RoR: Forum

John wrote,

But go ahead Ted, continue with your insulting attitude. I'm not the only to recognize your anti-social behavior. You're obviously a very intelligent person, but your social skills suck. I'm sick of giving you a reason to be your punching bag. You've made this forum unpleasant enough for me to stop participating.

My sentiments exactly, John! I haven't been participating as much as I used to either partly for that reason as well. Ted dominates these discussion forums, and many of his posts are bewildering, insulting and off-putting. Luke Setzer stopped replying to him awhile back, and I can understand why.

- Bill

Post 21

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 9:49am

Talk about "incredible," Bill.

I explained explicitly why I did not like the video, it serves no real artistic or educational purpose, and amounts to a self-indulgent waste of money. The response to this by John was a bizarrely foul mouthed attack of paranoia. I have to ask why John would care so much what my opinion of this video is? And how does the fact that I don't like it amount to my insulting anyone? But here is John's response:

douchebag,

asshole,

shitcock,

fuckwad,

[cheerio-pisser]

[you] suck.

And this is something you sympathize, with, Bill? Maybe John could post pictures?

This thread is beyond bizarre. There is no argument. John implies that since he's a "Objectivist" his opinion should require no support among fellows, and that as a good Objectivist I shouldn't dare disagree with him, because to disagree and to state one's reasons, without attacking any specific person or calling names, is to be insulting. Is that what this place is, a safe, slow, dull, refuge for thin-skinned Objectivists seeking safety in numbers? It's not like anyone can complain that I prevent John Armaos and Luke Setzer or anyone else from contributing all they like here. This isn't just childish, as in elementary school-ground clique childish, it's boring.

You'll have to forgive me if I am at a loss as to how to respond to people whose complaint is that I write too well and too much and that I make them angry when I disagree with them.

Post 22

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 10:27am

Ted,

What John was objecting to is your calling him "stupid." I certainly don't agree with those epithets, and I would not have used them myself. What I was agreeing with is only the statement that I quoted. My beef is not with your opinion of the video, but the manner in which you carry on exchanges with other posters. It seems that you're more interested in impressing people with your knowledge, insulting them at your whim and befuddling them with inscrutable posts than you are in honestly trying to enlighten them and in so doing reach a better understanding of the relevant issues.

That's my opinion. I'm really not interested in continuing a debate with you on it. I can see that it would be a waste of my time.

Have a nice day.

- Bill

Post 23

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 2:03pm

Real knowledge or Google knowledge - only his computer knows for sure... ;-\

Post 24

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 2:47pm

For those who want to know what I "did" to Bill Dwyer, read this thread in which when he calls the above video "intellectually sophisticated rap" and I tell him he he left off the letter cee.

Post 25

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 3:50pm

Ted, I wasn't impressed with the video - and I've never like rap music, but I agreed with Bill on the "cee" thing.

I didn't get it either until you explained it. You often overestimate the degree of shared understanding - lots of people don't get what you write when it is in one of those very brief, short-hand posts.

Post 26

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 4:35pm

Fine, Steve, if you can explain to me how the "cee" thing amounts to an insult I will apologize.

I would also like to know where, except in his own bullying rhetorical "Who you lookin at?" attempt at intimidation, I supposedly called John stupid?

John's "stop acting like the asshole comment wasn't coming to you" line is a classic, like something out of the bully in Back to the Future.

Until then, I am embarrassed that people who want to lecture me on etiquette let John Armaos' foul mouthed tantrum pass without comment, as if this is to be expected. (And you are concerned that I may be trying to making you look bad?) "Shit cock"? That's just as foul an anti-homosexual slur as cocksucker. Please don't expect me to take any of your (pl) complaints seriously in a context of moral equivalence between my mild description of the video as nerds wasting grant money and Armaos' childish, raving tirade.

"shitcock" 1. Literally a cock covered in shit, after anal penetration. 2. Derogatory term for a homosexual person. Get away from me shitcock!

Post 27

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 4:44pm

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/10, 5:25pm)

Post 28

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 8:36pm

Ted,

Sorry. I should have been clearer. I agree with Bill about the "cee" thing being obscure. As I said, I couldn't figure it out either - and solving puzzles isn't what I want to with a post. I'm not worried about looking bad (I'm a little more secure than that :-) And, I never thought you did it to make me or anyone else look bad nor did I make that claim.

I don't agree with John's use of language at all. I gave up on lecturing John on name-calling a long time ago. I found out that people really don't do much to come to your aid, or rally around a standard of civility. Some people just ignore him and others have left. If I were the site owner he would have received a warning and moderation for that kind of thing - long ago.

But if you want to say you never provoke, pick at, or condescend, or make totally obscure posts... you won't find many believers.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 2/10, 8:41pm)

Post 29

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 7:27am

Ayn Rand hated Hayek, a fact that seems to have eluded the Objectivists who are touting the hot new rap video. The fact seems clear, but the reasons for it are not. A bit of googling was unproductive. (Usually, it is not hard to find Ayn Rand Quotes, but here she was mute.) In The Ayn Rand Cult, Jeff Walker provides a few paragraphs on that.

