[The necessary-contingent dichotomy] was interpreted in the twentieth century as follows: since facts are learned by experience, and experience does not reveal necessity, the concept "necessary facts" must be abandoned. Facts, it is now held, are one and all contingent --- and the propositions describing them are "contingent truths." As for necessary truths, they are merely the products of man's linguistic or conceptual conventions. They do not refer to facts, they are empty, "analytic," "tautological." [107]
Although not all or even most contemporary philosopher accept the necessary-contingent dichotomy, those that do advocate it believe in something close to what Peikoff describes. In other words, Peikoff has not grossly misstated this particular view, which is unusual for him. What, then, is his objection to this dichotomy? His main objection is the view, supposedly entailed by the dichotomy, that facts are contingent. Such a view, contends Peikoff,
represents a failure to grasp the Law of Identity. Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. [108-109]
Peikoff is here guilty of doing the very thing that the analytic-synthetic dichotomy (and the necessity-contingent dichotomy that underlies it) was set up to discourage: that is, Peikoff is engaged in verbalistic speculation. He is attempting to determine matters of fact on the basis of logical and verbal constructions. The "law of causality" is not "entailed" by the "law of identity." The so-called "law of identity" is a tautology; and you can't draw specific inferences from tautologies. What if the identity of a given object is that it is governed by chance? If chance can be the identity of something, like a pair of dice, then any talk of causality being "entailed" by the phrase "A is A" is sheer nonsense.
Another objection Peikoff raises to the notion that facts are contingent is that, historically, that view "was associated with a supernaturalistic metaphysics; such facts, it was said, are products of a divine creator who could have created them differently... This view represents the metaphysics of miracles."
Here Peikoff resorts to a common Objectivist trick: he attempts to dismiss one view by relating it to another view. In other words, guilt by association. Since Hume most philosophers who believe in the contingency of facts are not motivated by a supernatural agenda. Nor are they, as Peikoff alleges, guilty of a "secularized mysticism." The secular belief in the contingency of facts arises out of the desire to stop rationalistic speculation at its very root. This may not seem obvious at first glance, but a more detailed explication, to be provided in the next post, will make it clear that it is so.
486 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 486 of 486The religious reason was the start of antisemitism. Other reasons got added and I think were for the Nazis more important. If you already hate someone you look for and find more reasons to hate them.
It is hard to know what Hitler's religious beliefs were. From his statements he did believe in God and thought he was serving that God. He was nominally Catholic but was completely unobservant. He appears to have actually been hostile to Christianity but played it down. So I don't think the religious reason had much to do with the Nazis' motivations. Blaming them for Germany's economic woes and blaming them for Communism were probably much more important. A word, do not expect consistency in Nazi motivations.
"The religious reason was the start of antisemitism. Other reasons got added and I think were for the Nazis more important. If you already hate someone you look for and find more reasons to hate them."
I don't think that's correct, historically:). We agree that the Nazi anti-semitism was a rationalization. Why should we discount the possibility that the previous anti-semitism was also a rationalization? The purported religious reason _makes no sense_, even within the context of the religion itself. Because racially and religiously, all the Christian saints were Jews. As I explained above. That's one of the ways you can tell something is a rationalization, rather than a reason.
Look at the life of Martin Luther. He started out pro-jew, because he expected God to "bring them into church" once the jews were "taught properly." of course it didn't work out that way. so he ended up a viscious anti-semite.
But neither of these positions were grounded in plain reason. He started out wanting to negate the jews' individuality and choice, in the delusion that he would control them with "correct doctrine." and when that didn't work, he completely changed his viewpoint on the race, and called to throw them to the wolves.
Did the religious facts surrounding the jews change during this period:)? No. Only Martin Luther's personal psychological problems. He went from a pathological narcissist optimistic he could bring the jews under his control to a pathological narcissist in the throws of narcissistic rage. religion had nothing to do with it. only psychological problems.
" We agree that the Nazi anti-semitism was a rationalization. Why should we discount the possibility that the previous anti-semitism was also a rationalization?"
Why then would we not treat the concept of "anti-life" as a rationalization (as, in fact, I think it is)?
"Why then would we not treat the concept of "anti-life" as a rationalization (as, in fact, I think it is)?"
It certainly could be, under the right circumstances. For instance, if i interpret any opinion that disagrees with rand to be "anti-life," regardless of the nature of the idea or its motive, while myself having the secret motive of insulating myself from ideas i find uncomfortable, i would be rationalizing.
rationalization can only be determined with respect to the circumstances. like that story i told about my daughter. she knew it was our room. she just didn't want to believe it. you can see it when it's happening.
but one cannot say "anytime somebody believes they are at the wrong room, they are rationalizing." one has to determine first whether they are in fact at the wrong room, and second, whether they are making an honest mistake, or ignoring reality to get where they want.
any idea can be used to rationalize. the question is whether the idea makes sense under the circumstances. and that's why you have to watch people (and yourself) very carefully to figure out when it's happening.
none of you, for instance, are rationalizing. you just think i'm wrong:).
"any idea can be used to rationalize. the question is whether the idea makes sense under the circumstances. and that's why you have to watch people (and yourself) very carefully to figure out when it's happening."
But one also has to watch one's own SELF very carefully so that their estimation of "what makes sense" does not itself become part of that rationalization. The Popper anecdote earlier was such an example, of two people interpreting the same facts each to suit their own preferences. Sure, it made sense in each case, for each person, operating on different premises.
For instance, your statement that anti-semitism does not make sense in context ignores the fact that those Jews who followed Jesus were the first Christians - Jews in a racial sense, but no longer part of Judaism. In that light, compensating for the vagueness of "Jew" as both a religious and racial term, the theory behind anti-semitism would seem to make more sense, "under the circumstances".
After all, you would hardly be the first person to bring this up to a devout anti-semite and think you had exposed the big flaw in anti-semitism.
This is what rationalization is, in fact - finding a way to view something in order for it to "make sense". Some are better constructed than others, and some depend on holding onto some premise as the keystone that keeps it from falling apart.
If they were to go that way, then that would be a clue that they might be honest, because that's a relatively reasonable response. If they were to respond instead with huffing and puffing and ad hominem, that would be a clue that rationalization was at play.
If they were to respond with the religious argument, then the next test would be against Jesus' approach to the Jews. Forgive them for they know not what what do. Bless those who persecute you. Turn the other cheek. Etc. then you follow the same procedure. Do they respond with a reasoned distinction, or huffing and puffing and anger, intimidation, and personal attacks?
Whenever a person jumps off the reason train, into the realm of intimidation, that's when you've hit the root of their ideas, and can see it isn't reason.
If you read martin Luther's writings, particularly his debates, he quickly jumps off the reason train into the land of personal attacks.
"If they were to go that way, then that would be a clue that they might be honest, because that's a relatively reasonable response. If they were to respond instead with huffing and puffing and ad hominem, that would be a clue that rationalization was at play."
Only I don't believe honesty or sincerity is a necessary indicator of rationalization (or not).
Rationalization is after-the-fact; excusing or justifying some other extant belief or action. If one hates Jews, but can't provide a coherent reason, one then rationalizes a reason for hating Jews.
(If one dislikes income tax, but can't come up with a compelling reason why the average person should hate it too, declare it "anti-life", so as to provide the extra cachet of a terrible-sounding label, and provide a reason to treat it on the same level as school shootings.)
These don't have to be inexplicable reasons; some can be quite plausible on their face.
"Whenever a person jumps off the reason train, into the realm of intimidation, that's when you've hit the root of their ideas, and can see it isn't reason."
Intimidation isn't reason - but then that does not mean you've hit the root of their motives.
You may have hit the level beyond which they cannot clearly express. It's also possible that if you are the one not "getting" it, that they have become frustrated with your inability/unwillingness to see their points, right or wrong. A loss of temper, however, is not an automatic sign that you've found the actual base point of whatever drives them.
If it can be so that a person cannot always recognize their own motives, then how much less certain ought an outside perspective be?
“Rationalization is after-the-fact; excusing or justifying some other extant belief or action. If one hates Jews, but can't provide a coherent reason, one then rationalizes a reason for hating Jews.”
This leaves unanswered where the hatred of jews comes from. Sure, you’re trying to explain it away. But how did one come to hate them in the first place? I think that’s where you need to look to understand the real motive.
For example, a person “hates jews” because he envies and resents a few jews who have what he wants and perhaps snubbed him socially and whose different views make him insecure about his own.
In that case, the rationalization starts with the hard feelings about the few you don’t like, because that’s what takes you from “I hate a few people of this group” to “I hate everyone in this group, even people I don’t know.” You can’t make that jump without rationalization. But that jump precedes hatred of the group, because it’s a prerequisite for coming to hate the group.
“(If one dislikes income tax, but can't come up with a compelling reason why the average person should hate it too, declare it "anti-life", so as to provide the extra cachet of a terrible-sounding label, and provide a reason to treat it on the same level as school shootings.)”
I’m not sure why taking away the fruit of half my labor – and therefore the value of half of my working life – is not a compelling reason to dislike the income tax. I work for a year. I get the value of half of my work. Much of the portion that’s taken from me is poured down the gullet of government corruption. As a former government employee of 7 years, I’m keenly aware of exactly how corrupt the organization is. Half of my working life currently goes to support people and things I despise. How much more compelling a reason could there be for hating the income tax?
I find it quite compelling. As compelling as it would be if the government told me I had to work half a day for myself, and half a day for the government. Because it is, in essence, exactly the same thing.
“A loss of temper, however, is not an automatic sign that you've found the actual base point of whatever drives them.”
It doesn’t mean you’ve identified it, but it does mean you’ve reached the level at which they have no further reasoned answers. In other words, that’s where their reason stops and something else takes over. Then you have to look at that, to figure out what it is. If they fly into a fury of defensiveness, they’re trying to protect something. What it is takes more work to figure out.
"For example, a person “hates jews” because he envies and resents a few jews who have what he wants and perhaps snubbed him socially and whose different views make him insecure about his own."
Ah, so we have a motive. But the way you put it, this is not actually the REAL motive - the real motive is "this person hates good things and life itself and wants to wreck them."
So... we should look to find the hidden motive, and then look to find the hidden motive behind the hidden motive?
"I’m not sure why taking away the fruit of half my labor – and therefore the value of half of my working life – is not a compelling reason to dislike the income tax. I work for a year. I get the value of half of my work."
I don't think anyone actually celebrates income tax, per se - but many people understand it to be a necessary measure to keep the government funded, so as to provide police, education, infrastructure, etc.
The point is, you can dicker about whether the money is spent wisely or efficiently (and that's a lot of what politics is), but relatively few people, when pressed, actually say, "but I think income tax should be eliminated altogether and the government should just have to whistle for all funding." Even a lot of heavily conservative types won't go that far - they just disagree on what should be funded.
So, grumbling? dislike? Sure. But to the point where it's viewed as a sin against life itself, and must be resisted for being evil? A much rarer view. But that's how Rand puts it - and you, now with "half your life" being stolen.
(And HALF your income? Are you not a US resident? The top tax bracket is 35%, at over $300 grand a year. No state tax is over 9%. At those incomes there ought to be a plethora of deductions one can take. If you're paying half, you're really doing your taxes badly. That, or "half your income" is hyperbole to bolster your point.)
