tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4247966866780631007..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Economics, Part 5Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54032682898961223452008-11-02T10:31:00.000-08:002008-11-02T10:31:00.000-08:00Using "practical knowledge" and separating it from...Using "practical knowledge" and separating it from "technical knowledge" is a form a pragmatism. Knowledge can not contradict itself as reality can not contradict itself. Rand was not a rationalist because she was against all forms of deriving knowledge without reason, whether it is subjectivism, relativism, Panrationalism, etc.<BR/><BR/>Rand was not a rationalist by any means.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35442857958382563532008-11-01T21:51:00.000-07:002008-11-01T21:51:00.000-07:00herbsewell: "As supposedly well known as this subj...herbsewell: "As supposedly well known as this subjective definition of a "rationalist" is, as used by Hayek and Oakeshott, enlighten me on it."<BR/><BR/>I've covered this in previous posts, particularly the one on Oakeshott and rationalism <A HREF="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/12/cognitive-revolution-objectivism-part-9.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38705999328727368262008-10-29T14:46:00.000-07:002008-10-29T14:46:00.000-07:00As supposedly well known as this subjective defini...As supposedly well known as this subjective definition of a "rationalist" is, as used by Hayek and Oakeshott, enlighten me on it.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1755664306291142662008-10-28T18:45:00.000-07:002008-10-28T18:45:00.000-07:00herbsewell: "Calling Rand a rationalist is a stret...herbsewell: "Calling Rand a rationalist is a stretch."<BR/><BR/>I mean here <EM>rationalist</EM> in the sense of the word used by Hayek and Oakeshott—which is not a stretch at all.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63249043665046738222008-10-28T18:43:00.000-07:002008-10-28T18:43:00.000-07:00Damien: "do you mean human flesh?"Not just any hum...Damien: "do you mean human flesh?"<BR/><BR/>Not just any human flesh: Antonio's human flesh, to be taken from wherever Shylock wishes. They did a film version of the play with Jeremy Irons as Antonio and Al Pacino as Shylock that's worth a look.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-81915930997498588142008-10-28T09:14:00.000-07:002008-10-28T09:14:00.000-07:00Andrew Priest,do you mean human flesh?Andrew Priest,<BR/><BR/>do you mean human flesh?Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90091460498151425332008-10-28T05:51:00.000-07:002008-10-28T05:51:00.000-07:00>Could you please tell me what was the contract...>Could you please tell me what was the contract between Shylock and Antonio in The Merchant of Venice?<BR/><BR/>It's basically a loan with a pound of flesh as collateral. Literally. <BR/><BR/>With this talk of contracts, free will, and consent I can't help but think of the Milgram experiment. It has been repeated several times with the same results and the implications are troubling to say the least.Andrew Priesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07135687168192809452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-43140561640664955342008-10-28T03:30:00.000-07:002008-10-28T03:30:00.000-07:00"Could you please tell me what was the contract be...<I>"Could you please tell me what was the contract between Shylock and Antonio in The Merchant of Venice? I'm not familiar with that story and I would like to understand the analogy you are trying to make."</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Merchant+of+Venice%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" REL="nofollow">The Internet</A><BR/><BR/>Google is your friend.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27244203278892021782008-10-27T20:49:00.000-07:002008-10-27T20:49:00.000-07:00"The better solution is simply to admit that laiss..."The better solution is simply to admit that laissez-faire is not an adequate criterion of a free society."<BR/><BR/>Reasoning?HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55650946244412144392008-10-27T20:44:00.000-07:002008-10-27T20:44:00.000-07:00Greg,Could you please tell me what was the contrac...Greg,<BR/><BR/>Could you please tell me what was the contract between Shylock and Antonio in The Merchant of Venice? I'm not familiar with that story and I would like to understand the analogy you are trying to make.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29588459670560909542008-10-27T19:56:00.000-07:002008-10-27T19:56:00.000-07:00herbsewell: "Also, I see no problem with the contr...herbsewell: "Also, I see no problem with the contract between Shylock and Antonio in The Merchant of Venice... If two citizens in their own free will, not in duress, decide to enter into a contract then that is perfectly acceptable and if both parties gave consent to it being legally binding at the time the contract was made then it certainly should be protected by the law."<BR/><BR/>Well, at least this shows an honesty and consistency to one's principles on herbsewell's part; for the enforcement of all consensual contracts is precisely what <EM>laissez-faire</EM> of the Randian "no initiation of force" sort must entail; though I suspect that Rand herself would have shrunk from accepting some consensual contracts, like the Shylock-Antonio contract, or contracts permanently binding the services of a person. If Rand had indeed shrunk from accepting such contracts, this would have constituted a betrayal of her <EM>laissez-faire</EM> ideology. The better solution is simply to admit that <EM>laissez-faire</EM> is not an adequate criterion of a free society.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-15662097632317341872008-10-27T19:49:00.000-07:002008-10-27T19:49:00.000-07:00>Rand may have agreed with my statement as it i...>Rand may have agreed with my statement as it is written, but that would only be because she would not have entirely understood it.<BR/><BR/>Not once in that entire paragraph did you make an argument that was not an ad hominem.<BR/><BR/>"...because she would not have entirely understood it.<BR/>"...she really didn't have a clue"<BR/>"...the issue of property rights is far more perplexing and complicated than most property rights advocates (particularly rationalists like Rand) realize."