It was the rap video that took me to Hayek, actually. I read over his Counter-revolution of science; studies on the abuse of reason. (I just read from it, rather than actually reading it. He made his point early on, but very often.) Now, I am reading a collection of his essays, Studies in philosophy, politics and economics and I am having a better time with it. I can see why Ayn Rand hated him. He is more of a rationalist than von Mises was. His embrace of European liberalism motivated him to invite Walter Lippmann to the first Mount Pelerin conference. (Lippmann could not attend.)

I understand now, the pun on the Hayek blog, "Cafe Hayek: Where Orders Emerge." On this French language site http://fahayek.org/ I found his essay "Why I am not a Conservative."

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=53

Given that, it is hard to imagine why any Objectivist would tout Hayek over Keynes any more than they would boost Buckley over Stalin.

Post 30

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 8:48am

Michael,

From Hayek's article, Why I am not a Conservative
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes."

Referring to that Hayek quote: It is confusing as to why you would object to Hayek given that he is objecting to the conservative's desire for arbitrary power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hayek is saying he disagrees with the Conservatives, that he is NOT a Conservative.

She couldn't stand Hayek's muddled epistemology, without which he would never be able to give a strong moral support to Capitalism (look at her marginalia on Hayek). He was a skeptic who didn't think it possible to have hard and fast principles - particularly in ethics - and from that position he'd absorbed some fuzzy altruistic beliefs that he occasionally used as supports for Capitalism.

In the article you quoted, Hayek says that is uncomfortable with the term "liberal," not only because of the way the word is used in the United States, but also because of " the great gulf that exists between my position and the rationalistic Continental liberalism or even the English liberalism of the utilitarians."

He refers to European Conservatives, saying, "...in many parts of Europe, the conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed - a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to "conservative" parties who created them..."

He is looking for a name to describe his political position. He rejects "liberal" in all of its older and current versions - American and European. He rejects "conservative" and he even rejects "libertarian" but because it sounds "manufactured" or invented - he seems to dislike that it doesn't connect to an intellectual history - e.g., to the politics of James Madison.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 2/13, 9:26am)

Post 31

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 8:58am

That was my impression, too....

Post 32

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 9:28am

As usual from MM this is an indirect backwards smear towards Ayn Rand and RoR "Conservatives". I would think you would understand him by now. MM is like a hedgehog at an easter bunny convention, miffed because the bunnies won't choose him as their president.

Post 33

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 9:39am

Steve and Robert,

Mike isn't objecting to Hayek, he's saying Rand did (and showing why).

In the end, Rand hated conservatives more than liberals, and libertarians perhaps the most. The worst people in the world, then, were people who got closer and closer to Objectivism (without accepting it). Think of counterfeiters attempting to get closer and closer to an authentic dollar bill -- but for entirely immoral reasons. The worst folks are those who come the closest. The worst folks, then, are:

1) libertarian anarcho-capitalists
2) conservatives
3) liberals

As you move up the ladder, something changes and "some" of your wrong thinking is replaced with better (correct) thinking. The problem is that, if you are not careful, you become more wrongly powerful.

In a movie (The Octagon; Chuck Norris?), it was said that Ninjas made students pull a bow 2000 times before they were given an arrow. Other teachings of martial arts say similar things: that power should be respected and that psycho-spiritual growth should precede the development of physical prowess. A sensei may say that the hardest battles to fight are in your heart or mind. An attitude of respect for martial skill is inculcated. Conversely, someone who developed the fighting skills but without the respect would be shunned from the DoJo as a dangerous person.

This is the historical difference between martial arts and philosophy. Folks don't think of philosophy as seriously as they do of martial arts. That is a mistake. Philosophy -- whether you are a liberal, conservative, or libertarian -- is at least as important as any endeavor. It deserves at least as much caution as the decision to enter into a fist-fight with someone.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/13, 9:43am)

Post 34

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 11:24am

Ed,

Mike IS objecting to Hayek, citing Rand's hatred for Hayek, Mike says, "I can see why Ayn Rand hated him."

The point I was making in that post above was that Mike had picked the wrong quote. His quote was one where Hayek was criticizing conservatives. It was a quote, that taken by itself, Rand would have agreed with - that conservatives often find themselves at odds with liberty and supporting arbitrary exercises of power.

Then Mike throws this in the face of what he thinks of as "conservative Objectivists." In effect, casting himself and Rand as good guys, while all of us "conservative Objectivists" are bad guys who support Hayek as we cheer on the rap video. I suspect that he gets confused at times because all minarchists must seem like conservatives when you are an anarchist. Certainly, a person can't preserve their ability to think clearly in this area while they still hold the basic 'principles' of anarchy.
-----------

I agree with Rand and you on the danger of attempting to support political philosophy without the right moral philosophy (which in turn must be supported with the right metaphysical and epistemological principles).