"In other words, that’s where their reason stops and something else takes over. Then you have to look at that, to figure out what it is. If they fly into a fury of defensiveness, they’re trying to protect something. What it is takes more work to figure out."
Well, unless you slap a big ol' "anti-life" label on it. Which is another reason I don't subscribe to the notion: it ends inquiry.
"For example, a person “hates jews” because he envies and resents a few jews who have what he wants and perhaps snubbed him socially and whose different views make him insecure about his own."
"Ah, so we have a motive. But the way you put it, this is not actually the REAL motive - the real motive is "this person hates good things and life itself and wants to wreck them.""
Yes, actually:). Because how does one jump from "this person has what I want" to "I'll kill him and take it" instead of "I'll earn my own." ???
"I’m not sure why taking away the fruit of half my labor – and therefore the value of half of my working life – is not a compelling reason to dislike the income tax. I work for a year. I get the value of half of my work."
"I don't think anyone actually celebrates income tax, per se - but many people understand it to be a necessary measure to keep the government funded, so as to provide police, education, infrastructure, etc."
Actually, our government was doing all that before it had an income tax, and could provide them today without it. The income tax finances our wars. In other words, politicians using our life and blood to finance foreign wars we have no interest in.
"So, grumbling? dislike? Sure. But to the point where it's viewed as a sin against life itself, and must be resisted for being evil?"
Well, tell that to the permanently disabled viet nam vets begging for quarters on the freeway exit because of a war that couldn't have been possible without the income tax.
A much rarer view. But that's how Rand puts it - and you, now with "half your life" being stolen.
"(And HALF your income? Are you not a US resident? The top tax bracket is 35%, at over $300 grand a year. No state tax is over 9%. At those incomes there ought to be a plethora of deductions one can take. If you're paying half, you're really doing your taxes badly. That, or "half your income" is hyperbole to bolster your point.)"
Sales tax, increased costs from taxation that's passed on to me. 50% is on the low end.
"Well, unless you slap a big ol' "anti-life" label on it. Which is another reason I don't subscribe to the notion: it ends inquiry."
Yes, slapping on ends inquiry. As does denying the possibility.
"Yes, actually:). Because how does one jump from "this person has what I want" to "I'll kill him and take it" instead of "I'll earn my own." ???"
Easily: when one values one's own life and comfort and does not value another person's life much, if at all. We've been over this.
This is not "anti-life", it's "pro-self".
This is the egoist flaw: because in pure egoism, that which serves the self is good - therefore, if it benefits a person on balance to kill another person and take their stuff, it is morally acceptable to do so.
Rand, of course, wants egoism without THAT, so she has to cobble together the idea that pride and self-esteem will keep people away from stealing and towards earning.
But there are cultures where stealing successfully is a badge of honor, so this doesn't entirely ring true.
So then one must invent concepts like "anti-life", or say that deep down they aren't REALLY proud of being thieves, to explain the apparent discrepancies in Rand's estimation of things.
"Actually, our government was doing all that before it had an income tax, and could provide them today without it."
It has enough of a hard time doing it today WITH it; I'd have to see some numbers to back that up.
Income tax has been around since 1913; what was possible to pay for unaided before then may not be so easy now. We're now a much busier and more populated country, with more industry dependent on more infrastructure, requiring more educated workers. Much of our post-war prosperity was due to the money poured into these things; you talk of increased taxation costs, but perhaps you might consider the reduced costs passed on to you from businesses having a free highway system available to them, or a relatively well-educated workforce - at least until these things took a back seat to other expenditures and political expediencies.
"Well, tell that to the permanently disabled viet nam vets begging for quarters on the freeway exit because of a war that couldn't have been possible without the income tax."
I haven't seen a single one of them that blames the war on income tax.
This is an odd way to frame the argument: whether or not you can lay the blame for the war at the feet of income tax, "tell it to the vets" implies that they share this view and are protesting it. Which I seriously doubt.
In fact, this is such an extraordinary claim in my experience, that I'd have to ask for some hard evidence or just dismiss it as rhetoric.
Besides, aren't these people crumbums to you?
“Easily: when one values one's own life and comfort and does not value another person's life much, if at all. We've been over this.”
I disagree, unsurprisingly:). It is not a concern for the lives of others that prevents me from killing them. It is a concern for my own life and wellbeing. Not only for superficial reasons like “killing people puts your life at risk,” but for more nuanced reasons: killing honest people takes valuable assets out of the world that would otherwise be productive and make my life better; and killing people for my gain is not sustainable, because eventually you run out of people to steal from, or one of them beats you at your own gain.
No, killing is not egoistic. It’s self-destructive.
The part that scares the crap out of me, honestly, is that some people think killing others is pro-self. Because it tells me they view the self in a way fundamentally different than I do. I do not believe the self benefits by the destruction of others. It scares the crap out of me to think that others do. Specifically, that others think of me in an “it’s me or them” framework. That they would actually benefit from killing me, but are holding themselves back.
excuse me while i go change my diaper.
“But there are cultures where stealing successfully is a badge of honor, so this doesn't entirely ring true.”
Yeah, how do those cultures turn out:)? Impoverished, chaotic, ultimately miserable. Rand’s argument is a hell of a lot better than “pride would keep you from doing that.” It’s grounded in the reality that a civilization where theft is tolerated is a civilization about to collapse, because defined and enforced property rights are what allow civilization to advance.
“So then one must invent concepts like "anti-life", or say that deep down they aren't REALLY proud of being thieves, to explain the apparent discrepancies in Rand's estimation of things.”
Actually, it’s based on the reality that civilizations which honor theft ultimately collapse into starvation and death, and everybody who's been to such places knows it:).
“Income tax has been around since 1913; what was possible to pay for unaided before then may not be so easy now.”
Notably, 4 years before we got ourselves entangled in our first European war. Nice work, income tax.
“Much of our post-war prosperity was due to the money poured into these things;”
So they tell you:). The real source of our post-war prosperity is that we were the only industrialized country on the atlantic that wasn’t a pile of rubble, so everybody had to buy their stuff from us, using our money.
“you talk of increased taxation costs, but perhaps you might consider the reduced costs passed on to you from businesses having a free highway system available to them,”
oh, you mean the one that made us completely dependent on oil, an unsustainable resource? The one that caused us to invest a century’s worth of resources into an infrastructure system that makes life without vehicles impossible for the overwhelming majority of people? The one that artificially reduced the price of automobile traffic so as to make more efficient means of public transit non-competitive? The one that made constant involvement in foreign wars an inescapable element of national security? That one:)? Good job, free highway system. Next time why not just shoot me in the head while you’re at it:)?
“I haven't seen a single one of them that blames the war on income tax.”
Well, it must have been our stunning educational system that taught them how economics works after it tore their limbs off and permanently psychologically scarred them in the name of a war our president was too chicken to actually fight to win:).
“Besides, aren't these people crumbums to you?”
That’s the most commonly misunderstood element of objectivism. A person who was drafted into war and permanently physically and psychologically damaged through no fault of his own, and then finds himself unable to function properly, is not a “crum bum.” He’s a victim of statism. The real crumbums are the narcissistic assclowns in government who sent them there for no reason except a delusional sense of altruism paid for with somebody else’s limbs and disembowelment.
as you may or may not have guessed, i'm prior military:).
ungtss:
>Yeah, how do those cultures [that honour theft] turn out:)? Impoverished, chaotic, ultimately miserable. Rand’s argument is a hell of a lot better than “pride would keep you from doing that.”
Actually a policy of conquering people and stealing their stuff does not necessarily lead to impoverished, chaotic misery. Sometimes it's quite the reverse. See: the Roman empire et al.
This is a regrettable fact of course, not a moral argument. However what's interesting about the way you're framing this discussion - and I don't know if you're doing it consciously or not - is that you give the impression, like other Randians, that it's a choice between Rand's philosophy and impoverished barbarism and death. (Rand did tried to create this impression herself, so perhaps that's where it stems.) Actually things like thieving have been discouraged - "thou shalt not steal" - in most societies forever. And valuing peace, benevolence to one's fellow man, and trade over war, hate and theft has been the province of any number of thinkers from Jesus to Mises. Yet somehow Randians think that because they're in favour of say capitalism and freedom, everyone else must be in favour of socialism and totalitarianism. If they think theft is bad, everyone else must be in favour of it.
Obviously this is not the case. Our argument here at the ARCHblog is not that there is no good in Rand's doctrines. We too are in favour of individualism, productivity, capitalism, freedom, peace etc. We argue that whatever good there is you can get better from other thinkers, and everything bad you can do without.
Just thought you might want to bear this in mind.
“Actually a policy of conquering people and stealing their stuff does not necessarily lead to impoverished, chaotic misery. Sometimes it's quite the reverse. See: the Roman empire et al.”
As I understood JZero, he was not referring to military conquest, but to cultures where theft on an individual level was a badge of honor. And there are a number of cultures like this – a number of eastern African cultures jump to mind, as well as the well-known example of the Navajo. These are cultures where theft _by individuals_ and _of individuals_ were and (to some extent still are) honored.
Military conquest is a different beast. The effects are not as immediate, because the internal culture is temporarily shielded from the effects of the theft. But the effect is nevertheless inevitable. See the never-ending, destructive civil wars in Rome, and the constant, destructive rebellions of subject peoples.
“is that you give the impression, like other Randians, that it's a choice between Rand's philosophy and impoverished barbarism and death.”
Not at all. It’s a choice between property rights and impoverished barbarism and death. Rand was pro-property rights, but she was hardly the first to recognize that cultures without property rights collapse. As you point out, the ancient jews recognized the importance of property rights to the survival of their civilization.
“Yet somehow Randians think that because they're in favour of say capitalism and freedom, everyone else must be in favour of socialism and totalitarianism.”
Not sure what I said to give that impression:). I was in favor of capitalism long before I’d even heard of rand.
the romans, of course, had a very sophisticated system of property rights governing their internal economic affairs. that was the source of their wealth. they had an economy. the economy financed the wars. the wars did not acquire wealth for rome -- but they did expand the zone in which profitable trade could take place.
concrete-bound minds tend to confuse the two. as when an atilla plunders gold from a city, thinking he has acquired wealth. that's why these atillas operate on an unsustainable policy of expansion, until the bottom drops out. wars can't get you wealth. only trade can. sometimes wars get you trade.
" A person who was drafted into war and permanently physically and psychologically damaged through no fault of his own, and then finds himself unable to function properly, is not a “crum bum.” He’s a victim of statism."
Now, that's interesting. I got the idea from listening to you and Echo Chamber Escapee trade bits that if there was a person who needed to save his life through "leeching" from others, and had no other resources, then he could be judged to be some kind of creep/scumbag/whatever since nobody else would step in to help.
But a crippled vet (who one would think might have recourse to the VA, at least) begging for quarters (Has he no family or friends? Why not? Is he horrible to other people somehow?) gets a pass from you.
Had she said the theoretical person was a vet, would the conversation have gone differently?
"oh, you mean the one that made us completely dependent on oil, an unsustainable resource?"
And what keeps us dependent on oil, but big business (oil industry) and its political fingers (its money) maintaining that status quo? Are you saying that the oil industry ought to be restricted in some way, that their natural capitalistic operation isn't 100% great for America's future? Aren't their record profits an end result of those highways, too?
We could probably do this for days. Sure, if you only want to focus on the bad you could probably gin up some righteous outrage, but that would not be a truly honest accounting.
