What is official Objectivist policy?

I'm sorry, I meant Jordan.

Post 21

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 10:59am

Thanks, you had me scratching my head for a minute!

Post 22

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 9:35pm

Michael,

Thanks for your post. Just got back to this thread and it seems to have been hijacked by an entirely different discussion,

However, from the few posts on topic, I would take it the consensus is that Objectivism is or should just stick to the ethical, philosophical evaluations, and not directly take part in the political. That suggests to me an ivory tower approach. Unfortunately, I don't believe philosophy belongs solely in the domain of ivory towers.

I think if you are going to have a philosophy for living, that you are obligated to provide a translation as to how it will work in the real world. I still think there is no reason why Objectivism could not do this. And Libertarianism certainly doesn't appear to offer rational solutions.

jt

Post 23

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 6:12am

Jay Abbott,

Here's a page on ARI's website on what the government should do.

Here's a page on TAS's website on what the government should do.

You can search more yourself, if you know how to put the word "government" and ARI, Ayn Rand Institute, The Atlas Society, etc. into search forms. : P

What else are you looking for? You could ask a question like: "What is an official Objectivist position on the Government doing X?"

Post 24

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 7:04am

Jay,

=========
I think if you are going to have a philosophy for living, that you are obligated to provide a translation as to how it will work in the real world. I still think there is no reason why Objectivism could not do this.
=========

But you're asking too much from Objectivists here. Here's an analogical situation showing this:

Marathoner:
I'm going to run a marathon!

Interlocuter:
If you are going to run a marathon then you are obligated to provide a road map with a detailed route narrowed to the existential requirements of actual running -- a 2'-wide path -- because 2'-wide paths are what it is that are needed in order for humans to run. Can you show me the narrow path?

Marathoner:
No, but I do have a general path showing each major street that I'll use, and which parks I'll be running through.

Interlocuter:
That's not good enough to run a marathon.

Marathoner:
But it's how I ran my last one!

Interlocuter:
That's impossible. It's impossible to ever run a marathon without knowing beforehand every planned step of the 47,983 steps that are required.

Marathoner:
Well, successful life doesn't require that kind of high-level explanation. I won my last marathon.

Interlocuter:
That's impossible.

Marathoner:
Here's the trophy.

Ed

Post 25

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 9:32am

Ted,

Regarding your post 20, I think you meant John Armaos, not me, not Jonathan Fauth. To many "J" names in this thread.

Jordan

Post 26

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 9:36am

Jay Abbott wrote: "... Objectivism is or should just stick to the ethical, philosophical evaluations, and not directly take part in the political. That suggests to me an ivory tower approach. Unfortunately, I don't believe philosophy belongs solely in the domain of ivory towers."

When most people say "politics" they mean the actions of governments, elections, lobbyists, and that entire matrix. Sometimes, the word "politics" applies more broadly, as when discussion the indictment of Senator Ted Stevens (here), I wrote of my own "politicking" at work and school, giving gifts to some people in my cohorts. That is politics.

The basic fact is that we are capitalists. The principles of economics were elucidated most completely by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action. As regards social interactions, generally, we are traders, not politicians: we exchange value for value. Each is a calculating, pleasure-seeking rational pursuer of self-interest. Objectivists practice the virtue of selfishness.

There are "politicians" among us -- of both kinds -- for better or worse. However, Objectivist media devotes far more resources to affirmative aesthetics than to proposals for "better government" (however defined). All we ask of government is to be left alone.

These two essays will be well worth your invested time. Robert Malcom's brilliant exposition based on the ideas of Jane Jacobs explains the differences between marketplaces and parliaments.

This, on the two world views gives the broad context.

This, suggests the anthropological and psychological roots of captalism.

This is not "ivory tower" but the real world. From the iron plow to the iron horse, from the steamship to the spaceship, the creation and exchange of values is the essence of human progress.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 7/31, 9:38am)

Post 27

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 11:51am

Jordan, I meant you for your post #9, but you can sanction John if you want.

