TOC: Peddling the Sanction of the Victim

Robert: I thought I made myself clear. I thought the distinctions you were glossing over were glaringly obvious. Or do you really not think that your dealings with your grocer and your dealings with a guy you asked over to give a speech for an Objectivist organization don't have obvious qualitative differences, with obvious extra constraints on whether you should invite him or not?

How about you stop whining that I'm psychologizing and just answer the damn point I raised. I caught you with your hand in the cookie jar, now just fess up and move on.

Post 21

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 7:23pm

I think the appropriate standard is clear: you are responsible for whether you clearly and in a principled manner state what you are for and what you are against. In the case of inviting a speaker, you are giving him a platform and you are responsible for what he says on that platform. The notion that Scott Ryan and Ed Royce can get political cover from being associated with Ayn Rand is ridiculous. We should be delighted that they came to an Objectivist event and hopefully they can develop some principled advocacy of individual liberty in the future.

Post 22

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 8:31pm

Robert,

Since this thread is continuing, I decided to address some additional points in your post. I wrote:

Theocrats, even majoritarian "democratic" theocrats like Ed Royce, are today's number one enemy of human happiness on Earth.

You snipped that into:

...who represents the "number one enemy of human happiness on Earth"?Number one???

By excising my identification of Theocracy as the "number one enemy," you tried to give the most evident truth of our young century the appearance of hysteria. Such manipulations should be beneath you, and I hope that you will express regret at this (hopefully unintentional) piece of deceptive editing.

In my posts I gave just one example of Ed Royce's bigotry in action, because that one example should have been enough. Other examples will matter more to others. His vote to prohibit therapeutic cloning condemns to nasty death millions of innocent men whose diseases could have been cured with this technology. As a parent, I know the extent of the abuse and harassment to which Atheist children are subjected in the schools just for refusing to say "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" - and here is someone who would subject children to the inevitable consequences of refusing to join in Official State Prayer. Need I go on?

You list, among Ed Royce's allegedly good votes, a vote for stricter enforcement of laws against "illegal" immigration. In an Objectivist forum that categorization ought to be recognized as bizarre. Such laws violate my natural right to trade with anyone by mutual agreement, without regard to whether or not the person, with whom I'm trading, is or is not on the government's list of government-approved people. I hope that this was mere carelessness: I consider the idea, that people have different rights depending on where they happened to be born, to be as repulsive a piece of racist bigotry as any.

As to proportionality and justice, on the one hand is the murder of millions of sick people by Ed Royce's prohibition on cloning. There is the abrogation of my daughter's right to bring up my grandchildren in a normal two-parent family. But on the other hand, Ed Royce voted against agricultural subsidies, so that I can buy a can of beans ten cents cheaper. Proportionality, and justice, are left as an exercise for the reader.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 4/02, 8:37pm)

Post 23

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:09pm

Mr. Heaps-Nelson wrote:

"I think the appropriate standard is clear: you are responsible for whether you clearly and in a principled manner state what you are for and what you are against."

See, this is precisely TOC's problem, & no amount of protestation by Mr. Bidinotto, who, for reasons best known to himself, defends TOC right or wrong (I say this because I feel certain he knows better) can alter the fact: TOC does not state in a "clear and principled manner" what it is for and what it is against. It eschews such anti-ambiguity as being too "emphatic" (my, we can't have that!). It specialises instead in, "On the one hand this & on the other hand that." That's why it has been a failure. It is not merely Objectivism Lite, it is Objectivism Neutered.

On the other hand (!) I do believe there is crucial value in engaging those of mixed premises. Of course there is! After all, if we claim in one breath to be fighting the cultural tradition of 2,500 years, we can hardly, in the next, condemn those who don't get our case straight away, and we should be supportive of those who are part-way there & still trying. Whether the "Congress-reptiles" Adam speaks of are in this category or not I don't know. But I do know that preaching to the choir is never going to move us forward�it's on winning over those of mixed premises that our success will ultimately depend. And that requires keeping a sense of proportion. We surely wouldn't like to become like the ARI who condemn libertarians as being on a par with the Ayatollah Khomeini?!

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 4/02, 11:52pm)

Post 24

Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:55pm

Linz writes:

But I do know that preaching to the choir is never going to move us forward�it's on winning over those of mixed premises that our success will ultimately depend.

Absolutely correct!

However, how is this accomplished by having them speak to us? Shouldn't we use our conferences to solidify and extend our own knowledge so that we can then more effectively "infiltrate" their conferences?

Post 25

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 12:39am

Rick - there is no "perfect" answer to that question. Having them speak to us does expose them to our ideas. My worry is that at a TOC gathering, they won't be exposed to our ideas at all!

Linz

Post 26

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 8:20am

The passionate and uncompromising commitment to the basic principles of Objectivism continues to draw me to SOLO every single day.

When I first started my local Objectivist Club in 1999 with the help of TOC, I briefly participated in the Objectivism at We the Living (OWL) list. I felt a relentless sense of disappointment that the likes of Scott Ryan and David Friedman continued to get a hearing on that list. Their constant bashing of certain core principles of Objectivism, such as non-theism and minarchism, could only result from evasion on their part. So I left the list, deciding I had better ways to spend my time. These same factors drove me not to renew my subscription to Liberty magazine.

Regarding such mystics: As far as I am concerned, we do not need their ideas. They need ours. If they do not want our ideas, then to hell with them. We do not need them. We can jolly well build our own institutions, let interested parties come to us and exercise discipline to remain true to the principles -- no apologies, no compromises. Love them or hate them, this strategy has proven itself at ARI as their strong growth record demonstrates.