Plus, it seems to have put you in a position of criticizing industry. Which is a fairly new thing for me to see an Objectivist do.
Ungtss,
You are ignoring the extent to which Rome gained wealth from slavery. The wars gained slaves. The provinces paid taxes that Italians did not have to. They definitely gained wealth from military conquests.
I don't mean to be a nitpicker, but like most antinatalists I would consider myself to be "anti-life." I've actually written two entries on antinatalism v Objectivism, including why I support what Objectivists call the "malevolent sense of life." Basically, life is a raw deal.
Ah! And now for something completely silly.
There are things about my life that are not as I would wish but there are plenty of good things too. I think everyone here except yourself would say the same.
“I got the idea from listening to you and Echo Chamber Escapee trade bits that if there was a person who needed to save his life through "leeching" from others, and had no other resources, then he could be judged to be some kind of creep/scumbag/whatever since nobody else would step in to help.”
Actually that was ECE's characterization of the conversation – from my perspective, I was just trying to get a grip on who, exactly, she thought was unable to get help. Disabled vets, of course, have help available through the VA. Unfortunately untreated PTSD often makes them unable to function even with the help. They can't even pick up their checks and spend it all self-medicating.
“And what keeps us dependent on oil, but big business (oil industry) and its political fingers (its money) maintaining that status quo?”
Those “free highways” man:).
“Are you saying that the oil industry ought to be restricted in some way, that their natural capitalistic operation isn't 100% great for America's future? Aren't their record profits an end result of those highways, too?”
Restricted by whom? The same government that gave them the special favors in the first place? That’s the same trick they always play I’m afraid. “oh no, look at that guy, he’s doing something terrible … give me more control so I can watch him …” then they sneak into a back room together and work out a deal.
“Plus, it seems to have put you in a position of criticizing industry. Which is a fairly new thing for me to see an Objectivist do.”
Most of Rand’s AS antagonists were in industry. Particularly Jim Taggart, Oren Boyle, etc. She clearly distinguished between honest industry and dishonest industry. Dishonest industry being that which is able to survive only by special favors.
Lloyd,
“You are ignoring the extent to which Rome gained wealth from slavery. The wars gained slaves. The provinces paid taxes that Italians did not have to. They definitely gained wealth from military conquests.”
One does not gain wealth from slavery. One destroys the labor market, because people need not pay wages for what one can get for free. The American South suffered from the same depressed labor market, because slavery depresses wage rates, thereby creating rampant poverty and ignorance among the free working classes. Rome resorted to bread and circuses to appease this impoverished class created by slavery. With the labor market depressed, you spend more keeping them from starving and revolting than you gain from the price savings.
Francois,
Never heard of antinatalism – worth a google search, at the least:).
fascinating. antinatalism is in fact a raw "anti-life" perspective. i respect it for its honesty. most anti-life folks try to hide what they're doing:). antinatalism brings it out into the open. Kudos for that.
Ungtss,
Whether a society as a whole gains from slavery the slave owners certsinly do. Most claims otherwise are rationalizations for ideological reasons.
"“And what keeps us dependent on oil, but big business (oil industry) and its political fingers (its money) maintaining that status quo?”
Those “free highways” man:)."
Now you're being facetious. The highways could be put to use with any energy source.
Can we count that among the indications where one has stopped using reason to make an argument?
"Restricted by whom?"
That's changing the question. The question was, if we are dependent on oil industries, is that a BAD situation that should be changed? You seem to disapprove of this dependence. You count it as a minus on the free highway issue.
But that was Rand's whole thesis about the future and business, wasn't it? We're dependent on businesses, so we ought not to stand in their way. Doing so leads to collapse.
“Whether a society as a whole gains from slavery the slave owners certainly do. Most claims otherwise are rationalizations for ideological reasons.”
Actually, they don’t:). What’s forgotten is the opportunity cost that comes along with slavery. Slavery allows you to reduce your operating costs slightly. But it’s devastating to long-term operations, to innovation, to the market, to your culture, to your opportunities.
Don’t forget, the Old South was an impoverished, ignorant land that started getting pushed around by an industrially booming north (industrially booming because it had a free labor market), tried to fight a war for independence, lost, and was razed to the ground. Hardly a “selfish” policy for the South. The slaveowners were ultimately wiped out. It just took a while. As with all sociopathic policies. It just takes a while. If you're lucky, you die before it happens.
“Now you're being facetious. The highways could be put to use with any energy source.”
You forget that if it weren’t for those highways, our cities would be much more compact. Compare downtown New York and Chicago (developed before the advent of the automobile) to LA (developed after). Millions of people in New York and Chicago are able to function without _any car at all_. Survival is impossible without a car in LA.
I lived in Turkey for two years. Its cities also developed prior to the car. Consequently, they’re highly compact. Cars are unnecessary for the vast majority of people. I love that lifestyle, personally. Not only do you burn less gas, but you get more exercise, and you develop a sense of community. Those “free highways” have greatly decreased our quality of life, while forcing us to become economically dependent on totalitarian regimes who enslave their own people and cut off people’s heads for blasphemy, and then come begging us for “help.”
“That's changing the question. The question was, if we are dependent on oil industries, is that a BAD situation that should be changed?”
Yes, it’s a bad situation _created by the government_. The government created infrastructure that mandated the unnecessary consumption of an enormous amount of oil. And you want the government to “fix” this problem by regulating the companies that supply the demand the government mandated by the infrastructure it chose to impose on us?
“We're dependent on businesses, so we ought not to stand in their way. Doing so leads to collapse.”
We’re dependent on _free_ business, which is beholden to the market. “Crum bum” business is the worst enemy of the market, because it prevents _good_ business from competing. AS is all about the difference between the two. Between Reardon Steel and Orin Boyle’s operations. They’re both “big business.” One’s a lifeblood, the other a cancer.
in fact, the opportunity cost associated with slavery is one of the main themes of AS. A slavery regime destroys the creativity of the human mind. Humans are reduced to machinery. The intelligent either escape or die trying to escape. You lose access to the products of their minds.
Now you may be able to get something out of those who choose to remain slaves. But you lose the potential of creativity and intelligence.
The concrete-bound mind sees only the benefit. He doesn't see the cost. But the cost far outweighs the benefit in the long run.
If there had been a free labor market in the south, industrialization would have been possible. whatever the slaveowners gained from cheap labor, they lost 10x as much from preventing the industrialization of their states.
" The government created infrastructure that mandated the unnecessary consumption of an enormous amount of oil."
No. The existence of highways does not "mandate" oil consumption. It does, however, make it more convenient for automobiles, which happen to use gas. Had we (improbably) had solar power or some alternate power when they were made, we may not have been now dependent on oil.
Your "mandate" is the result of the free market taking advantage of an available resource. The fixation on oil afterwards is the result of that same free market attempting to use its primary weapon (money and its influence) to suppress potential competition.
"And you want the government to “fix” this problem by regulating the companies that supply the demand the government mandated by the infrastructure it chose to impose on us? "
Not necessarily. I was not suggesting that I wanted it, but asking if that was what YOU wanted - if oil dependency is bad, what do you propose to do about, if anything?
" Cars are unnecessary for the vast majority of people. I love that lifestyle, personally. Not only do you burn less gas, but you get more exercise, and you develop a sense of community."
You're also locked into a more limited market, have to make do with only the opportunities you can walk or bike to, have to spend time commuting, have to deal with potentially unpleasant populations - tradeoffs. Sure, it's fine if you live in a big and densely-packed metropolis (and you WANT to live in a densely-packed metropolis) - but not everyone does. Without highways, the rural communities Rand despised in Atlas Shrugged would dominate, isolated and cut-off.
While pollution would still be extant in big cities, since industry's output rivals that of autos, and power generation rivals them both.
You say "unnecessary for the vast majority of people", but that only works if the vast majority want to live by your terms.
I'm tired of ungtss's revisionist history, so let's roll the tape:
ECE: Another effect of this equivocation shows up when Objectivists are confronted with the man who needs a life-saving medical procedure he can't afford (and no one else volunteering to pay the bill). Somehow Rand concludes that it is in this man's interest to die because the alternative would be "enslavement" of doctors -- where "enslavement" covers everything from Medicaid to single-payer healthcare systems to, I suppose, actual slavery.
ungtss: In the real world, this scenario is utterly fabricated, ...
They don't ask what sort of person is completely unable to afford surgery, has no friends who value his life, and who is unable to negotiate a deal with the health care provider or creditors. I know what kind of people find themselves in this predicament. They're sleezebuckets. But I'm forced to finance their care so they can go home, use some more dirty needles, pick up a couple new STDs, and die in a DWI.
I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether ungtss is "just trying to get a grip on who, exactly, she [ECE] thought was unable to get help" or something else entirely.
But I will remind everyone how that conversation ended:
ungtss: you missed what that self-identified objectivist was saying. he was pointing out that the validity of a moral code cannot be tested with reference to contradictions that only appear in imaginary scenarios, and do not -- cannot -- appear in real-world scenarios.
ECE: To me, it sounds like you're saying that you recognize that there is a contradiction lurking in the assertion that it's in the hypothetical sick, broke guy's own self-interest to shut up and die rather than keep himself alive at the expense of someone else. You just don't think this lurking hypothetical contradiction has any significance because you don't believe the hypothetical can ever occur in reality.
Did I get your point this time?
ungtss: Exactly. And that's why it's not a legitimate criticism of the morality.
Okay, so our non-hypothetical disabled vet who has PTSD and can't avail himself of help ... is it in HIS interest to shut up and die?
Ungtss,
Your argument merely amounts to claiming that slavery is unwise and short-sighted. If self-interest is the basis of your choices them you mke your choices on the basis of what appears to be in your self-interest at the time that you make the choice. Whether it was wise in hindsight is irrelevant. Slave-owners definitely saw slavery as being in their self-interest. You may disagree but only their perceptions count if you criterion is self interest because choices can only be made on anticipated, not achieved, self interest.
Lloyd Flack, thank you for the completely irrelevant and pointless comment.
“Your "mandate" is the result of the free market taking advantage of an available resource. The fixation on oil afterwards is the result of that same free market attempting to use its primary weapon (money and its influence) to suppress potential competition.”
So check this hypothetical: The government taxes us to subsidize fruit loop cereal. Fruit loops therefore cost half of what any other cereal costs. Naturally, people buy more fruit loops. Because it’s cheaper. This puts the other cereal producers at a disadvantage. Specifically, they have to pay for the subsidy for fruit loops, but don’t get the benefit of it. They can’t compete. They shrink, and in many cases go out of business. Fruit loops grows and grows and grows, until in most stores, it’s the only cereal available.
You’d still blame the market for responding to the subsidy put in place by the government? It’s the market’s fault that I can’t get anything but fruit loops anywhere?
“Not necessarily. I was not suggesting that I wanted it, but asking if that was what YOU wanted - if oil dependency is bad, what do you propose to do about, if anything?”
Simple: Stop forcing people to subsidize it:).
“You're also locked into a more limited market, have to make do with only the opportunities you can walk or bike to, have to spend time commuting, have to deal with potentially unpleasant populations - tradeoffs.”
