that that is a failure of integrity. But, as I said, I need to think more about it. Applied ethics is a hugely important subject and often very complicated because it is very context and fact dependent--much like law--which is the reason I find questions like these both important and facinating.
And Dana H., thanks for the nice comments. Our receptionist thanks you too. To be clear, I wasn't really worried about whether I do enough; just trying to flesh out what I saw as one of the implications of Diana's point, and real, concrete examples are always better than hypothetical ones. |
|
| Saturday, October 10, 2009 at 16:38:10 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Steve -- I'd be interested in further discussion on this topic sometime. Perhaps contrary to appearances, I do have all kinds of questions and doubts about the proper approach. |
|
| Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 15:31:14 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: Craig Biddle
URL: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com
I agree with Diana on the morality of activism, and I'd like to say a few words that may help clarify the matter.
What one should or shouldn't do in regard to intellectual activism depends on (1) one's rational determination of what kind of culture and social system one wants to live in, and (2) one's rational assessment of what form of activism one can effectively engage in--given one's knowledge, abilities, and interests--toward the establishment or maintenance of such a culture and system. Assuming one wants to live in a generally rational culture and a rights-respecting republic, there are many forms of activism in which one can engage toward that end, from writing op-eds, blog posts, LTEs, or comments under such items; to distributing copies of Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness, etc.; to speaking at PTAs, tea party events, city council meetings, etc.; to writing or calling one's Senators or Representatives; to donating to ARI, the Anthem Foundation, the Undercurrent, etc.; to asking librarians and bookstores to carry The Objective Standard, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, Nothing Less than Victory, Winning the Unwinnable War, etc.; and so on. One's options in the realm of activism are legion and range from highly complex (e.g., writing a compelling op-ed) to relatively simple (e.g., donating money to ARI).
Whether one *values* a rational culture and a rights-respecting republic, however, can be determined by a simple observation. A value is that which one *acts* to gain or keep. The key word here is "acts." If one takes some (contextually appropriate) kind of action toward the establishment or maintenance of a rational culture or rights-respecting social system, then one values such a culture or system. If one takes no action of any kind in this regard, then--despite what one wants or prefers--one does not value these things. Values are not desires or preferences, but the objects of actions.
There's no "duty" to engage in activism; there's only the law of causality and one's alternatives: "God said: 'Take what you want and pay for it.'" But neither a rational culture nor a rights-respecting republic is free, and those who don't fight for such values don't value them. |
|
| Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 16:51:10 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Craig,
Not wanting to dispute your general point, I believe you may be oversimplifying the philosophical point somewhat in writing "But neither a rational culture nor a rights-respecting republic is free, and those who don't fight for such values don't value them." It could be read as denying the necessity of choices between values.
Consider: I have a health insurance policy that costs me a substantial amount of money, enough so that I find it difficult to pay my rent. Then I'm notified that my premiums are going up substantially. I decide that I can't afford both health insurance and my ordinary cost of living . . . and cancel my policy. Does that mean that I don't value health insurance? No. Obviously I do value it, or I wouldn't have been scraping and straining to pay for it. But I don't value it as much as having a place to live! I choose the thing I value more over the thing I value less. But if you say that by choosing to give up the thing I value less, I am showing that I don't value it, you are trivializing the need to make a choice between values: reducing the lesser value to zero, by definition, and eliminating the idea that there are hard choices. But the reason we need ethics is precisely that there are many choices that are hard to make, and the rational perspective of ethics helps us to make them.
I don't imagine you meant to suggest otherwise. But that conclusion could be derived from your wording of the point you're making, which suggests that it's not precise, even if it's rhetorically compelling. |
|
| Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 20:32:46 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
I think that William Stoddard's point is a good one, and may get to the heart of understanding this issue. One can value a free society and yet do very little to fight for it, owing to one's own hierarchy of values. In particular, this applies to whether someone enjoys the *acts* of activism, for example, writing letters to the editor, seeking out opportunities to speak up, distributing pamphlets at Tea Parties, etc. That also includes the use of one's money.
Speaking personally, I enjoy writing op-ed pieces, for example, but I would not enjoy handing out pamphlets, so I engage in the former but I do none of the latter. I also enjoy engaging in discussions and sometimes arguments and debates with people. But what if I enjoyed none of these things? Why should I engage in such types of activism? This is especially true when the activism is unlikely to make any material difference in changing my culture in a way that I can appreciate, which is Steve Simpson's point.
Now, that does not apply in matters where my interests are direct and immediate, such as speaking up at the PTA in one of the examples above, or in one's workplace, or when fighting for your rights against City Hall or the federal government, in specific matters where your interests are at stake. One stands up and fights in those situations because it *does* matter in the here-and-now, and directly and materially benefits one's life.
