Baby steps towards an Objectivist society

I believe Steve Wolfer recently commented on the need for baby steps in introducing/teaching/assimilating tribal societies into the modern governed society. It is a good point, of course, given the vast cultural differences to be overcome.

If we were to turn this approach towards introducing/teaching/assimilating a current Western society (e.g. the USA) into an Objectivism-based society, given the existing government and the current public perceptions, what would those steps be? What order of importance (or sequential order) would you place those steps. Also, what overall time frame would you anticipate needed to accomplish each step - given a dedicated campaign for change. Or, does anyone feel the obstacles would be insurmountable?

jt

Post 1

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 6:14pm

I've put lots of thought to your question through the last few years because it has serious consequences on my future prosperity and opportunity. My _practical_ goal is not to somehow influence people so that they choose Objectivism as their philosophy, but to make interactions between people Capitalist.

My conclusion is that there will always be tons of people around who would rather steal (or tax) than produce, and its not going to change unless stealing isn't worthwhile anymore.

So I think the solution will be more along the lines of answering the question "How can we maximize our gains while minimizing our losses to leeches?"

So its not so much teaching people or changing people's minds to become Objectivist, its more making the economics of our relationships require that those we interact with be Capitalist.

We need to be able to defend ourselves and the products of our labor.

Post 2

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:55pm

Dean,

Imagine that you are becoming more and more efficient at defending yourself, but at the same time the culture is sinking deeper and deeper into a mystical quagmire of irrational violence. Not a cheerful prospect.

I believe that the only real answer is in education AND practical assertion of free enterprise and defense. They need to be joined.

I agree that a campaign to convert the culture to be Objectivist, as a campaign, is unlikely, on its own, to be successful. But it needs to be pursued as a major front in the war and it should be located in education of the coming generations. That is where major battles can be won in a nearly complete fashion.

I think that political campaigns are logical times and places for education of the electorate on two things: There are logical alternatives, and there is a rational ethical base for the proper political principles.

Otherwise we are running a war against not only opponents, but because they hold a majority, against time. Either get ahead of the curve by getting large numbers of the new generations in the culture or find a way of spreading Objectivism with sufficient speed, passion and accuracy as to out-grow that majority's effectiveness.

Outside of those two arenas, educational institutions and political campaigns, the battles are smaller - not for an entire philosophy, but for an element - like a joining of an ethical right, a legal expression of that, and a current event. And it never hurts to move in a direction that is more free, even with out an ethical understanding, it just isn't going to last or be a marker in the larger war.

Going back to the issue of making a passionate, wild-fire like movement that spead with such speed as to engender an intellectual revolution... Well, something needs to be done that is akin to what religions have in their structures. Objectivism is lacking in that area. And there need to be more emotionally inspiring tributes to the philosophy - art. If the right producer/director turned Atlas Shrugged into a 5 or even 7 part televised drama it would bring in massive profits (look at the McMurty novel "Lonesome Dove" that went that route). The questions to ask are how does one encourage a passionate attachment to a way of seeing life that people get excited about and build their lives around (to the needed degree)? How would one go about shifting the current, intellectually stagnant media and print intellectuals? Not by argument. They will only change as a function of overwhelming demand from their commercial carriers. Why don't we have an exciting alternative to the Op-Ed portions of Fox News? Why no Objectivist network? There are history channels, wood-working channels... It needs to be a collaboration between someone with the good business and marketing sense to NOT make it a boring academic exercise in pontification and those who are excited about ideas and come from the free enterprise side, individualist, pro-man side of the debates.

For a philosophy that espouses the moral rightness of making money we aren't doing well in selling our best wares.

There is so much, much more that should be said here. This is the heart of what we should be doing. Instead of squabbling with each other on how many mystics can dance on the head of a pin we should be getting into the nitty-gritty of how do take this culture where it needs to go if we are to flourish.

Post 3

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 12:55am

TAS has the right idea having Ed Hudgins speak on the Star Wars special, much more effective than having someone talk about bombing Iran - even though I'd sing out in Arabic to celebrate such an eventuality. (I know no songs in Farsi.)

I think asking how Christianity succeeded is useful. The Christians converted mothers and children. How many woman attend Objectivist functions? And how many of them have kids at home?

Objectivism has to stop being against this and against that. Sure, the Dark Ages were dark. Outside a forum like this, harping on about the evils of religion and the expulsion of the philosophers makes us sound like whiners and cranks. God is not the enemy, at least no more than the Easter Bunny is the enemy. So far as proselytizing goes, it is one's value, not one's enemies' list that builds brand loyalty.

Objectivism has something that pleases anarchists, Ron Paulists, drug legalizers, gay marriage advocates, cold warriors, hard currency backers, Robert Heinlein fans. What does it offer children? Country music lovers? Hip hop fans? Young women? Christians? Middle America? The people who are bearing and raising the next generation?