Post 35

Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 3:22am

Wolfer 30: ... It is confusing as to why you would object to Hayek given that he ...
[Ayn Rand] couldn't stand Hayek's muddled epistemology, without which he would never be able to give a strong moral support to Capitalism (look at her marginalia on Hayek). He was a skeptic who didn't think it possible to have hard and fast principles - particularly in ethics ...
Wolfer 34: Mike IS objecting to Hayek, citing Rand's hatred for Hayek ...
... Then Mike throws this in the face of what he thinks of as "conservative Objectivists." In effect, casting himself and Rand as good guys, ...
Erickson 32:As usual from MM this is an indirect backwards smear towards Ayn Rand and RoR "Conservatives". ...
Thompson 33: Steve and Robert, Mike isn't objecting to Hayek, he's saying Rand did (and showing why).

First
I do not object to Hayek. I do not accept much of what he wrote. But I am learning to appreciate some of his insights.

I never read anything of his until watching the video. I got Counter-revolution of Science; Studies on the Abuse of Reason (1952) and Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1967). From Counter-revolution of Science I read the first few and a few more pages and then some paragraphs and returned it to the library. It was not much better than the post modernism I had to read for sociology and criminology classes. The "limits of reason" stuff might have some potential. You need to check your premises, but that book was just not fruitful for me. If the scientific method of physics does not work for the social sciences and if they are nonetheless sciences, then the author -- especially Hayek -- needs to say why.

I almost returned Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at the same time, but decided to read more from it. It does offer a better statement of Hayek's philosophy. However, little of it is pithy. Quotable quotes are hard to find. He is a strong rationalist, moreso than von Mises. Also, he admits that liberalism has not bridged the theoretical gap to show how individual freedom leads to social order. Orders emerge. That's the best he can do. And he admits that. Over and over. (The book is going back later this week. It's bedtime reading only.)

Second
Just because Ayn Rand liked or disapproved of someone or something might be interesting, but, not really. Capital-O Objectivism is not Randism. Women can wear midi-skirts and run for president.

Third
Neither was it intended as a smear of Ayn Rand. She was an objectivist. In fact, she thought of herself as The Objectivist. So, of course, she would argue against rationalism. That she softened on von Mises is interesting, but the fact remains that she disagreed with his epistemology. With Hayek, she was less flexible.

I have not read Ayn Rand's Marginalia.

Fourth
That conservatives (including minarchists) accept that the government should be powerful in action, though limited in range is a truth. Hayek accepted the need for some kinds of welfare payments, but was careful about their extent and especially wary of their financing, but, again, he was of mixed premises. So, yes, I was asking the minarchists to show why the government services in adjudication and protection are meta-goods or meta-services. Minarchists want one institution or agency to hold a geographic monopoly on force and fraud because they think that the free market cannot function without it. To me, that's like all effects having causes, except the First Cause, but, if you don't agree, well, we will just have to try to get along.... though I will keep an eye on you, knowing your willingness to make limited exceptions in important cases of force and fraud.

Finally
The question still stands: If this were a rap video with William F. Buckley, Jr., taking on Joseph Stalin, would you be so consonant?

Post 36

Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 4:11am

It is becoming ridiculous to continue any discussion with Marotta. He said, "I do not object to Hayek." But then his very next sentence is, "I do not accept much of what he wrote." Maybe anarchist have different rules for logic, or they just don't feel obligated to follow any rules they don't want to.

Marotta dismisses what Rand had to say as unimportant, while presuming an importance to his own thoughts and what books he is returning to the library.

He says, "Minarchists want one institution ... to hold a geographic monopoly on force ... because they think that the free market cannot function without it." What is it he does not understand about the fact that the market is not "free," i.e., not "free of force" until individual rights are enforced (geographic area with a monopoly on force based exclusively on individual rights). This is the ultimate in cultural relativism - his position makes no distinction between force that defends an individual right and force that violates an individual right. In the absence of a monopoly of laws based upon individual rights, the only thing one is "free" of is protection of those rights. He still thinks that freedom will magically appear and that one doesn't need laws defined by individual rights - that freedom can somehow exist with multiple, conflicting sets of laws - all of which can be backed by force, by anyone, at anytime, and all in the same geographic area. If Marotta wants to make the same stupid arguments for anarchy let him do so from dissent.

It is an intellectual travesty that he would call himself an Objectivist, dismiss Rand, call minarchists conservatives, and think he brings anything of value to this forum.

Post 37

Monday, February 15, 2010 - 5:39am

Steve,

... his position makes no distinction between force that defends an individual right and force that violates an individual right. In the absence of a monopoly of laws based upon individual rights, the only thing one is "free" of is protection of those rights. He still thinks that freedom will magically appear ...

Good points. Freedom is something that humans have to protect with that correct law which a proper concept of individual rights would prescribe. The anarchical thinker seems to evade this fct and, instead, take freedom as a given (i.e., as an axiom).

Ed

Post 38

Monday, February 15, 2010 - 8:26am

Some thoughts regarding Hayek, Rand, and the Free Market -
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/12/the-fable-of-market-meritocrac

Post 39

Monday, February 15, 2010 - 9:45am