Yes, tradeoffs. And the question is whether people should be able to decide their own tradeoffs, voluntarily, or whether the government should impose one particular set of tradeoffs. For instance, my money unambiguously goes to prop up oppressive totalitarian regimes, and to keep people in gitmo indefinitely without trial. Hell, my money went to buy chemical weapons for Saddham Hussein. But it’s all good. Because at least I don’t have to commute by bike. Always glad the government’s there to decide which “tradeoffs” I should accept.
“You say "unnecessary for the vast majority of people", but that only works if the vast majority want to live by your terms.”
Negative:). The thing about the free market is, people make their own arrangements voluntarily. That means if you want a road, you find a bunch of people willing to pay for it, and you buy it. Those sorts of voluntarily arrangements are the most stable arrangements possible between human beings, because they are mutually profitable. Nothing about the elimination of public roads would require people to live on my terms. On the contrary, they could live on whatever terms they wanted to. As it stands, I’m forced to live on their terms. Which means subsidizing the auto and oil industries and propping up totalitarian regimes to support an unsustainable transportation infrastructure.
“Slave-owners definitely saw slavery as being in their self-interest. You may disagree but only their perceptions count if you criterion is self interest because choices can only be made on anticipated, not achieved, self interest.”
Not in objectivism. In objectivism what counts is the capital-R Reality of what’s in your self-interest. If your perceptions are wrong, you lose.
for instance, I may think arsenic is in my best interest. Drink up! Don't matter what I though, i'm still gonna get poisoned. Reality doesn't care what you think.
Francois Tremblay,
To call antinatalism silly is if anything an understatment. You should be called out on it.
I suspect that the refusal to take the "anti-life premise" seriously contributes to the existence of so many hidden forms. Few people have the courage to come out and say what they mean, for fear of ostracism. I respect the guy with the courage to say it aloud.
No the arsenic example is, an error of knowledge, a mistake. It's not a moral error. Believing slavery to be in your self-interest may be an error of knowledge though this is arguable. There are other much stronger reasons to oppose slavery.
What you are doing when confronted with an example of someone acting wrongly out of percieved self interest is to try to claim that it was not really self interest. You may not see it as self interest but they did and people can only act on what they know.
Once again you are trying to define your way out of trouble by making morality depend on what is apparent only in hindsight, not a defensible position.
If there had been a free labor market in the south, industrialization would have been possible. whatever the slaveowners gained from cheap labor, they lost 10x as much from preventing the industrialization of their states.
Industrialization might have been possible, but there would have been no guarantees. The south remained backward, industrially, for many decades afer the fall of slavery. Culture and climate were not favorable to industrialization in the south. Poor southerners did not want to work in factories (if they did, they could easily move north). And the southern elites had a way of life, a culture that was not consistent with the development of industry.
The self-interest of an individual cannot be reckoned entirely in terms of productivity or wealth. In fact, wealth is generally seen as a means, not an end in itself. For the southerners who owned slaves, what was important was status; and for most slave owners, status could not be retained without slavery. Industrialization might very well have increased wealth, even among former slave owners; but it would also have shifted elite status from the slave owning class to a new class of entrepreneurs and capitalists. If you are an elite, you are going to want to remain an elite. Elites will fight anything that threatens their status. That's a built-in feature among the type of individuals who become elites. The hard-wired desire of the elite to preserve his elite status is every bit as much a reality as any so-called "metaphysical" facts trumpted by Objectivism. It's not a volitional choice. You can't rationalize it away by saying that status is not "really" in individual's self-interest.
Lloyd,
We’ve shifted topics from whether Rome _actually_ gained from slavery to whether the slaveowners are morally responsible for their mistaken belief that they would benefit from slavery. Your original comment was:
“You are ignoring the extent to which Rome gained wealth from slavery. The wars gained slaves. The provinces paid taxes that Italians did not have to. They definitely gained wealth from military conquests.”
Your last comment was:
“No the arsenic example is, an error of knowledge, a mistake. It's not a moral error. Believing slavery to be in your self-interest may be an error of knowledge though this is arguable. There are other much stronger reasons to oppose slavery.”
While the question of whether they knew or did not know the economic effects of slavery is an interesting one, it isn’t the issue we were discussing. We were discussing the question of whether _in fact_ slaveowners gain from owning slaves.
That is, whether owning slaves is _in fact_ an effective way to benefit oneself.
My analogy to arsenic was specifically targeted at our original point: that whether or not they knew it was a bad idea, it _was_ a bad idea.
Greg,
“The hard-wired desire of the elite to preserve his elite status is every bit as much a reality as any so-called "metaphysical" facts trumpted by Objectivism. It's not a volitional choice. You can't rationalize it away by saying that status is not "really" in individual's self-interest.”
Well, objectivism is premised on exactly the idea that focus on maintaining “elite status” is not hard wired, and is in fact a volitional choice, and a poor, self-destructive one at that. That’s certainly my experience with it. How did it work out for the aristocrats in 18th and 19th century Europe? How did all the "cake" taste on the guillotine?
What evidence do you have that it’s a hard-wired, inescapable wish?
" Always glad the government’s there to decide which “tradeoffs” I should accept."
You're free to choose a different government.
"So check this hypothetical: The government taxes us to subsidize fruit loop cereal."
Okay, but before I "check" this hypothetical, you need to come up with a plausible reason why such a subsidy would be put into place, and what its presumed benefits would be not just to the fruit loop makers but to society at large.
Because if you're trying to draw a parallel between that and the highway system, you're not doing a compelling job. Whether or not you agree with the reasoning or the end results, there was an ostensible attempt to better the American infrastructure and in doing so improve the overall standard of living for everyone. And like I said, we could go back and forth for days with you picking at each little flaw while I point out a benefit you don't want to acknowledge.
This is all besides the point, anyway, we've drifted far from the reason it was brought up in the first place, which is that most people see income tax as a necessary step to cover the costs of some things - like public roads, which I'm pretty sure the "vast majority" think are a good thing even if they aren't "necessary".
That YOU seem to view them as the root of much evil does not make that a common view; nor does it mean that either highways or income tax is strictly "anti-life".
“You're free to choose a different government.”
This is the classic argument:). It defines freedom in such a way that we’re always “free” to leave. Does your government take your firstborn and your second born from the age of 6? Well, you’re still free, because you could move to a country that takes them at the age of 9. Or 4. So you’re really free you see, so you have nothing to complain about.
No matter what the injustice, you can't complain about it, because you could always leave.
“Okay, but before I "check" this hypothetical, you need to come up with a plausible reason why such a subsidy would be put into place, and what its presumed benefits would be not just to the fruit loop makers but to society at large.”
Why do I need to come up with such a plausible reason? I think the government could just as plausibly have developed an infrastructure of public transit, bike and footpaths. I think that the highway system is just as arbitrary as fruitloops. Moreso, in fact.
“This is all besides the point, anyway, we've drifted far from the reason it was brought up in the first place, which is that most people see income tax as a necessary step to cover the costs of some things - like public roads, which I'm pretty sure the "vast majority" think are a good thing even if they aren't "necessary".”
Actually, the “vast majority” of people today seem pretty convinced that we’re facing a global catastrophe via global warming. But they don’t notice that 2/3 of the US’s oil use is in its transportation sector, and that the government has developed the infrastructure to make this necessary, when it had other forms of infrastructure at its disposal. They see environmental calamity on the horizon, and call for more regulation by the organization that built the infrastructure that made it happen!
Please, fox. Watch our henhouse better this time.
"Why do I need to come up with such a plausible reason? I think the government could just as plausibly have developed an infrastructure of public transit, bike and footpaths. I think that the highway system is just as arbitrary as fruitloops. Moreso, in fact."
Now you're being facetious again. Unless you're seriously proposing a bike trail from, say, Minneapolis to San Fransisco.
(Hank Rearden, biking from his stately home to his foundry and back. Dagny rushing to catch a trolley, having to crowd in among the shapeless people she detested.)
You need to come up with a plausible reason because they did so with the highway system. The fact that you don't like or accept their reasons or don't care for the outcome does not change that they had reasons and found them convincing. By contrast, you just toss fruit loops out there and expect me to accept it as an honest parallel? Sorry, can't do it. It's one thing if you believe the bad stuff outweighs the good, it's another if you try to insist there wasn't even an intent for good, or any intent at all. And as long as we're on the subject of out-and-out pretending:
"But they don’t notice that 2/3 of the US’s oil use is in its transportation sector, and that the government has developed the infrastructure to make this necessary,"
You keep saying NECESSARY, like somehow everyone's required to use gasoline, as if the very presence of the highways forced everyone to drive them. If you don't stop that, I'm going to stop taking you the slightest bit seriously.
"Why do I need to come up with such a plausible reason? I think the government could just as plausibly have developed an infrastructure of public transit, bike and footpaths. I think that the highway system is just as arbitrary as fruitloops. Moreso, in fact."
”Now you're being facetious again. Unless you're seriously proposing a bike trail from, say, Minneapolis to San Fransisco”
Now now, the first item on my list was “public transit.” As in “passenger train system that doesn’t absolutely suck.” Turning that into a transcontinental bike trail is what’s facetious:).
“You need to come up with a plausible reason because they did so with the highway system. The fact that you don't like or accept their reasons or don't care for the outcome does not change that they had reasons and found them convincing.”
Plausible is subjective, of course. Many found the arguments in favor of the interstate system implausible. Of course, one might find it plausible that a subsidy on fruitloops would help the poor by making food available to the poor. Oh wait, we do that with corn and food stamps. And have the most obese poor population on Earth. Plausible? Head down to walmart and see it in action.
Another “plausible plan” whose sole effect is to subsidize particular industries, and damage the public.
“You keep saying NECESSARY, like somehow everyone's required to use gasoline, as if the very presence of the highways forced everyone to drive them. If you don't stop that, I'm going to stop taking you the slightest bit seriously.”
Now now, you don’t get to tell me to stop making arguments because you decide you won’t take them seriously. The reality is that life in America is _not possible_ for the overwhelming majority of people without a car, and I’ve shown how, repeatedly. There is _no way_ my family could function without a car, because home, work, pre school, and family are so far apart. We could not move our home to a place where we could make it to work and preschool every day. If this country had alternate transit system (like the Dolmuzh system in Turkey) we could. And have. You may not want to take that seriously, and that’s your choice. But it’s the truth anyway.
Well, objectivism is premised on exactly the idea that focus on maintaining “elite status” is not hard wired, and is in fact a volitional choice, and a poor, self-destructive one at that.
Which is one of the chief reasons why I became a critic of Objectivism. When the vast majority of a select group continue making the exact same choice, that's prima facie evidence that some sort of innate predisposition. Do you really think it's some sort of coincidence that so many people want the same thing, and fight tooth and nail to get it? The alleged destructiveness in such behavior, even if generally true (it isn't), is irrelevant. Indeed, if desire to attain and preserve elite status were in fact destructive, that would only provide stronger evidence that the desire was innate; for why would so many people voluntarily choose a destructive course?
That’s certainly my experience with it
Your experience must be severely limited.
How did it work out for the aristocrats in 18th and 19th century Europe? How did all the "cake" taste on the guillotine?
Of the people condemned by revolutionary tribunals and sent to the guillotine, only 8% were aristocrats. 72% were workers or peasants.
The struggle for preeminence sometimes leads to higher rate of mortality among elites, but not always. In more civilized societies, elites are replaced by other elites. The former elites lose status but are not killed. How "destructive," historically, has status seeking been in the United States? How many people die from it?
