 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 12:17:46 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
What's your take on yesterday's election results? From a practical standpoint, I think it might have been the best outcome. Two Republicans who campaigned as moderates won solid victories in NJ and VA, which might make moderate Democrats think twice before signing on to Obama's agenda. Meanwhile, a social conservative lost in NY, which might slow the ultraconservative train down a little bit. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 12:31:30 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
KPO'M:
Overall, I think the results were mixed but more positive than negative.
Many pundits think the VA and NJ losses will make Democrats more reluctant to pass ObamaCare.
Ari Armstrong has some good thoughts on the effect on church-state separation here:
http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/11/election-09-and-separation-of-c ...
And Orin Kerr points out that we will hear 4 types of spin from the following political groups:
http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/four-obvious-lessons-from-tonights-ele ...
1. For Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the "R" category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well.
2. For Moderate Republicans: The American people obviously want old-fashioned economic conservatives who are moderate on social issues. McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey won by downplaying social issues; Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme.
3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception. But obviously there is no sign of any substantial shift in public opinion from the election of 2008.
4. For Liberal Democrats: NY-23 was the race to watch this year, given that right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck threw all their support behind Hoffman. But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 13:16:26 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: PDS
E-mail: pdspds(at)gmail.com
Have any Objectivist political thinkers offered strategies for how to go from today's mixed economy to laissez faire? I'm not talking about stuff like "change the premises of the electorate" type solutions, but something much more specific, such as: years 1-5, scale back government by 10%; years 5-10, 20%, etc,. Or, first we get rid of the Education department, and then the last to go is Social Security, etc. I think one significant reason Objectivism is taken less theory than it should is because otherwise reasonable people view its application to political issues as impractical. Is anybody aware of any "practical" roadmaps offered by Objectivist political scholars of how to get from here to there? |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 13:17:32 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: PDS
E-mail: pdspds(at)gmail.com
I meant to say "less seriously than it should be..." |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 13:43:02 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Tavon
PDS,
From George Reisman's book Captialism see the chapter "Toward the establishment of a laissez faire society" or something to that effect. I think it is the last chapter. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 13:47:12 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
PDS, it's difficult to envision a change in that manner because in some respects it would be a form of economic planning. I think the single most significant step would be the elimination of the central bank, but that it far away. For now, the key lesson is "first do no harm." Before we can start to turn back the socialist clock, we need to stop it. Since health care is the hot topic, it makes the logical starting point for me. Let's advocate for true market reforms there. The next up would be the financial industry, which is likely to be the next priority for Congress and the Administration. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 15:28:32 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Bryan Olson
E-mail: b.olson722(at)gmail.com
A recent article on Ayn Rand. http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/
The article is poor overall but pulls an interesting quote from Ayn Rand's early early journal entries. Has anyone read them? Can give any context to the quote?
"Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an
extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later
writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about
serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl
called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and
dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces.
Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented
"the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a
society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who
really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist
for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a
brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense,
explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can
eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not
strong enough."" |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 19:58:17 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: rrlv_frsh
PDS writes (Comment #3): "I think one significant reason Objectivism is taken less seriously than it should is because otherwise reasonable people view its application to political issues as impractical."
I would suggest examining more closely *why* "otherwise reasonable people" might view Objectivism's application to political issues as impractical. What premises stop them from seeing that freedom is good, force is bad, and freedom does not mean freedom to initiate force? What premises might lead them to evaluate such principles as "impractical"? Could it be, perhaps, that they haven't understood the Objectivist *ethics* yet, such as why individualism and rational egoism are the essence of an ethical human life, and why any form of altruism or other self-sacrifice (or the sacrificing of anyone) is the opposite of a moral life? If people understood *reason* as a great value, which in implementation implies freedom of productive action, wouldn't the application of that perspective to political issues become vastly more clear, as it was to America's founders (despite their own inability fully to identify altruism for what it is and reject it entirely)?
To make progress in politics, try talking about ethics -- especially if anyone tries to object, "But how can self-centered individualists be trusted to act for the common good without government regulations to direct and limit their actions and assure a level playing field?" The political implications of altruism are rather clear, too.
|
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 21:08:18 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Mike
E-mail: mikedialj(at)netscape.net
I believe that the government should not be in the business of deciding who gets married, and that politicians should have nothing to say on the subject of gay marriage. But following my argument, what would prohibit polygamy or polyandry between consenting adults? |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 21:44:00 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Mike,
Why should anything do so? Provided, of course, that there's genuine consent, not the consent-under-duress that a woman might give in a traditional patriarchal marriage.