One of the other fora started a thread to belittle people who call themselves Christian Objectivists. Not so hard to do. But are such people really enemies? Does considering anyone who doesn't advocate the use of force against you an enemy really accomplish anything?

If Objectivism is about feeling superior, we've got that down pat. Frankly, I'm not interested in being superior - or maybe I should say I don't need any help in that department. Here's an experiment. Use Objectivism to prove someone you know right about something - validate them. And use Objectivism to bring someone who doesn't know Ayn Rand from Anne Rice down a notch - to invalidate them. Then think how best to spread a philosophy for living on earth.

---

Oh, and Steve, I'll bet that I can fit more mystics on the head of a pin than you can, but I'll sanction you nonetheless.

Post 4

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 1:57am

Ted,

That was excellent!

I would like to create some kind of structure for an open house for Objectivist friendly activities - and the rules would be similar to what you mentioned.... no tearing down, get a grip on the whining and complaining, strive for uplifting, celebratory expositions. Mixing the practical with the understanding of the principles. A structure that quietly and gently constrains those whose premises are so mixed that one wouldn't want them to lead, but rather to participate and enjoy.

And I'd like to start working on an informal joining of the those with money, those with expertise in the production of TV and Movie dramas, and those that could guide the aesthetic direction so as to produce works of art with Objectivist themes.

I'd say that the other front that should be opened in this war would be a political action group designed for one purpose - to find and use the most effective levers for recapturing the education system - the only good thing about it being so much a creature of government is that it has but one neck to get a lease on.

Post 5

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 6:33am

Given that the genetics of a person give a tendency for the person to make similar behavioral, philosophical, political, and economic decisions as their parents...

A society where producers give a significant portion of the products of their labor over to those "in need" is a breeding ground for more people to be born to become like their parents, to be "in need".

You can't be effective in defending yourself by using ideas/words/arguments in a economic system that breeds needy people that vote in majority to tax you.

Sure, providing educational and promotional tools to help some people make more desirable decisions is helpful, but I think the main solution is for us to develop the means to defend ourselves. Isn't this the only way to change the economics?

Post 6

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 6:47am

Dean,

Just in case I was unclear, when I say Objectivist-based society, I mean a society that will fully respect/embrace Objectivist values. I'm not suggesting religious or other conversion to Objectivism, which would probably be a whole other issue (and problem). I agree that how we/everyone interacts (not just economic) is the focus, with following Objectivist values being the goal. I hope you might find reason for more optimism.

I agree with Steve's and Ted's posts - education (always, I think) is a starting point, and positive campaigns are smarter and more effective.

One example, perhaps - On education, one point often ignored is that many values claimed as Christian (or Muslim, or Hindu, etc.), are also common Objectivist values. Unfortunately, religions promote mystical explanations for those values, while there are sound, logical, objective explanations. Clarifying and promoting the logical basis for these values - removing the mystical claims - would begin to promote a rational view.

jt

PS: Mothers and children - good point. Children are taught/exposed to religion almost from birth. At what age are children taught/exposed to independent philosophical thought (Jr. High? High School? College?). What would be the impact if younger children were taught basic values are logical abstracts (not mystic hand-me-downs).

(Edited by Jay Abbott on 8/14, 6:55am)

Post 7

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 9:00am

Given that the genetics of a person give a tendency for the person to make similar behavioral, philosophical, political, and economic decisions as their parents...

They do? That wasn't true in my case. My parents were Catholic democrats, pro-labor-union and quasi-socialist. My mother was devastated when she found out I was an Objectivist.

Also, how do you explain the tendency of children to rebel against their parents' values, if there is a tendency to make similar behavioral, philosophical, political and economic decisions as one's parents?

- Bill

Post 8

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 10:58am

Bill,

Rebellion is perhaps the norm. However, I think that in the majority of the cases, even children who have rebelled against parental values still absorb and gravitate towards them as they achieve maturity. Rebellion is often just an attempt to set oneself apart, establish an individual identity. IMHO -Children often don't really find their true identity until they're a little older, and truly living their own lives.

In any case, I'd support the idea that the earlier they are exposed to logic and philosophy, the better the chances that they will gravitate towards a logical and objective set of values when they get older.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 8/14, 11:02am)

Post 9

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 1:09pm

Anyone ever read this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Parenting-Beyond-Belief-Raising-Religion/dp/0814474268/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I5CJQP3QPPSQI&colid=1DOMKHJ3GK1X5

Post 10

Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 7:52pm

Children with criminal parents are more likely to be criminals themselves, by as much as 20-60% depending on how frequently crimes by parents were committed and gender.