What evidence do you have that it’s a hard-wired, inescapable wish?
Who said anything about "inescapable." Just because something is hardwired doesn't mean it's inescapable; it simply means that, while people can choose, some choices are more likely than others, because people tend to follow the bent of their natures.
After the American Revolution, King George III questioned the American-born painter Benjamin West concerning what Washington would do after the end of the war. "Oh," said West, "they say he will return to his farm." "If he does that," said the king, "he will be the greatest man in the world." Now the reason why George III said this is because the example of a powerful person voluntarily giving up power was, historically, so atypical. While every powerful person can choose, when given the opportunity, not to seize more power, most do not behave that way. Therefore it is naive to regard this as a merely volitional choice made in the absence of strong influence of innate proclivities. If it were an entirely free choice, made in the absence of innate proclivities, you wouldn't have so many people choosing to attain and preserve status and power, and so few making the opposite choice.
“Do you really think it's some sort of coincidence that so many people want the same thing, and fight tooth and nail to get it?”
No, it’s a selection mechanism. The majority of people in power at any given time are there because they a) wanted to get power, and took steps to get it, or b) wanted to stay in power, and took steps to stay there. The people who don’t value power either a) don’t become elites, and b) don’t stay elites. So at any given time, you’re extremely unlikely to see people in power who don’t value power. You’ll find former elites out in rural new mexico, running ranches, talking about how they “needed to get away from the rat race.” Purely by virtue of a selection mechanism.
you might as well ask if it's a coincidence that most people in engineering like math. of course they do. if they didn't, they'd either a) not have gone into it, or b) gotten out.
me, i have no interest in power whatsoever. zero. i enjoy developing my competence, and adventure. the prospect of a political position makes me physically ill. why in hell would i want to be in a position of power?
all the people i know in power are either a) completely screwed up in the head, or b) unhappy being in power.
"Now now, the first item on my list was “public transit.” As in “passenger train system that doesn’t absolutely suck.”"
That would be quite the trick, because there's a lot about trains that suck that's inherent in the very concept of a train.
But what do trains run on? Diesel - or coal, which is another non-renewable resource. So you're STILL dependent on oil, or other fossil fuels, even if you'd shifted the entire highway-driving population to mass transit trains.
" And have the most obese poor population on Earth."
Because cheap food is made up of the stuff that gets you fat. If the US has the most obese poor population, it's likely that's because the poor population here isn't left to starve.
Also, corn gets subsidies not just because we eat corn, but for animal feed and ethanol production. Without that, corn would be subsidized not more than any other farm product, so singling that out as a cause of obesity isn't exactly apt.
"Now now, you don’t get to tell me to stop making arguments because you decide you won’t take them seriously."
Well, I get to tell you that I will stop engaging you as a serious debater if you insist on hanging onto a bad argument or using misleading language. If you want to end this exchange, it's up to you.
The highways did not, by their existence, demand what happened, they only enabled it. If we are to attach blame, there's plenty to go around, since oil companies have known for some time that their product pollutes, and that there's a finite supply. And we must also blame the countless citizens who chose to not live crammed right on top of each other, given the opportunity. (Gosh, I can't imagine WHY anyone would choose to travel on their own schedule and terms, to specific locations without need for transfers or travel from/to stations, all without having to deal with crowds of strangers...) What you seem to be really objecting to is that all these people said, "hey, I like this better," and acted accordingly, thereby ruining your chances to have a style of life you prefer.
What makes you think your home, school, and work would be all that much closer if there were no interstate system? If you were dealing with trains, urban growth would simply be sprawled out along train tracks instead of highways. The effect would be the same - you'd still be shoveling money at the oil companies, but also at the train companies (who would have monopolies without highways). You would be required to do SOMETHING (ride trains), you would not have a variety of equally-viable choices. You'd just like the method you were forced to use better.
But, hey, if you want mass transit, why don't you and similar-minded citizens pool your resources and buy some?
And all of this is STILL beside the point that most folks think we ought to have these roads and maintain them, using taxpayer dollars. Arguing at me that they shouldn't see things that way doesn't change that they do.
“But what do trains run on? Diesel - or coal, which is another non-renewable resource.”
Haha, only ours, because our government has prevented the development of proper rail. Wiser industrialized nations have been on electric trains operating on nuclear power for decades:). Have you been to France or Germany or China recently?
"Because cheap food is made up of the stuff that gets you fat."
Because the stuff that gets you fat is subsidized. Have you been to Europe, where shitty food isn't subsidized?
“Without that, corn would be subsidized not more than any other farm product, so singling that out as a cause of obesity isn't exactly apt.’’”
Yes, ethanol – a fuel additive that takes more energy from gasoline to produce than it actually contains:). Nice job, government. Let’s burn fossil fuels twice. That’ll show ‘em.
“The highways did not, by their existence, demand what happened, they only enabled it.”
That’s simply not true:). City planners design cities. They decide where the roads go. They decide what can be built where. You can’t build a high-rise in an area zoned low-density residential. It’s against the law. The law creates the sprawl. You cannot function in urban sprawl without a car. City planners created urban sprawl, and then blamed the market for following the law:).
“What makes you think your home, school, and work would be all that much closer if there were no interstate system?”
Because I’ve lived in countries where it is.
“If you were dealing with trains, urban growth would simply be sprawled out along train tracks instead of highways.”
Where exactly have you travelled overseas?
“But, hey, if you want mass transit, why don't you and similar-minded citizens pool your resources and buy some?”
Bingo! Because the city planners decide what’s allowed! And they have designed infrastructure which makes mass transit _impossible_ without their say so. And then they say “no.” and blame it on the market.
“And all of this is STILL beside the point that most folks think we ought to have these roads and maintain them, using taxpayer dollars.”
That wasn’t the point:). The point I was making was whether these roads are actually a good thing. Which they aren’t. If we’d been required to come to voluntary, cost-efficient arrangements with regard to transit, you’d see a vastly more efficient, more effective system. You just don’t see it, because the government killed it before it could happen. It’s “opportunity cost.”
And the inability to see opportunity cost is what keeps people from understanding exactly how much harm the government does. They see the dime the government gives them, and think it’s great. They don’t understand that the government stole a dollar from them behind their back to give them the dime. Too abstract to grasp.
Greg wrote:
>Do you really think it's some sort of coincidence that so many people want the same thing, and fight tooth and nail to get it?
ungtss replied:
>No, it’s a selection mechanism. The majority of people in power at any given time are there because they a) wanted to get power, and took steps to get it, or b) wanted to stay in power, and took steps to stay there.[etc]
I really wonder if you are just reflexively arguing here. It's not really clear what your point is, or even that you disagree very much. Think about it: elites are in power because...they want to be in power? But why do they want to be in power? Greg would argue, I think, that because certain animals are dominant in the pack, and humans as part of their animal inheritance have characteristics like elite dominance. Now, you too agree that large parts of human behaviour is hardwired in our animal makeup. In fact I haven't seen you disagree that elite dominance isn't a such a characteristic in humans.
Further, if you read ARCHN, you'll see that Greg also agrees that there is such a thing as free will. It's just constrained by, and in a constant tension with, our animal inheritance. Which is AFAICS the very framework you agree with, and is where you and Rand part ways. Rand embraced a tabula rasa view, where she should have embraced an "animala" rasa view. Which is the ARCHN thesis in a nutshell.
So you and the ARCHNblog are in deep underlying agreement over this. It's worth keeping this in mind, as there is a tendency in debates for people to argue for the sake of arguing.
What exactly then are you disagreeing with Greg over then? Please state your case.
"What exactly then are you disagreeing with Greg over then? Please state your case."
Gladly:).
Greg said this:
“The hard-wired desire of the elite to preserve his elite status is every bit as much a reality as any so-called "metaphysical" facts trumpted by Objectivism. It's not a volitional choice. You can't rationalize it away by saying that status is not "really" in individual's self-interest.”
I said this:
“Well, objectivism is premised on exactly the idea that focus on maintaining “elite status” is not hard wired, and is in fact a volitional choice, and a poor, self-destructive one at that. That’s certainly my experience with it. How did it work out for the aristocrats in 18th and 19th century Europe? How did all the "cake" taste on the guillotine?”
Greg said this:
“Which is one of the chief reasons why I became a critic of Objectivism. When the vast majority of a select group continue making the exact same choice, that's prima facie evidence that some sort of innate predisposition. Do you really think it's some sort of coincidence that so many people want the same thing, and fight tooth and nail to get it?”
I said this:
“No, it’s a selection mechanism. The majority of people in power at any given time are there because they a) wanted to get power, and took steps to get it, or b) wanted to stay in power, and took steps to stay there. The people who don’t value power either a) don’t become elites, and b) don’t stay elites. So at any given time, you’re extremely unlikely to see people in power who don’t value power. You’ll find former elites out in rural new mexico, running ranches, talking about how they “needed to get away from the rat race.” Purely by virtue of a selection mechanism.”
So basically, he said “seeking power” was an innate characteristic, and I asked for evidence. He cited the fact that powerful people seek to maintain their power as evidence of some sort of “power seeking” innate characteristic of powerful people. Something outside of their choice. Something “hard wired,” as he said.
I’m now challenging his evidence, by showing that the fact that powerful people typically seek power is fully consistent with choice – because people who _choose_ to remain in power typically like it, and those who _choose_ not to remain in power typically do not like it. Thus I might be a powerful person and then change my mind, retire early, and open a gringo restaurant on the beach in Cabo. As soon as I did, another power seeking person would step in to take my place. I’d be gone, _because of my choice_.
That is why noting that “powerful people seek to stay in power” is not evidence that they have some innate “power-seeking tendancy.” Because as a general principle, those who change their mind quickly leave the group without much fanfare. At any given time, nearly everybody in power will want to be there:).
ungtss:
>So basically, [Greg] said “seeking power” was an innate characteristic, and I asked for evidence....I’m now challenging his evidence...
So you argue that, contra Greg, seeking power is not an innate characteristic found in human populations, as it is found in other mammalian species?
Is that what you're trying to say? If not, what?
well, I didn't understand him to be saying it was innate in all humans, although he may have been. I understood him to be saying it was innate to some humans -- i.e. those in power. as though being in power made you demand to remain in power.
but the point is, yes, I don't think there's any evidence that any humans "innately" demand power. some choose to seek it. others don't. i'm in the latter category.
A quick citation for JZero on the question of whether the market or the government is responsible for urban sprawl:
"The key maintainers of sprawl are road infrastructure designed with automobile use in mind and government's intentional and unintentional support for city expansion."
http://www.regimeshifts.org/component/k2/item/410-sprawling-vs-compact-city#
ungtss:
>but the point is, yes, I don't think there's any evidence that any humans "innately" demand power.
OK. What do you consider is the evidence for your position? What sort of thing might count as evidence against it?
The fact that people seek power sometimes and seek to get away from it other times. Even the same person. He can rise and rise in an effort to become powerful, then discover that power isn't what he wanted after all, throw it all away, and start a gringo restaurant in cabo:).
And what, should it be produced, could you imagine accepting as evidence against your argument?
Any number of things. A parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon of people changing their minds about power, or some identifiable physical characteristic 100% associated with power seeking ...
ungtss:
>Any number of things. A parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon of people changing their minds about power, or some identifiable physical characteristic 100% associated with power seeking ...