Post 28

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 2:04pm

Ted,

You responded to my post 9 in your post 12. Now you're saying you responded a second time to my post 9 when you wrote post 14? Doesn't seem so, especially since you seemed a bit more ticked in your post 14 ("Jesus John...whiny blithering response...put down the gun...")

Just look at my post 9. It's pretty banal. I'm pretty sure you were ticked at John Armaos for his post 13.

I ain't sanctioning no one. I just want to make sure you got yer guns aimin' the right direction.

Jordan

Post 29

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 5:22pm

My thanks to Jonathan were meant to be thanks to you for posting the links that you posted in #9. I was merely suggesting that if you thought John A deserved a sanction (and it was he who started beating his wife first here) rather than you that you could pass the points along. I am blocking this thread now, so don't expect any further responses.

Post 30

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 6:25pm

Wow, hysterical, inattentive, whiny, an alcoholic, and now a wife beater. I guess I'm not doing so well. What you left out Ted is that I also round up neighborhood cats and put them through a Cuisinart. Here's my latest victim:

[/awaiting "clever" picture laden post from Ted]
(Edited by John Armaos on 7/31, 6:29pm)

Post 31

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 6:30pm

You congratulated me on ceasing the childish behavior which you initiated (read your posts) and so I have generously returned the favor and congratulated you on ceasing to beat your wife. Or are you saying that you haven't stopped beating her?

Damn it. I thought I used the option to block this thread!

Post 32

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 6:54pm

You congratulated me on ceasing the childish behavior which you initiated (read your posts) and so I have generously returned the favor and congratulated you on ceasing to beat your wife. Or are you saying that you haven't stopped beating her?

Well Ted, I am too busy smothering the elderly with pillows because I love death, no time to beat my wife. But I think you've officially won this debate. Congratulations again!

Post 33

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 10:29pm

Ed,

Sorry, but your analogy just doesn't fit.

jt

Post 34

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 11:20pm

Michael E,

Both good articles. Regarding the use of the word politics, perhaps not the best choice of words on my part, but the first definition you noted fits my intent.

Nevertheless. what I still see in these responses is the conviction that Objectivism is philosophy only (capital P), providing the broad ethical concepts that governments should be bound by, but not obligated to provide the specific means (or proposals) by which these concepts could be realized in government.

That is, I'd concede, a fair enough statement. However, it is still not a satisfying statement. It still smacks of ivory towers to me, which - for sake of argument - I would define as institutions which posit broad ideas, without feeling any obligation to explain how (or if they) might actually work in the real world.

I feel there is an obligation to offer concrete solutions. Anything short of that raises questions about the confidence and convictions of the promoters.

jt

Post 35

Friday, August 1, 2008 - 5:56am

Jay, Are you ignoring me?

Post 36

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 8:45am

Jay, you say my marathon analogy doesn't fit. How so? There are real world steps required for achieving any goal.

In the case of the marathon, you have to run toward the finish line (and avoid walls, deep rivers, and certain boulders too big to traverse without special care). What you don't have to do is to have every single action taken -- every step, hop, and jump -- planned out ahead of time.

In the case of an Objectivist society, you have to have certain government policies. They will be policies with objective value for humans. Like a marathon, they will head us toward a goal. What you don't have to do is to plan each and every one of them out ahead of time.

Knowing where the metaphorical finish line is, simple analysis of each kind of situation in which humans find themselves will suffice.

For example, there is the situation where a women finds out she's pregnant. One policy would be to force her to have the baby (instead of leaving her the option for abortion). But this policy is not objectively valuable -- because it trades a higher value (an actual woman's life) for a lesser value (the mere potential life of a dividing clump of cells). Knowing that that policy is objectively wrong (by mere analysis), we can proceed to adopt the opposite -- Pro-Choice -- policy.