Children of crime suspects more often heard by the police

I'm not claiming that all children of socialist/communist parents will be socialist/communist. Yes there is a huge variation in behavior of children from the same parents. I'm claiming that transferring values to the unearned breeds socialists/communists evolutionarily.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any studies on how capitalist/communist parents are to children, twin studies, sibling studies, or adoption studies.

Post 11

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 7:49pm

Once again, there are only genes for proteins, their presence or absence, in differing amounts, combinations, and versions thereof.

Just as blindness might be caused by a lack of a certain gene, and prevent a person from becoming a painter (but see Eshref Armagan) there is no such thing as a gene to cause criminality.

Now thrill seeking behavior does seem to be mediated in part by certain neurons and neurotransmitters. These neurons have receptors that are made of protein subunits which bind more or less efficiently with neurotransmitters (proteins or the products of protein mediated body chemistry) and produce signals more or less efficiently. So, one can have a gene that makes one more or less prone to thrill seeking.

But this tendency is complex. And it is modifiable by education and self restraint. And most importantly, thrills do not have to come in criminal form. One can be a sky diver, or a stock trader, or a bull fighter, as well as a shock trooper or a serial killer.

What does this mean? Everybody should be taught alternate ways to seek thrills, as well as to calm oneself when thrill seeking behavior is counter-productive. Kids should be encouraged to play sports, and to hunt for treasures, not be kept at home with Mrs. Grundy to pretend to be a good boy like Dahmer, torturing animals in secret. The way to beat alcoholism is to learn how to handle one's self appropriately or alternatively, rather than to abstain until going on a hog-wild binge at 21. Educate children about their bodies and their biochemistries and lead them into constructive ways of using their natural drives. And no, not all our drives come top down from our premises! How we handle our drives does depend on the premises we hold, but drives are real things.

There is no gene for criminality, just as there is no gene for bullfighting. Each of us varies in potential, and none of us does or could express every potential we have. It's your body, make the most of it.

Post 12

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 8:47am

Setting aside gene vs environment theory, which I think has been well and amply explained here, I'd like to ask two questions.

Does achieving Objectivist goals within society require full and earnest support of that society?

And, in turn, must all members of society be relied upon to exercise 'rational self interest' to establish such earnest support?

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 8/18, 8:49am)

Post 13

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 10:14am

Jay,

You asked, "Does achieving Objectivist goals within society require full and earnest support of that society?"

I take that by "earnest" you mean the support is sincere, with a modicum of understanding of the principles, and a degree of commitment as opposed to casual acceptance based upon some concrete.

Society is a collection of individuals. By full support of society would you accept a significant proportion of key figures - leaders, intellectuals, teachers, etc. - and a sizable percentage of the electorate (even if far less than a majority)?

Under those conditions I think that progress towards the implementation the major principles would be underway and measurable and that there would be many positive-feedback kinds of effects that would start to kick in and accelerate the trend.

------------

Then you ask, "And, in turn, must all members of society be relied upon to exercise 'rational self interest' to establish such earnest support?" This is a very strange question.

"All" is not likely to ever be achieved. We rely on most people to act in their understanding of there self-interest most of the time. That is what the norm of human nature gives us. That is the assumption underlying economics and, it would seem, the answer to your question.

But, rational versus irrational behavior are kinds of input to a cultural system. If the system is designed with the principles of Objectivism, it rewards rational behavior - a kind of cultural evolution combined with the individual's capacity to understand and change would insure increased success. In that sense it is just like a free market can be relied upon to establish an appropriate price. If the system is mixed in its design, that 'price' may not reflect an accurate picture of supply and demand.

But your question is kind of circular - it asks if individuals can be relied upon to exercise the key trait of Objectivism (acting rationally in ones self-interest) for the purpose of establishing earnest support for the idea of acting in their rational self-interest.

And there is a chicken versus the egg kind of thing going on in your question, but education and choice break that loop and make it a progression.

There is also a question of rationality that relates to psychology. Lots of people behave irrationally our of defensiveness. But I see that as just a part of the education and choice factors.

What is you are getting at?

Post 14

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 2:52pm

Steve,

I think that a significant proportion of key figures - leaders, intellectuals, teachers, etc. - and a sizable percentage of the electorate (even if far less than a majority) while not 'full support', might qualify as sufficient. I'm not 100% certain of this though, so still interested in hearing others views.

Sorry about the phrasing of my second question. The phrase 'rational self interest' comes up often in discussing Objectivism, usually to differentiate selfishness from materialism. I tend to believe that not all people differentiate or understand the differences between what is popularly considered self interest and what is correctly rational self interest.

So the question is (hopefully better stated) How important is it to that society that members understand and behave with rational self interest? And what are the implications (or probabilities) for that society if a sizable membership does not behave with rational self interest?.

jt

Post 15

Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 6:26am