RoR: Forum

I did not complete reading Anthony's article, and here is why:

"The Randian State would also have a very aggressive foreign policy, unhesitant to target civilians, to the degree that, in the months following 9/11, it may well have nuked the Middle East..."

If someone greatly oversimplifies or misstates something as obvious as the difference of opinion on this between ARI and others, I will move on and read something else.

Or debate with someone else who is more likely to be objective.

--Philip Coates

(PS, and, no, the cryptic qualification "may well" does not change the smear tactic or the inaccuracy of the above statement.)

Hey, Phil! Well, I imagine a Randian State. Who will head it? A Randian? If the Randians in charge decided to follow the advice of some of Rand's most prominent followers — if they took ARI and Capitalism Magazine seriously – and they proceeded to nuke the Middle East, would not many Randians defend it?

Probably the average Randian wouldn't want to nuke the Middle East. But I think that many Randians, if they actually held the power of the U.S. State, would. And as a certain moderate Randian once told me, he would tolerate any abuse of his liberty and any foreign interventions, so long as the government kept him alive. Would not many Randians go along with a nuclear attack?

Post 21

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 1:50pm

And as I imagine the concept of the ideal Anarchy... oh wait, I don't have to imagine it, I just have to visit Somalia!

Radical non-interventionists are wrong, and so are radical interventionists - actually, the US is pretty close to doing the right things now from the standpoint of defense and intervention. There is a major re-alignment of rules sets taking place, both as a result of 9/11 as well as the invasion of Iraq. Look at the positive effects in the MiddleEast already.

Intervention has to be reserved for only the most intractable situations.

It must be followed up with rebuilding (yes, Nation building is needed, but other then providing security, this will largely be fueled by private investment not government). (and yes, we should be able to get even the European to help with this).

Non-intervention is no longer possible because of the globalized economy. Diseases, terrorists, wars, will all affect the West a great deal if prudent intervention does not take place.

Post 22

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 1:54pm

Anthony wrote:

Indeed, I do consider most Objectivists to be potential allies, and a good number of them to be allies in the present circumstances. But even among the less hawkish Randians and Objectivists, a good number of them are quite hawkish. Only a small minority, it seems, apply the non-aggression principle consistently to foreign policy questions.

Simply go to the source, stop trying to find consensus among the posters on the internet who think they speak for Objectivism.

That tower of Babel is the reason Rand disvowed the Libertarians in the first place. She did want 1000's of people speaking in her name. Remember most people who think they know Ayn Rand's theories have probably only read "Atlas Shrugged" and likely skipped Galt's speech (it only slows down the action). ;-)

Objectivist theory appears easy because it is philosophy in plain English, but it is not as easy as it reads.

Post 23

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 1:58pm

Thanks Mr. Gregory, for this pretty nice demonstration of the Straw Man Fallacy.

Post 24

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 3:09pm

Thanks Mr. Gregory, for this pretty nice demonstration of the Straw Man Fallacy.

Well, Sascha, I was not really making an argument in my article, was I? Or was my alleged use of the fallacy in one of my posts?

Post 25

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 7:41pm

Aaron,

"Do you want control over the product of your labor? Do you think that things would be best if people had full control over the products of their own labor?"

Those questions start at ethics and sound posed to construct ethics from peoples' wishes. You would have to first step back to lower levels of philosophy and determine what the identity of property is, ie. what are the necessary conditions for something to be property?

You bring the word "ethics" into the conversation, and then you seem to pull away because of how complex the issue is. I don't think this is complex at all. Consider this a lesson in game theory... Most people do what they think will get them the greatest reward.

In a game A, each individual gets what they themselves produce, their rewards equal their productiveness. If an individual increases or decreases their productiveness, their rewards are directly increased or decreased to the same extent.

In a game B, each individual gets a portion of what is produced by the group, divided equally in portion per individual, each individual's rewards equal the group's average productiveness. If an individual increases or decreases their productiveness, their rewards are practically un-influenced, especially when the group is large (greater than 40 people).

It seems incredibly blatantly obvious to me that people in game A will want to be productive. Individuals get a reward to the extent of which they themselves produce!

It seems incredibly blatantly obvious to me that people in game B will not be very productive. To an individual, their reward is practically the same whether they are productive or not. For many people, I expect that being lazy or screwing around is a lot easier or fun then being productive.

Now, here comes the ethics. I chose to live. To live, I must have rewards. The more rewards I receive, the longer I will live. I will have more rewards in game A. I will live longer in game A. Game A is better then game B, when using my life as a scale to measure with. Hence game A is good and game B is bad.

Post 26

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:15pm

Am I alone here in having difficulty trying to figure out what Dean Michael Gores's latest post has to do with intellectual property?

JR

Post 27

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:57pm

"You bring the word "ethics" into the conversation, and then you seem to pull away because of how complex the issue is."

No, I just know that arguing about the ethics of IP is fundamentally futile if people have underlying philosophical disagreements about what traits 'property' must have.

Post 28

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 9:13pm

Jeff, Aaron,

"Intellectual Property" is "ideas", which are the product of people's labor. In this case, the labor is thought. The product is very easily copied, yet never the less, it is still a product of labor.

I of think IP, the product of people's mental labor, just the same as "Physical Property", the product of people's mental and physical labor.