Another example is the Sherman Antitrust law, which is nonobjective on its face. If you charge higher prices than competitors, then you're guilty -- guilty of "price-gouging." If you charge the same price as others, then you're guilty -- guilty of "collusion." If you charge lower prices than others, then you are guilty -- guilty of "attempting to corner the market" (or something like that, I forget). Knowing that that policy is objectively wrong (by mere analysis), we can proceed to do away with it.

We simply continue this process of applying reason to every situation in which humans find themselves. It's like running a marathon, you don't know every step beforehand (because you have to analyze situations first) -- but you will really know each step as it becomes prudent for you to take it.

Ed

Post 37

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 8:56am

Jay:

Nevertheless. what I still see in these responses is the conviction that Objectivism is philosophy only (capital P), providing the broad ethical concepts that governments should be bound by, but not obligated to provide the specific means (or proposals) by which these concepts could be realized in government.

That is, I'd concede, a fair enough statement. However, it is still not a satisfying statement. It still smacks of ivory towers to me, which - for sake of argument - I would define as institutions which posit broad ideas, without feeling any obligation to explain how (or if they) might actually work in the real world.

Well, I think these broad ethical concepts were formalized from concretes about the real world. They are not floating abstractions so I think it's fallacious to assume these concepts when applied to formulating laws must mean they are detached from reality. Laws either conform to these ethical standards or they do not, and laws are the codification of ethical rules. You can either have ethical standards when making laws, or have none. I would even say you have a particular ethical standard you are operating from to decide what laws are bad and what laws are good. Wouldn't you agree? If so, are you also operating from an ivory tower? If not, then how do you determine what is or isn't a good law? Do you have any ethical standards with which to judge? Can you give us a complete set of laws that you think conform to your idea of what is a proper ethical standard?

Objectivism holds there is a specific ethical standard that should be used when making laws. Your idea of what is an ethical standard may be different from that or you may profess it is the same. If you think you hold the same standard and you think laws need to be passed that abrogate these ethical standards in order to preserve them, then where does this contradiction lead to? I would answer, that leads to the destruction of those standards, leaving you with none in order to judge what is or isn't a good law.

Post 38

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 11:24am

Jay Abbott,

You said, "I think if you are going to have a philosophy for living, that you are obligated to provide a translation as to how it will work in the real world. I still think there is no reason why Objectivism could not do this."

"How it will work in the real world" is a vague request. And please note that you are mixing a couple of things up - you say "...you are obligated..." Who, specifically, is obligated? Ed, Ted, John? And when you say, Objectivism could do this, you are talking about a body of knowledge - not people.

Rand did provide the principles in metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, and ethics. She also identified the basic political principles and commented on economics and made a few observations on laws. Others have contributed and continue to do so.

But there are many, many more fields that are involved in providing humans with what it takes to flourish in the modern world - economics, political science, law, psychology, cultural studies, history, and on and on.

Every single field or discipline should be examined from the perspective of Objectivism. But that does NOT mean they are part of Objectivism. Just as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or civil engineering are not part of Objectivism. Because a field is not part of philosophy doesn't mean contradictions with Objectivist Metaphysics or Epistemology are accepted. Knowledge is hierarchical and philosophy is the foundation, the base. The other fields build upon it. Some disciplines need major rewrites, other only a tiny bit of tweaking. It is because of the hierarchy that we can give priority to one layer over those built upon it.

Quick example: When you drive somewhere, you have a body of knowledge and set of skills that permit you to move a large metal object at high speeds in close proximity to others - safely. Should your knowledge of traffic signals, or driver's education, or local knowledge of the streets be a part of Objectivist Philosophy? Of course not, but if someone says that they should be permitted to run a red light but others shouldn't, then the resolution will be pushed back to law, and if the disagreement isn't resolved there, pushed back to ethics, and so forth.

Failure to observe the hierarchical nature of knowledge would destroy the mechanism that permits us to integrate our knowledge in a way that lets us to verify the validity of the chain of reasoning, recognize epistemological contexts, and ensure the continuation of the most basic of purposes from the most elemental through to the most concrete and individual.

Post 39

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 7:57pm