The law provides the framework of partnership for business organization. In practice, most partnerships are limited in size by the difficulties of coordination (except for specialized partnerships like some legal and accounting firms which have internal hierarchical structures); but there's no actual law that says you can only have two partners.
I think the question to ask is what rights you want "marriage" to create between two people that would not exist without it, and whether there are any of those rights that could not exist between, say, three people. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 21:45:58 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: John Cox
E-mail: john.d.cox(at)gmail.com
URL: http://www.johnandansley.com
Bryan - about Rand's journal on Hickman. Let's keep the time frame in mind here. She was in here early 20's at the time, working in Hollywood as a screenwriter. She didn't complete Atlas Shrugged and fully lay out her entire philosophic system until 30 or so years later. I think it's a well documented fact that she read a lot of Nietzsche early in life, and his writings certainly influenced some of her early thinking. However - over the rest of her life as she formulated Objectivism, she came to explicitly reject Nietzsche, philosophically, and certainly rejected the type of initiation of force that was perpetrated by Hickman. I think it's an interesting passage which shows some not yet fully developed ideas, but it really says nothing of a fully developed Objectivist philosophy. Thankfully, this passage is, in no way, a representation of her philosophy. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 22:22:19 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
On polygamy, I've blogged about that here:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/three-cheers-for-marrying-wh ...
Here's the critical bit: "Polygamous marriage is excluded because whatever relationships would result from multiple unions would be fundamentally different than that of a two-person marriage. Most polygamous marriages, I suspect, would not be a genuine integration at all, but rather a juxtaposed set of individual marriages, each half-starved due to competing demands on time, resources, and attention. Even if the various husbands and wives do live a single, integrated life together, the resulting relationships would be hugely different than an ordinary marriage. Decisions might be made by majority vote. (Sorry Sally, but you were outvoted: we're moving to North Dakota.) Social norms would be completely different. (Do I have to invite all Joe's wives to dinner, or just the mother of our daughter's classmate?) The laws governing divorce, child custody, medical power of attorney, inheritance, testifying against a spouse, and so on would have to be totally re-worked. (If I don't have a medical power of attorney, which husband directs the course of my medical care while I'm in a coma? If I die, how will my property be divided? Also, should each person be able to marry multiple people?) Notably, sex is basically a two-person activity, so that would have to be juxtaposed, rather than integrated. Basically, polygamous relationships -- even if somehow recognized by law (and I don't oppose that) -- would be fundamentally different from marriages between two persons, whether of the same or opposite sex, along multiple dimensions."
Ari Armstrong also blogged about it here: http://www.freecolorado.com/2007/01/polygamy.html
I have no problem with the state recognizing a standard contract for polygamous unions, in the same way that it does for marriage. However, of necessity, that contract will be substantially different from a marriage between two people (of whatever sex). I think such a union would a marriage in the same way that a desk is a table: it's
a pretty serious variation thereof. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 22:44:21 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: rrlv_frsh
Bryan Olson asks (Comment #7), regarding some brief excerpts from Ayn Rand's Journals: "Can [anyone] give any context to the quote [excerpts]?"
The context is abundantly clear in the book from which the excerpts were taken, specifically, Journals_ of_Ayn_Rand, pp. 20-48, regarding Ayn Rand's notes (circa 1928) for a novel tentatively titled, The_Little_Street. David Harriman (Journals editor) provides nearly four pages of context before Ayn Rand's own notes begin. The best way to understand that context, and its relation to the Hickman story, is to read Harriman's introduction first-hand, in its entirety (pp. 20-23). The author of the Internet article cited by Bryan surely would have known that context also, yet clearly chose to ignore it. Ironically, such deliberate ignorance actually illustrates the very point that Ayn Rand saw in the Hickman story, namely, the curious nature and intensity of public outrage against brazen individualists of any kind, rational or not.