Has it occurred to you that the fact that people change their minds about seeking power does not actually contradict the claim that power seeking or dominance is an innate tendency? In fact it is consistent with the very model you - and ARCHNblog - agree with, and Rand disagreed with, namely tabula "animalia"?
I read Greg's position to be stronger than that. He said it's not a volitional choice. Not that it's a default position that can be overcome by volitional choice. If he meant what you're describing, it's not clear to me from his comments. But I could be wrong.
ARCHN's argument would be something like:
Humans have an innate tendency or drive to seek power or status as part of their primate inheritance. This drive status can vary between individuals, and is somewhat open to their free choice.
Your argument seems to be:
No humans "innately" seek power. The choice to see it or not is a totally free act, not related to any animal behaviour.
is that correct?
It is a position based on your comments.
should read "seek" not "see"
Not quite -- I'd say humans have certain inherent qualities that cause them to react to their early environment in ways likely to aid their survival. Some early environments encourage seeking power. Other early environments encourage submission or personal relationships or withdrawal or any number of things. These habits of thought and action are wired into our brains as deep seated neural pathways. As we grow older, the development of our prefrontal cortex permits us to rewire these early neural pathways by deliberate conscious effort.
Personally, I adapted to my early environment by submission to authority. It was a matter of survival, and became a default habit that I carried for decades. It's still a tempting default approach to problems in anxiety-provoking situations, but I'm getting much better at approaching problems rationally.
"Haha, only ours, because our government has prevented the development of proper rail. Wiser industrialized nations have been on electric trains operating on nuclear power for decades:)."
Oh, of course, because there's no risk or waste associated with nuclear reactors at ALL. There's also an issue of scale - stretching a railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific would be a much more challenging electrical feat than doing it across, say, France.
"That’s simply not true:). City planners design cities. They decide where the roads go. They decide what can be built where. You can’t build a high-rise in an area zoned low-density residential. It’s against the law. The law creates the sprawl. You cannot function in urban sprawl without a car. City planners created urban sprawl, and then blamed the market for following the law:)."
And why do you think city planners zone things like that? For giggles? No, it's because a great many people don't want to live in or near skyscrapers. Look, if everybody was just fine with living in high-rises, there'd be more zones for them. But the zones you're talking about are designed specifically so that someone can buy their one or two story house and not have to worry about some company horning in a year later and flopping an enormous sun-blocker down right next to them. You're blaming city planners for making the kinds of cities people WANT to live in - i.e., planning for the market they know exists. You're ultimately complaining that where you live wasn't made beforehand to suit YOUR tastes, and that more people don't share your tastes.
I'd be more inclined to engage this, if I hadn't previously had the exact OPPOSITE argument with some Objectivists before. Citing how someone might be economically trapped in a dead-end job in some small town, I was informed by them that such people always had the choice to go find/make better prospects. It wasn't the business' fault for paying barely-sustainable wages, and the fact that a person may not be able to afford to move to another city was not a valid factor. No, they said, if things were unsatisfactory, they should move regardless of cost, or start their own business (how, and of what type?) or otherwise fend for themselves - their discomfort was all on their own heads.
And now you tell me you are economically trapped into owning a car you don't want and I am literally rubbing two fingers on my forehead at this moment to ward off a headache.
Were I the same as those other Objectivists, I'd probably declare it your own fault that you can't manage to arrange your life so that home, work and school are all snugly nestled together within a distance that doesn't require cars.
"Have you been to Europe, where shitty food isn't subsidized?"
What do you mean? The CAP subsidizes damn near every food, shitty or not.
" The point I was making was whether these roads are actually a good thing."
Yeah, I know that was the point YOU were making - which did not change the fact that people STILL accept income tax as an annoying but acceptable cost of keeping government running (roads included), regardless of whether you agree with them about it.
"If we’d been required to come to voluntary, cost-efficient arrangements with regard to transit, you’d see a vastly more efficient, more effective system."
I don't believe that to be the case. Or rather, I expect my estimation of "efficient" and "effective" would differ greatly from some corporation's mandate.
You could certainly say that air travel is becoming more "efficient", the way they keep managing to cram more people into less space. And they find it "effective" to "lower" airfare, but then turn around with added "fees" for things like baggage which used to be part of the advertised cost.
Why would we expect a train to be any different, given time? Oh wait - in many urban areas it isn't. And so long as it isn't, there's going to be a certain portion of people who just prefer to drive.
“Oh, of course, because there's no risk or waste associated with nuclear reactors at ALL.”
Well, you’ve shifted the topic now from “renewable” to “risk and waste.” And coal energy releases much more radiation into the environment (100x as much in fact) than nuclear waste.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
“And why do you think city planners zone things like that? For giggles? No, it's because a great many people don't want to live in or near skyscrapers.”
Well, you’ve shifted the topic now from whether the city planners or the market made it happen. I guess we agree that the city planners made it happen now.
The next question is whether city planners were simply doing what the public demanded. And that’s where it gets tricky. Because the public’s demands look different depending on the transportation infrastructure available. If you as a city planner completely rely on highways, and don’t put in public transit, then you end up with an externality in favor of sprawl, because people cannot travel without cars, so the extra commute by car makes no difference to them, so they demand their piece of the rock. But if you make better means of transportation available, then that externality disappears, and the benefits of living in a compact city become clearer. You want to blame “demand by the public,” but you forget that demand by the public is strongly affected by the transportation system available. Which goes back to the city planners.
“I'd be more inclined to engage this, if I hadn't previously had the exact OPPOSITE argument with some Objectivists before. … No, they said, if things were unsatisfactory, they should move regardless of cost, or start their own business (how, and of what type?) or otherwise fend for themselves - their discomfort was all on their own heads.”
That’s a very different argument I’m afraid. The situation we’re discussing is created by the government, who decides what infrastructure is available, thereby deciding where and what sort of growth can take place. The other situation you’re discussing has to do with what people should do when private industry picks up and moves from a town because working in that town is no longer workable for them. The first operates coercively, by force. The second voluntarily.
“Yeah, I know that was the point YOU were making - which did not change the fact that people STILL accept income tax as an annoying but acceptable cost of keeping government running (roads included), regardless of whether you agree with them about it.”
And that’s what your argument comes down to I guess: not whether it’s fair or not, or economically advantageous or not, but whether “the majority of people are okay with it.” I guess as long as everybody decides what they like based on what everybody else thinks, rather than what’s actually right.
“What do you mean? The CAP subsidizes damn near every food, shitty or not.”
Not in the price-distorting way we do. 10 years ago, they moved to a single payment scheme, which pays by the hectare, not by the crop. This reduces the price-distorting effects our ag subsidies create. It prevents the artificial overproduction in the five “magic crops” we subsidize here.
In our system, subsidy eligibility is based on the crop. More than 90 percent of all subsidies go to just five crops-wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice- while the vast majority of crops are ineligible for subsidies. Once eligibility is established, subsidies are paid per amount of the crop produced, so the largest farms automatically receive the largest checks.
“Why would we expect a train to be any different, given time? Oh wait - in many urban areas it isn't. And so long as it isn't, there's going to be a certain portion of people who just prefer to drive.”
Yes, there will. And thanks to a government that picks favorites, I’ve forced to pay for other people’s preferences, so they can get those “free highways” subsidized with 20 years of uninterrupted war in the middle east. Enjoy your “free drive.” Be sure to throw a quarter to the guy who paid for it with his limbs.
i guess at root, your idea of morality appears to come down to "a lot of people want it, so they have the right to force their views on others." you like to drive and have a house in the suburbs. so it's only right that your wish to drive be subsidized by petrowars to keep the fuel supply to make your drive possible, and roads paid for by people who don't want to use them, and dead bodies from the thousands of vehicle accidents every year. 'cause i mean, you and a majority of people want it. so why not?
but my moral premise is that human beings should not be permitted to do that to one another. my moral premise is that human economic affairs should be arranged voluntarily, which each party bearing the full cost and benefit of his actions. because i believe that's fair.
this kind of blends into my other conversation with barnes. reminds me of the two survival mechanisms back in the schoolyard: the majority of bullies that did whatever they wanted, by hook or by crook. and the minority of individualists, who simply wanted to the do the right thing as an individual, and found themselves thwarted at every turn by a mob of idiots intent on forcing their will on everybody else.
"Well, you’ve shifted the topic now from “renewable” to “risk and waste.” And coal energy releases much more radiation into the environment (100x as much in fact) than nuclear waste."
Nuclear material is hardly "renewable", either. And while coal ash may release more radiation during operation than a functioning nuclear reactor, that wasn't the waste I was referring to. The spent nuclear fuel is far more dangerously radioactive than coal ash, lasts for thousands of years, and must be carefully shielded and hidden away deep inside caves or similar places to keep it from contaminating the environment. (Coal ash only releases more radiation because nobody bothers to do anything about it, yet.) So every hour of nuclear power you use creates a nugget of death your great-great-great grandchildren will need to keep watch over.
Plus you get the occasional Chernobyl or Japanese disaster.
Sleep tight, "wise industrial nations".
"You want to blame “demand by the public,” but you forget that demand by the public is strongly affected by the transportation system available. Which goes back to the city planners."
I don't "forget" it, I don't think it's true, or at least not the strongest influence. The suburban-house-with-a-lawn has been part of the American dream for decades, and that sort of housing can't be done without sprawl. If that's the kind of housing people want, a city will be planned to accommodate that. Roads must come with it.
Sure, some people like crowded high-rise living. But it's ridiculous to think that everybody would prefer it if only they were granted amazing public transportation.
"The situation we’re discussing is created by the government, who decides what infrastructure is available, thereby deciding where and what sort of growth can take place.
The first operates coercively, by force."
Nobody forces you to live in these places. You move there voluntarily, you put up with having to own a car in order to take advantage of some other situation.
No, the government did not deign to consult you before you moved to City Whatever to assure you that you would have all the public transportation amenities you desired. Nor do I think that constitutes "force". Nobody put the gun to your head. Nobody's fencing you in. The lack of a choice you like is not coercion.
"The other situation you’re discussing has to do with what people should do when private industry picks up and moves from a town because working in that town is no longer workable for them."
Who said anything about businesses moving out of town?
"Enjoy your “free drive.” Be sure to throw a quarter to the guy who paid for it with his limbs."
As soon as you drop a sawbuck in the hat of the guy whose ancestors were nearly wiped out so you could live here.
“Nuclear material is hardly "renewable", either.”
Recent estimates by the NSA show we’ve got enough in hand for 35,000 years at current levels of production. That’s virtually unlimited, for practical purposes.
“The spent nuclear fuel is far more dangerously radioactive than coal ash, lasts for thousands of years, and must be carefully shielded and hidden away deep inside caves or similar places to keep it from contaminating the environment.”
And after that is done, it’s safer than coal.
(Coal ash only releases more radiation because nobody bothers to do anything about it, yet.)
Because nobody could. Because there’s so much of it.
“So every hour of nuclear power you use creates a nugget of death your great-great-great grandchildren will need to keep watch over.”
You’d prefer nuggets of death for my currently-living neighbors over canisters deep in the ground doing no harm?
“The suburban-house-with-a-lawn has been part of the American dream for decades, and that sort of housing can't be done without sprawl.”
“The American Dream.” As if there were only one.
“But it's ridiculous to think that everybody would prefer it if only they were granted amazing public transportation.”