The SOLO approach offers the best of both worlds: A firm commitment to Objectivism and a willingness to disagree over specific ways to apply Objectivism to real world issues. Thank you, Lindsay, Joe and all the rest, for making SOLO a reality!

Post 27

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 9:25am

Since this started on another thread, if you go to www.Dianahsieh.com/blog/ for April 03, 2005 you'll find the original Hudgins quote and a link to the NRO op-ed its from.
Also other links on Schiavo: ARI op-ed, TIA blog article, and TOC supporter G.Stolyarov II's op-ed at enterstageright.

Post 28

Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 6:30pm

Thanks Jennifer, I just read the thread and I was hoping someone would recoil at the vote of confidence for Bloomberg.

Shortly after Bloomberg was elected he raise taxes significantly on all fronts: income, sales and property taxes (in addition to sin taxes). Of course, he hopes we�ll forget that by election time. He also pulled the �I�ll have to close the fire houses� to scare people when the New York Sun was able to find $1 billion worthy cuts in the city budget.

I also understand from speaking to teachers that he is also ruining elementary education with experimental � i.e. untried, rationalist, bogus � teaching methods. Add to that the ridiculous smoking prohibition. As a matter of fact, what has he done except hang thousands of annoying orange shower curtains in Central Park for a few weeks?

Unless Al Sharpton runs I can't picture myself pulling the lever for Bloomberg.

(Sorry for that off-topic rant ... but sometimes one just has to set the record straight.)

About, TOC - let 'em try. We all have to draw lines and I change my mind often.

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 4/03, 6:37pm)

Post 29

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 7:59am

Philip makes an excellent retort.

His answer: If they listen to me or I ask for their support it is *them* buying my views and policies, not *my* buying theirs.

In other words, there is no sanction or respect implied.

Post 30

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 8:06am

The funniest part of this bruhaha is that an association with Ayn Rand will damage Ed Royce's reputation far more than the reverse.

Post 31

Monday, April 4, 2005 - 8:18am

Robert, you have that exactly right: If Royce were truly seeking a "moral sanction" that would do him some political good, the LAST person on the planet with whom he'd want to be publicly associated is Ayn Rand.

Which sort of undercuts the premise of this thread, doesn't it?

You know, if anyone here truly fantasizes that politicians and other public figures are wallowing in such guilt over their altruism, power-lust, etc., that they simply CRAVE a public sanction from...uh...TOC (or ARI, or SOLO), then he nurtures painfully grandiose notions about the moral-psychological power to be gained from an arm's-length affiliation with an Objectivist group.

On the other hand...could it just possibly be that Cong. Royce actually, sincerely admires Ayn Rand...and, unlike 99.99% of politicians, actually had the guts to go public about it?

....

...Nah! Of course not!! Out of the question!!!

Post 32

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 10:01am

.Nah! Of course not!! Out of the question!!!

Witty, I laughed out loud. Love your lucid rebuttals to anarchists. You infuriate them, and their only comeback is that 'people would behave'. Yah fat chance. As you point out the market is amoral, it is all about buying and selling.

Post 33

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 11:02am

Thanks, Robert. Gee, a compliment! What a nice change of pace from all the psychologizing and moralizing by others, who seek to explain my views by reference to my ______________ .

Note to readers: Please fill in the preceding blank from among the following conceivable explanations of my views, generously provided by other participants here:

1. evasion (Post 16)

2. deception (Post 22)

3. cowardly evasion AND deception, i. e., Bidinotto "defends TOC right or wrong" even though "I feel certain he knows better" (Post 23).

Post 34

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 11:11am

I think Robert has invented a brand new kind of fallacy: Argument from hurt feelings.

Well, really it's just ad hominem dressed up a little. Robert's implicit syllogism: He can ignore the arguments Adam, Linz, and I made because they included or concluded that Robert was anything but completely honest, and no one being so rude could possibly have a valid point. Then again, perhaps "argument from hurt feelings" isn't such a bad name for this form of ad hominem after all.

Post 35

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 11:18am

Oops, I just realized that in my previous post I neglected another entirely psychological explanation for my views:

4. "hurt feelings" (Post 34).

Post 36

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 12:16pm

Robert,

I haven't actually seen this in a post, but there is another option that sort of comes to mind:

5. Humility.

Don't know where I got that idea from, though...

//;-)

Michael

Post 37

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 12:24pm

Robert Bidinotto,

Your endorsement from/of Robert Davison, who has made his agenda clear on another thread by claiming that there is NO evidence for the evolution of any new species from another, should be evaluated in full context.

The claim that a bigot such as Congressman Ed Royce has little to gain from apparent association with Ayn Rand, and from secular "sanction of the victim" in general, also needs to be evaluated in context. Royce is not a congressman from some bible-belt religious pesthole. He represents the very diverse people of the suburbs of Los Angeles in nearby Orange County. His bigoted votes against "illegal immigrants," Lesbian parents, therapeutic cloning etc. are never publicized to his constituents - in his home district, Royce is the total Stealth Candidate. That is because very few of his constituents would have any sympathy for his theocratic agenda if they knew about it. Royce's cover is his professed "admiration" not just for Ayn Rand, but for the intellectuals and ideas of ANY non-Christian group willing to give him their misguided approval. To appeal to his diverse constituents, he expresses his supposed admiration equally for Ayn Rand and for His Divine Highness Pramukh Swami Maharaj. If his seat were contested and his Christianist voting record exposed, Royce has a very "ecumenical" collection of endorsements to fall back on.

Post 38

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 12:32pm

Michael: HUMILITY???

Now you've gone TOOOO far!

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto
on 4/05, 12:39pm)

Post 39

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 12:37pm