While The_Little_Street never progressed very far, another, similar story (decades later) became a successful play, Night_of_January_16th. Ayn Rand explains in her introduction to that play that she was struck by the nature of the public outrage against the real-life swindler who inspired Ayn Rand's character, Bjorn Faulkner. Ayn Rand explains: "I do not think, nor did I think when I wrote this play, that a swindler is a heroic character or that a respectable banker is a villain. But for the purpose of dramatizing the conflict of independence versus conformity, a criminal -- a social outcast -- can be an eloquent symbol." [p. 2 pb]
Regarding The_Little_Street, Harriman explains that the story's "theme is that humanity -- warped by a corrupt philosophy -- is destroying the best in man for the sake of enshrining mediocrity.... Here she is bitterly denouncing a world that seems to have no place for heroism." [p. 20]
Harriman continues: "AR [at age 23] has not yet distinguished clearly between the independent man and the man who seeks power over others...." [p. 20]
On p. 27, Ayn Rand herself writes: "The model for the boy [in the story] is Hickman. Very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more accurate to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."
On p. 39, Ayn Rand writes: "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he *could* be, and that's enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created. This will be the story of the boy in my book."
As for Nietzsche, it is utterly ridiculous (probably maliciously so) to claim that Ayn Rand's notes for The_Little_Street "lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings." She very explicitly disavowed any infatuation she once had for Nietzche's ideas. One particularly illuminating example can be found in Ayn Rand's Introduction to the 25th Anniversary Edition of The_Fountainhead: "I removed it [a quote from Nietzche, deleted from The_Fountainhead] because of my profound disagreement with the philosophy of its author, Friedrich Nietzsche. Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist.... But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man's greatness, expressed in emotional, *not* intellectual, terms." [p. x]
The quote from Nietzsche that Ayn Rand deleted ends with: "The noble soul has reverence for itself." [ibid., p. xi]
|
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 22:53:33 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: pomponazzi
E-mail: invinoveritas1976(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://mabadar.blogspot.com
I just wanted to know whether there is any lecture course that explains the method of Reduction? Gary Hull gave a lecture, a few years ago, but I didn't find it terribly informative. Leonard Peikoff's UO and The Art of Thinking also discuss the topic without delving really deeply into it.
As the concepts of Reduction and Integration are central to the Objectivist conception of logic, a thorough discussion of the said topics is imperative. I would be obliged if someone could please give much needed information vis a vis these topics. Thanks |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 22:56:39 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: mike
E-mail: atlas51184(at)comcast.net
pomponazzi,
All of Objectivism Through Induction. |
|
| Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 23:06:24 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: pomponazzi
E-mail: invinoveritas1976(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://mabadar.blogspot.com
Mike-- Thank you for the quick reply. This course comes highly recommended from many Objectivists. I think it's time to buy it. |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 1:18:30 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Bryan: There's a certain irony about this whole thing about Rand and Hickman. Here we see someone denouncing Rand bitterly, as hopelessly corrupt and irredeemably evil, because she expressed a measure of approval for a man who murdered a little girl. And certainly murdering a little girl is an ugly crime that deserves punishment, and Rand showed bad judgment in giving him any approval at all.
On the other hand, there are people who, acting together, murder thousands of millions of people. For example, Mao Zedong brought about the deaths of many millions of Chinese citizens, some of them by brutal and cruel methods, and no doubt some of them children. He may not be any more monstrous than Hickman, but he was monstrous on a far larger scale. Surely anyone who expresses approval of him deserves at least the same denunciation that Rand merits for expressing approval of Hickman. And yet I don't suppose many of the people who would condemn Ayn Rand are equally eager to condemn American leftists who express admiration for Mao . . . not even when those leftists are decades older than Rand was, and making public speeches rather than keeping a private journal. A failure to apply moral principles consistently suggests that those principles are not seriously held. Or perhaps the moral premise is that murdering one person is a crime, but murdering millions is a historic achievement! |
|
| Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 3:40:46 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: pomponazzi
E-mail: invinoveritas1976(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://mabadar.blogspot.com
John ,William et al--IF this is all that the nihilist-altruist-collectivist axis can come up with at a time when Ayn Rand's writings are enjoying a much deserved Renaissance then I think it is a heartening sign. The road to Atlantis is clear, with only a few weeds in the way that do not even deserve the bother of plucking.
The time might be far away when a rational political system couls be fully implemented but one thing is now radiantly clear: Ayn Rand's philosophy doesn't have any genuine opposition. We just have to endure a little longer before we see Ayn Rand's philosophy really permeate the culture. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