Who said anything about “Everything?” this is a question of degrees.
“Nobody forces you to live in these places. You move there voluntarily, you put up with having to own a car in order to take advantage of some other situation.”
That’s interesting. The “You can just move away” argument doesn’t impress you when it comes to businesses not giving people what they want. But when it comes to government not giving people what they want, it’s perfectly okay -- people can just move away if they don't like it.
“No, the government did not deign to consult you before you moved to City Whatever to assure you that you would have all the public transportation amenities you desired. Nor do I think that constitutes "force". Nobody put the gun to your head. Nobody's fencing you in. The lack of a choice you like is not coercion.”
I pay for those roads, man. With taxes. I pay for the ambulance runs when people get hit on the road and can’t afford care. And I don’t pay for it because I like it. I pay for it for somebody else’s “American dream.” If I don't pay, they start taking my stuff away from me.
“As soon as you drop a sawbuck in the hat of the guy whose ancestors were nearly wiped out so you could live here.”
Haha, round here those folks are doing very well. Their ancestors bargained for land which turned out to be oil and coal rich. One in particular I know makes $14,000 a month in oil and coal royalties, and does nothing but sit around and smoke weed.
i'm really intrigued by two double standards here.
1) "you can just move away" is a good argument when it comes to government, but a bad argument when it comes to private industry;
2) a person who lost his own limbs fighting in a war made necessary by unnecessarily oil-based transportation infrastructure is in the same position as a person who lost no limbs, and who has exactly the same rights as any other US citizen, just because this second person's ancestors lost a tribal conflict in which both sides acted like wild collectivist animals.
I mean, should I complain because my Norwegian ancestors lost a tribal conflict with the swedes and danes, were conquered and enslaved, destroying the economy such that my ancestors had no property and no means of survival and so took off across the atlantic in a last ditch effort?
of course not. that happened then. this is happening now.
but for some reason, you would equate a person who lost his _own limbs_ to a person whose tribe lost a tribalist war hundreds of years ago.
intriguing.
I read Greg's position to be stronger than that.
That's because you didn't read carefully enough. My comments about the King George quote (concerning George Washington) should've made my position quite obvious.
The fact that people seek power sometimes and seek to get away from it other times. Even the same person. He can rise and rise in an effort to become powerful, then discover that power isn't what he wanted after all, throw it all away, and start a gringo restaurant in cabo:).
Again, I answered this with the King George quote about Washington. While it's true that some people (actually a very few people) give up power, the fact that so few give it up strongly suggests, as I have previously stated, that there are innate proclivities at work here.
Some early environments encourage seeking power. Other early environments encourage submission or personal relationships or withdrawal or any number of things. These habits of thought and action are wired into our brains as deep seated neural pathways. As we grow older, the development of our prefrontal cortex permits us to rewire these early neural pathways by deliberate conscious effort.
Experimental/social psychology has made huge strides in recent decades; they have found no evidence that status seeking is a neural pathway created early life which can be "rewired" later in life by the prefrontal cortex. On the contrary, the evidence that has been found firmly supports my position. See Pinker's Human Nature and Haidt's The Righteous Mind.
“Experimental/social psychology has made huge strides in recent decades; they have found no evidence that status seeking is a neural pathway created early life which can be "rewired" later in life by the prefrontal cortex”
Here is a book with some good sources to start off:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_D68UrclQAC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=neural+pathways+laid+down+early+in+life&source=bl&ots=QSRfmap45l&sig=IWVsHfZc8dBAO0GwW85Qnvqj3MM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QOLBUcvUMI7m8gSUwICgDw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=neural%20pathways%20laid%20down%20early%20in%20life&f=false
Quote: “Anyone doubting the primacy of childhood experiences over later experiences should amrk the neuroscience truism as stated by Perry and Pollard (1998:36, emphasis added): “Experience in adults alters the organized brain, but in infants and children it organizes the developing brain. Because neural pathways laid down early in life are more resistant to elimination than pathways laid down later in life, brains organized by stressful and traumatic events tend to relay subsequent events along the same neural pathways. A brain organized by negative events is ripe for antisocial behavior because established neural pathways are activated with less provocation than is required to engage less established pathways.”
It’s just science, man. Well established, well documented science.
Ironically, the George washington question was exactly the quote I was basing my understanding on. You wrote:
“King George III questioned the American-born painter Benjamin West concerning what Washington would do after the end of the war. "Oh," said West, "they say he will return to his farm." "If he does that," said the king, "he will be the greatest man in the world." Now the reason why George III said this is because the example of a powerful person voluntarily giving up power was, historically, so atypical. While every powerful person can choose, when given the opportunity, not to seize more power, most do not behave that way. Therefore it is naive to regard this as a merely volitional choice made in the absence of strong influence of innate proclivities.”
It seems clear to me that you’re saying that seeking power is an innate characteristic, because “most don’t behave that way.”
Is that actually true? I don’t think it is. George Washington did give up power voluntarily, and returned to his farm. As did nearly every other president who might have been elected a third term. Roosevelt was the first to even enter a third term. And he was more like king George than he was unlike him. Why say it’s odd, when in the context of the United States presidency, the ratio is 9:1 in favor of people voluntarily leaving power, even before it was the law? And 100% after?
Things are different, of course, in tribalist countries like Africa. There, people fight like wild animals to get and retain power. But not, by and large, in America. What could the difference be:)?
King George, of course, was a tribalist, a collectivist, and an autocrat (unsurprisingly in combination). So assuming the quote is true, it reflects his understanding of power. He wasn’t exactly basing his opinion on scientific studies. He thought his power descended from God:). I’d hardly take his opinion over the fact that US president after US president voluntarily ceded power based purely on custom set down by Washington.
In reality, lots of powerful people give up power. Because power is very stressful. Once you get there, you often realize it wasn’t what you thought it was. And you drop it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, returning to his peanut farm. But this reality doesn’t show up in your historical accounts of “powerful people hanging onto power,” because the folks who didn’t want to be in power were already gone.
"i'm really intrigued by two double standards here.
1) "you can just move away" is a good argument when it comes to government, but a bad argument when it comes to private industry;"
Or vice versa, in your case. And you make some huge assumptions of what my position is, based on your reading of a partial account of a conversation you weren't party to.
The man in a dead-end job CAN move, certainly - he just risks much by doing so. There's an expense to packing up what you have and leaving, and there may be no guarantee he will be able to find a better job - or ANY job - elsewhere. So he finds himself holding onto an unsatisfactory position for fear of taking that risk and as a result being even worse off.
A business may be well within its rights to exploit the situation, and the man's fear and uncertainty. They can use that leverage to convince him to work for a wage that may be below poverty levels, and may not even fully provide for his living expenses. They may know that even if he quits, they can get another equally desperate person to replace him.
My position (then and now) is that a business that does so, that in this fashion makes a man devote a sizable portion of his time and energy to his job in return for not even enough to properly sustain himself, even if acting legally and without direct coercion, cannot be considered an ethical business. In fact, I would go so far as to say it violates Galt's oath, the part about not requiring another man to live for your own sake. If you're preying upon desperation to avoid an equitable exchange, it takes some serious self-deception to then call yourself "moral".
By contrast, you're irked that you have to put up with income taxes that help support the society you chose to live in. You want America to be a la carte, to offer itself up to conform to your liking, without offering much in return - else you complain you are forced at the point of a gun. It's not that you can't afford a home or a car, it's that it offends you that you must use an auto.
And yet, despite your admiration for Europe and other countries and their non-sprawl and public transit, you still live HERE. It sounds like you have greater ties outside the US than many folks, so it would be probably easier for you than for most to choose to live elsewhere - and you don't. Despite your contempt for income tax and US infrastructure, you consider this the better option.
This is one reason why "anti-life" does not get taken seriously by non-Objectivists: you're here in the midst of this den of anti-life and yet you live, and here you WANT to live.
(All the bitter complaints about the system, but the actual resistance to the system or even any attempt to work within the system to change it? So far as I know, I haven't yet met any actual politically active Objectivists, most refusing to vote for ANYONE because they're all part of the corrupt game or some such. It's one thing to try to make things better and fail, it's another to give up before you try.)
So why are YOU exempt from "just moving away"? They didn't build the city up around you and trap you, why choose to settle in a place that wasn't already tailored to your desires, instead of moving to the hated sprawl? Whatever the reason, obviously it overcomes your objections.
"2) a person who lost his own limbs fighting in a war made necessary by unnecessarily oil-based transportation infrastructure is in the same position as a person who lost no limbs, and who has exactly the same rights as any other US citizen, just because this second person's ancestors lost a tribal conflict in which both sides acted like wild collectivist animals."
"Excuse me, I'm sure it looks like we're slaughtering your people and giving them diseases in an effort to get you off your land and take it for ourselves, but check this out: after generations of shunting what little remains of your people onto reservations and letting you stew in poverty and bigotry, eventually it'll get good enough so that one of your descendants can sit around and be stoned all the time. So that makes it all better, right? Tell you what, if you forgive us for invading your territory and nearly exterminating you, we'll forgive you for acting like collectivists and trying to defend yourselves and your lands, how's that sound?"
If you're implying that I should bear some guilt or responsibility for a gulf-war vet because I favor public roads, then where does it end? Why shouldn't you also be guilty, as an American citizen, over any and all abuses that had to happen in order to establish the USA as we now know it, and make it possible for you to live here and in this way?
Oh, and so you can come up with a Native American for whom it kind of worked out all right in the end. Never mind those for whom things still aren't so great - does this mean if I can find a vet who kept all his limbs and returned from service well-adjusted and fairly satisfied it somehow invalidates your argument?
“Or vice versa, in your case.”
On the contrary, I’ve explained the difference between the government’s position and the position of private industry. It’s a principled, defined distinction. The government operates by force. Private industry operates through voluntary exchange. What’s your distinction? Why is “take it or leave it” unethical for private industry, but perfectly okay for a state?
“In fact, I would go so far as to say it violates Galt's oath, the part about not requiring another man to live for your own sake.”
The key word you’re ignoring there is “requiring.” A government requires. An industry does not. The fact that you can move away from one set of requirements to another set of requirements does not make then any less requirements. On the other hand, industry imposes no requirements at all. If you want to start a subsistence farm right where you are, industry has nothing to say about it.
“By contrast, you're irked that you have to put up with income taxes that help support the society you chose to live in. You want America to be a la carte, to offer itself up to conform to your liking, without offering much in return - else you complain you are forced at the point of a gun. It's not that you can't afford a home or a car, it's that it offends you that you must use an auto.”
I’m afraid that’s question begging. The question is whether the income tax actually “supports our society.” You’re assuming that. But that’s the issue. As I said, this society was doing just fine before the income tax showed up. The left sold it as being only for the rich. It then funded our involvement in our first European conflict, which subsidized European dictators with the blood of American men, and also stripped our country of doctors, and (through the mismanagement of the surgeon general) left us ripe for mass death at the hands of the Spanish flu. Some “support.”
Now, of course, our country has been in a constant state of war for decades. And if it weren’t for that constant state of war, we wouldn’t need the income tax, because our finances would be much more manageable.
But you think the income tax “supports our society.” Why? If we a) did get along without it, and b) could get along without it if it weren’t for the military-industrial complex, then how does it “support our society” again?
“And yet, despite your admiration for Europe and other countries and their non-sprawl and public transit, you still live HERE.”