In game A and B, one could replace reward with "control over the physical property that results from physical productivity". You could also substitute reward with "control over the ideas that result from mental productivity". I meant both.

Which game do you prefer? A game (B) where mental productivity brings practically no benefits for an individual. Or a game (A) where mental productivity directly results in rewards for the individual to the extent of their idea's productivity?

Post 29

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 9:19pm

Brian Lovett:

"I’d suggest to you that there are no inherent and dangerous inconsistencies and flaws in objectivist teachings – only in taking at face-value the comments/opinions expounded by those who profess to be objectivists."

Brian, how can you allow the convictions you claim to hold be attacked so viciously without an appropriate response? Yet, you save your invective for me. Thanks for the defense.

Of course you'll sellout defend - and promote - the subjectivists in the libertarian camp. Nice work. With friends like you we don't need enemies. How many people do you think you'll bring over to Objectivism with your weak kneed approach?

Post 30

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:15am

I'm sorry to anyone who thought my article was out of line. I addressed Objectivists that I think uphold the principles consistently, for the most part, and told them I meant them "no offense."

I think that Objectivist political philosophy can be within an inch or two of the radical libertarianism in which I believe. Indeed, it can even allow for anarchism, if applied in a certain way. But many Objectivists — even if my use of the word "most" was an exaggeration — seem to be collectivist warmongers.

At any rate, my article should be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, it's filled with contradictions — every one of which, however, I took from actual Objectivists' statements (except the obvious gag about cigarette smoking), rather than made them up from nowhere. I know that most people on this board think the Ayn Rand Institute is not very close to real Randianism. Well, okay. But given the sectarian nature of the movement, what can we expect if these same people try to agree on how a State should appear and behave?

I think an Ideal Liberal State, an Ideal Conservative State, and an Ideal Liberventionist State are also ridiculous and frightening things to imagine. Take no offense, please, when I make light of a State as I imagine it emerging based on your philosophy. I have little trust in the ability of anyone who professes to know how a State should operate and act, to demonstrate, create or even plan a State in accordance with that professed knowledge. After all, I'm one of those nutty anarchists who think that we don't need a State, and that the absense of one would not necessarily turn society into Somalian-style warlordism.

Post 31

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:55am

I'm afraid I don't consider Dean Michael Gores's Post 28 an adequate response to my implied question. His contrast between Game A and Game B, to the extent that it is intelligible at all, is nothing more than a facile false dichotomy. It assumes that the only alternatives available to human beings are, on the one hand, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and, on the other hand, a ridiculous fantasy.

How else can you describe "game A," in which "each individual gets what they themselves [sic] produce, their [sic] rewards equal their [sic] productiveness. If an individual increases or decreases their [sic] productiveness, their [sic] rewards are directly increased or decreased to the same extent."

Whatever this may describe, it certainly doesn't describe any society that has ever existed on this Earth. Buyers in the marketplace don't give a damn how productive an artist or inventor is; all they care about is whether they want what that artist or inventor produces. You can be as productive as you like, and if you no one wants what you produce you'll earn absolutely nothing. Is it really necessary to point this out?

I repeat: what does all this blather have to do with the defensibility of the concept of intellectual property?

JR

Post 32

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:32am

Jeff,

I didn't mean "productive" as in producing random junk. I meant producing something which is of value at least to the creator. You must have skipped over my explanation of what the reward was:

In game A and B, one could replace reward with "control over the physical property that results from physical productivity". You could also substitute reward with "control over the ideas that result from mental productivity". I meant both.

The reward is control over the results of the productivity, not $5 million dollars if the person thinks that is what their results are worth.

And indeed, I did make it simple, with too games: A and B. And surely there is a range between the two. You can make it so that the producer receives anywhere between 0 and 100% of the reward from their own labor. You could make it so some people receive 100% and some people receive 50%. You could make it so some people receive 10% of what is collected from the people the producers, and some people receive 1E-50%.

I think that people would be most productive if they received 100% reward from their own labor. Any reduction in that percentage is a reduction in their motivation to be productive.

You haven't chose between the two games I proposed. How about you make a new game, and you decide what percentages of control different people should receive from the products of their own labor, and what percentages of control different people should receive of the total income collected from the producers.

I see that in your last post that you haven't re-claimed that I haven't covered IP. Do you now agree with me that IP is ideas, and ideas are the product of individuals' labor?

Post 33

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 10:55am

Thank you Anthony for your qualified apology. As long as people stay reasonable, there are many here that will be happy to respond to you. So I'll bite. You said:

After all, I'm one of those nutty anarchists who think that we don't need a State, and that the absense of one would not necessarily turn society into Somalian-style warlordism.

Help me understand this. How would a society in absence of an authority stay peaceful?

Post 34

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:30am

Stephen, perhaps people would realize that peaceful cooperation was more to their self-interest than aggression.

Post 35

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:47pm

...er...as in...uh...Somalia, perhaps?

Post 36

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:54pm

I don't have anything against all social "authority," or "rules" or even "laws" — or, for that matter, defined loosely enough, "government." My problem is with a monopoly in violence. Competing organizations of violence can also be horrible. But the worst criminal gangs of all time have been States.

Post 37

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 2:04pm

Not all states are equal.

Post 38

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:19pm