Now there is a factor that I believe is real, which I am not addressing, and that is the psychological/moral knowledge that one is fighting for one's culture. The above example is an extreme one; it is my example of someone who does the least to fight for his culture, but is still moral. But would someone like that who fights only on the immediate and personal level *know* that he is fighting sufficiently to defend his value of a rational culture?
That psychological issue is captured by Ayn Rand's famous quote [pardon me if I got it wrong; I am quoting from memory]: "He who fights for the future lives in it today." Ayn Rand's statement captures the *psychological* benefit of being an activist. I know it, because I feel it every time I fight for a rational culture. Every time I do something concrete -- such as writing an opinion piece or studying and improving my knowledge of some issue that has been bugging me -- I feel the pleasure of knowing that I am fighting for something that matters to me, namely, a rational culture.
However, I experience this pleasure *because* I am doing things I truly enjoy, such as figuring out an issue in economics and then writing about it.
But this is my point about activism. It is a highly personal issue. One will know whether one is doing enough to fight for a rational culture only in reference to one's own particular values. And I think someone can be perfectly moral and still do very little in fighting for it. If one does not enjoy the acts of activism -- especially because what one is fighting for, the culture, is something one will more or less experience with or without one's actions (unless one is capable of making a big difference) -- it is perfectly moral to do very little.
What I am saying is that one should *enjoy* fighting for a rational culture. On some level, that enjoyment includes simply the knowledge that one is fighting for a rational culture, but that knowledge alone will not motivate a person to do much if he does not enjoy the particular acts of activism. In such a case, it is perfectly moral for a person to do very little.
Such a person will fight when his personal values are in imminent danger of being lost (e.g., one's own life, family, wealth, etc. - that covers the example of speaking out at the PTA meeting or in one's workplace).
Such a person is also fighting for a rational culture just by being rational himself. If he rationally pursues a career, raises a family, etc., he is successfully achieving a zone of rationality in those domains. He is creating his own piece of rational culture right there in his own life.
But that person may only seldom engage in public acts of activism. |
|
| Monday, October 12, 2009 at 10:56:19 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Craig Biddle
URL: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com
William,
Canceling an insurance policy doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t value insurance. The question remains: Are you in some way acting to regain insurance in the future--whether by making more money, reducing other expenses, shifting funds from savings, or the like--or have you abandoned insurance as a goal altogether? If the former, you still value insurance; if the latter, you don’t.
Desires can be values but are not necessarily values; it depends on whether or not one acts on them. This is neither a disparagement of desires nor an evaluation of a person who doesn’t act on his desires. It is simply a fact regarding which units are subsumed under the concept of “value.” The facts that give rise to the concept of “value” are living things acting to gain and keep things. Values are objects of actions.
We have concepts for the things we desire, want, prefer, etc. but do not act on; those concepts are: “desire,” “want,” “preference,” etc. We *need* a concept that distinguishes objects of actions from mere desires and the like; that concept is “value.” To integrate the concept of “value” with the concept of “desire” or the like is to integrate concepts in disregard of necessity.
We choose among alternatives in life. Some of those alternatives become values (we pursue them), some are mere desires (we want them but don’t pursue them), and some are not even desires. The things we act to achieve, acquire, protect, regain, etc.--whether short range or long range--are our values. The things we opt not to pursue are not.
There is nothing wrong with using the concept of “value” loosely as the equivalent of “desire” in certain contexts. But philosophically speaking, they are not the same thing. |
|
| Monday, October 12, 2009 at 11:11:39 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Craig Biddle
URL: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com
Apparently cutting and pasting from MS Word doesn't work well here. Repost, hopefully sans hieroglyphics:
William,
Canceling an insurance policy doesn't necessarily mean you don't value insurance. The question remains: Are you in some way acting to regain insurance in the future--whether by making more money, reducing other expenses, shifting funds from savings, or the like--or have you abandoned insurance as a goal altogether? If the former, you still value insurance; if the latter, you don't.
Desires can be values but are not necessarily values; it depends on whether or not one acts on them. This is neither a disparagement of desires nor an evaluation of a person who doesn't act on his desires. It is simply a fact regarding which units are subsumed under the concept of "value." The facts that give rise to the concept of "value" are living things acting to gain and keep things. Values are objects of actions.
We have concepts for the things we desire, want, prefer, etc. but do not act on; those concepts are: "desire," "want," "preference," etc. We *need* a concept that distinguishes objects of actions from mere desires and the like; that concept is "value." To integrate the concept of "value" with the concept of "desire" or the like is to integrate concepts in disregard of necessity.
We choose among alternatives in life. Some of those alternatives become values (we pursue them), some are mere desires (we want them but don't pursue them), and some are not even desires. The things we act to achieve, acquire, protect, regain, etc.--whether short range or long range--are our values. The things we opt not to pursue are not.
There is nothing wrong with using the concept of "value" loosely as the equivalent of "desire" in certain contexts. But philosophically speaking, they are not the same thing. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