And yet this argument doesn’t work in the case of a person living in a dead end small town with no opportunities. Somehow the industry is unethical for paying low wages, despite the fact that he could move away; but a government is not unethical for mismanaging.
As to “admiration for europe,” I certainly think the US is the least of all the evils on the whole. It’s just that Europe is better at certain things, which I used as illustrations. They are better with infrastructure, and with the regulation of food. They are far worse in a host of other areas, not relevant to our prior discussions, which is why I live here for now. That said, I consider living in the US a temporary step on my career trajectory. I have a 3-5 year plan to get back home – that is, overseas – where I belong -- on desirable terms.
I often hear this “if you don’t like it, leave it” argument. As though the fact that a government is the least of all the evils makes it good. As though the fact that it’s the best available means it can’t be criticized. What boggles my mind is that the same reasoning doesn’t apply to industry, which doesn’t demand that you leave in order to play by different rules. It’s as though you place the Government in the same place I put “Economic Reality.” I can’t fathom why a person would do that, but there it is.
“So why are YOU exempt from "just moving away"?”
As I’ve been explaining, there is a fundamental difference between government and industry. Industry works voluntarily. Government does not. Industry doesn’t demand that you “move away.” It simply doesn’t trade with you. Government does demand that you “move away.” Because it has a monopoly on force.
“Tell you what, if you forgive us for invading your territory and nearly exterminating you, we'll forgive you for acting like collectivists and trying to defend yourselves and your lands, how's that sound?"”
And that’s the collectivist premise. It assumes an “us” and a “we” where it’s a “they.” Neither you nor I invaded anybody’s territory, nor exterminated anybody. Neither did my ancestors, who arrived after the whole thing was over. As to whether the Indians were “shunted onto reservations,” the reality is that the ambitious Indians integrated themselves into the growing and thriving civilization, because it held much better options than the reservation. It still does today. I live in New Mexico. My city is surrounded by reservations. But any Indian with any ambition at all leaves the Res as quick as he can, because there’s nothing for an ambitious person to do there.
That’s been true throughout our history. The wars were not with the ambitious Indians. Ambitious Indians quickly realized that the opportunities were far greater off the rez. They leave as quick as they can. It’s a bitch of a selection mechanism.
My wife has Indian blood in her. Indian and German and English. Because her ancestors looked at the reservation and looked at the wider commercial world and said “screw this dude, I’m joining the modern world.”
Does that mean that the Indians were treated fairly 300 years ago? Absolutely not. But they were treated unfairly by other people. Not my ancestors. And any of them who wanted the benefits I enjoy not only could take them, but have. I’m married to the descendant of one of them.
“If you're implying that I should bear some guilt or responsibility for a gulf-war vet because I favor public roads, then where does it end?”
I’m not saying you should feel any guilt. I’m telling you that the roads you prize have a price. You want to focus only on the benefit you derive from the road. You want to ignore the price. This is about opportunity cost, not guilt. Look the opportunity cost in the eye before you tell me how awesome roads are.
"And yet this argument doesn’t work in the case of a person living in a dead end small town with no opportunities. Somehow the industry is unethical for paying low wages, despite the fact that he could move away; but a government is not unethical for mismanaging."
Industry is unethical when it does not pay enough to support the very life it consumes. When it does so, it is deliberate - one can't be an employer and be ignorant of the costs of living.
You want to equate that with "mismanagement" by government - assuming that A) a decision to go a direction you don't like is indeed MISmanagement, and not just management; and B) any problems that arise can't be honest mistakes.
Even if we accept your thesis that the highway system is directly responsible for gulf war (and I think there were a lot of non-highway, non-tax forces at work there), it's difficult to conceive how anyone could have foreseen that, then. We wouldn't rationally blame anyone for not predicting that - except you want to find a way to oppose highways on moral grounds, to downplay any and all benefits from those, and income tax, and whatever else you find objectionable. I imagine if education was brought up you'd find a way to link it to the Holocaust or something.
"You want to focus only on the benefit you derive from the road. You want to ignore the price."
While you want to ignore or downplay the benefits. And I don't "ignore" the price so much as not really accept your rationale that certain events were brought about solely by the intervention of income tax or highways.
Suppose there had been no highway project. Does that mean there would have been no rising demand for oil, meaning no cause (as you have it) for those conflicts? We can't know for certain, but why assume not?
It isn't as if there were no roads or cars before the interstate highway projects. And even if the lack of those highways had kept car travel down, trains would have had to keep working.
Now, you can assume that without the highways, one of two things would have happened: one, the growth attributed to the availability of the highways would not have occurred. In that event, you can make a case that we would not have had so much oil demand and maybe there would have been less war - but without that growth, a lot of worldwide events might have gone quite differently, including any events that led you to be living here, now, taking advantage of current prosperity (like perhaps even being born).
Or, two, the growth occurs even without the highways - but something has to pick up that slack, and at that time, it was trains that bore the burden. But cross-country trains then weren't the wise nuclear-electric-driven conveyances you tout now (and it is doubtful they could be that way even today), they burned oil just like cars. Even if they could somehow have made them electric, that electricity would have had to been coal or oil-derived, in great part. So there would have been some kind of oil increase anyway, both for cross-country travel and shipping, as well as any transportation required to take things where trains don't have tracks, for construction machinery, for all sorts of things needed both to enable growth and put it into effect. You might dicker about whether the numbers would be the same, or whether we'd be at war with lesser oil demands, but the fact is, you can't blame the roads entirely for these things, because you can't actually establish they would not have happened without them.
(cont.)
The same with any wars. You say taxes enabled us to fund them. But you also presuppose that we would have refused to enter those wars if we hadn't had that readily-available source of funds. Even if you can make some case for some wars being avoided, it seems unlikely that all would have been - certainly after Pearl Harbor, we would have gone to war. Though Iraq was a useless diversion, 9/11 would surely have had us in some kind of war regardless. We would have gone to war and simply found funding on the spot somehow - or just created income tax later.
You also presuppose that somehow we could get by without income tax today - but there really isn't anything to base that claim on, besides the fact that we did once when we were a much smaller nation.
All you can really say would happen would be that things would more fall in line with your moral preferences - which as we well know, are not the moral preferences held by most folks.
"I’m not saying you should feel any guilt. I’m telling you that the roads you prize have a price."
And you living where you are today has its price as well, in dead natives, in industrial pollution and consumption of natural resources, in wars, in everything good and bad that went into making the US as it is today. If we must be mindful of the cost of roads, we must be mindful of every last other cost too. It's not that your ancestors were responsible, it's that you drink from that cup here, now, today. You can't cry "war roads!" and not bear your share of that burden. You can't bring up the terrible consequences of income tax and not have to share the terrible consequences of the black lung (and I suppose coal dust radiation) and crushed miners that fed coal to Rand's idealized industrial revolution so you could pontificate about collectivist evils across the internet (itself started with tax money).
“You want to equate that with "mismanagement" by government - assuming that A) a decision to go a direction you don't like is indeed MISmanagement, and not just management; and B) any problems that arise can't be honest mistakes.”
And you want to decide how much is “enough” for a person to live on, decide where they’re entitled to live, and how much industry should be required to pay people, even if the work isn’t worth to them what you want people to pay for it.
According to what standard? According to what standard do you determine “management” from “mismanagement?” for me, anything that creates a global ecological catastrophe on the scale of what our infrastructure has done is “mismanagement.” All the leftist ecologists agree we’re in the midst of a catastrophe. They just want to blame the marketplace and give the government more power. But as I’ve shown, it’s the government that’s making the calls with respect to transportation and infrastructure.
So is that not “mismanagement?” or is it not a “catastrophe?”
Meanwhile, you think it’s wrong for a company to offer as much for work as the work is worth to them, and let people choose whether they’re willing to accept it.
The powerful organization, operating by coercion, causing ecological catastrophes – is not mismanaging. But the powerless organization, operating by voluntary consent, providing people with wages they’re willing to take – is unethical.
This double standard is really fascinating to me.
“Suppose there had been no highway project. Does that mean there would have been no rising demand for oil, meaning no cause (as you have it) for those conflicts? We can't know for certain, but why assume not?”
Look at how much of our oil demand is dependent on car use. Then get rid of all the cars, and replace them with electric trams, trains, bike paths, and denser urban structure. Whatever oil you were going to demand, you’re now going to demand a hell of a lot less.
“Now, you can assume that without the highways, one of two things would have happened: one, the growth attributed to the availability of the highways would not have occurred. In that event, you can make a case that we would not have had so much oil demand and maybe there would have been less war - but without that growth, a lot of worldwide events might have gone quite differently, including any events that led you to be living here, now, taking advantage of current prosperity (like perhaps even being born).”
Great Scott! Your point here appears to come straight out of back to the future:). But that’s not a relevant point. The point is not whether things would have gone differently if we went back in time and changed history. The point is that developing an infrastructure that makes necessary the widespread use of an unsustainable resource was a bad idea, and is a bad idea.
“You might dicker about whether the numbers would be the same, or whether we'd be at war with lesser oil demands, but the fact is, you can't blame the roads entirely for these things, because you can't actually establish they would not have happened without them.”
I don’t think of it as “dickering” so much as pointing out that there would be an enormous reduction.
“Even if you can make some case for some wars being avoided, it seems unlikely that all would have been - certainly after Pearl Harbor, we would have gone to war.”
Pearl Harbor was in retaliation for an oil embargo we imposed on japan. Catch that? Oil embargo? Japan attacked to break the embargo. Now take oil out of the picture. No oil embargo. No pearl harbor. See how this works?
“Though Iraq was a useless diversion, 9/11 would surely have had us in some kind of war regardless.”
Are you familiar with how the war in afghanistan started? We accused Bin Laden of involvement in the attacks. But we had no evidence of his involvement. So when we demanded that Afghanistan extradite him, they demanded evidence. Because the law of extradition requires evidence.
Bush said *** quote *** "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."
So would we have ended up in a war “regardless?” not if our president had concerned himself with “innocence or guilt,” and silly little things like “international law.”
“You also presuppose that somehow we could get by without income tax today - but there really isn't anything to base that claim on, besides the fact that we did once when we were a much smaller nation.”
I keep telling you, if you cut our foreign war budget out, we’d need no income tax. How much more clear could it be?
“And you living where you are today has its price as well, in dead natives, in industrial pollution and consumption of natural resources, in wars, in everything good and bad that went into making the US as it is today.”
You seem to be making some sort of “Back to the Future” argument. Why are you talking about whether the course of history made things as they are? Of course they did. The question is what we should do going forward. Looking at the past, you can see the creating an oil-dependent infrastructure is a bad idea, and tribal warfare is a bad idea. I’m concerned with applying these to today’s situation. You seem to be countering with some sort of Back to the Future argument about how America was built on the things that happened in the past, and therefore I owe my current situation to bad stuff that happened. Of course that’s true. It’s also irrelevant. The question is what to do now. History has shown us what roads and tribal warfare do to people.
Ungtss said:
"I don't know, never met the guy:). i do see a lot of dangerous implications in his ideas that remind me of a lot of people i'd rather forget i ever knew."
Errr, exactly which of his ideas do you find to have dangerous implications. One of the Formulations of his Categorical Imperative states to treat humanity in others and oneself as an end. That's one of the most noble statements I've ever read.
Post a Comment