<BR/><BR/>Calling Rand a rationalist is a stretch. <BR/><BR/>"...shows how clueless she was about all this."<BR/>"...evidence of her ignorance..."<BR/><BR/>I'm not criticizing you for using them, I simply won't accept them as arguments.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84179555992686252362008-10-27T19:21:00.000-07:002008-10-27T19:21:00.000-07:00Jay: "Rand may have been vague in defining propert...Jay: "Rand may have been vague in defining property rights, but do you really think she disagreed with any of the above?"<BR/><BR/>Rand may have agreed with my statement as it is written, but that would only be because she would not have entirely understood it. Whatever concessions she may have made on the issue of the complexity of enforcing contracts, the fact that she believed the whole issue could be solved by arbiters following "objective" law means that she really didn't have a clue. As Hernando de Soto demonstrated in <EM>The Mystery of Capital</EM>, the issue of property rights is far more perplexing and complicated than most property rights advocates (particularly rationalists like Rand) realize. The fact, for example, that Rand believed that common law could be entirely replaced by "reason" shows how clueless she was about all this. Further evidence of her ignorance can be seen in her violent detestation of Friedrich Hayek's work, which emphasizes the complexity of the social order and criticizes <EM>laissez-faire</EM> as a criterion for determining what is and what is not admissible in a free society.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-12163318669742241032008-10-27T15:08:00.000-07:002008-10-27T15:08:00.000-07:00The only place for government control over contrac...The only place for government control over contracts and their legal validity is statues, which is more for the benefit of the government than the benefit of the people. It simply makes it more efficient for the government to use force against people who initiate force.<BR/><BR/>Also, I see no problem with the contract between Shylock and Antonio in The Merchant of Venice. In America, we supposedly give people the right of the pursuit of happiness. If two citizens in their own free will, not in duress, decide to enter into a contract then that is perfectly acceptable and if both parties gave consent to it being legally binding at the time the contract was made then it certainly should be protected by the law. <BR/><BR/>>Rand's attempt to describe a breach of contract as an "indirect use of force" is simply bizarre, a sacrifice of good sense and logic to the monistic urge to have all socio-political issues regulated by a single principle.<BR/><BR/>It all boils down to the single principle of creating a society where the only relation that is allowed between people is acting in mutual consent, or the protection of individual rights. The man who breaks the contract originally gave consent to it being legally enforced, meaning he was fully aware the repercussions of not fulfilling the requirements of him by the contract he signed. It is structured this way so people who enter into contracts can have the security of it being enforced.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-26475709209895525022008-10-27T10:03:00.000-07:002008-10-27T10:03:00.000-07:00But laws are needed to define the extent and limit...<I>But laws are needed to define the extent and limitations of property rights, to determine which kind of contracts should be enforced, and to prevent systematic fraud and irrationality from harming the integrity and efficiency of the market.</I><BR/><BR/>Rand may have been vague in defining property rights, but do you really think she disagreed with any of the above?JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1236142345641811702008-10-26T20:25:00.000-07:002008-10-26T20:25:00.000-07:00herbsewell: "Ayn Rand CLEARLY covered this."I don'...herbsewell: "Ayn Rand CLEARLY covered this."<BR/><BR/>I don't know where the "clearly" comes from. My post is more than just about contracts, and Rand doesn't even cover that adequately. Even though she acknowledges the complexity of the issue of contracts, she's naive enough to think that issue is merely one of the voluntary consent of the contracting parties and arbitration through "objective" laws. Contracts are not merely an issue of voluntary consent. There are any number of things we don't allow people to make contracts over, even if they are "voluntary." For example, the contract entered into between Shylock and Antonio in <EM>The Merchant of Venice</EM>, an entirely voluntary contract, would not be upheld in any modern civilized society, for obvious reasons. And Rand's attempt to describe a breach of contract as an "indirect use of force" is simply bizarre, a sacrifice of good sense and logic to the monistic urge to have all socio-political issues regulated by a single principle.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17233292486413870042008-10-26T19:46:00.000-07:002008-10-26T19:46:00.000-07:00Herbsewell:>Also, when are you going to remove ...Herbsewell:<BR/>>Also, when are you going to remove that quote of mine? I'm NOT an Objectivist.<BR/><BR/>Done!Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64526638565432030462008-10-26T19:20:00.000-07:002008-10-26T19:20:00.000-07:00HerbSewell,Here's the link you gave us. It doesn'...HerbSewell,<BR/><BR/>Here's the <A HREF="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contracts.html" REL="nofollow">link</A> you gave us. It doesn't do much to discredit Greg's argument though. Its pretty much shows that I already knew Rand's views on the subject were.Damienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02691850040385670009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80126690192149629732008-10-26T19:11:00.000-07:002008-10-26T19:11:00.000-07:00Ayn Rand CLEARLY covered this. http://aynrandlexic...Ayn Rand CLEARLY covered this. <BR/><BR/>http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contracts.html<BR/><BR/>Also, when are you going to remove that quote of mine? I'm NOT an Objectivist. I ASSUME that what you mean by Objectivist in "Objectivist Quote of the Day" is that it is a quote by an actual Objectivist.<BR/><BR/>Quote is from an Objectivist <BR/>⇔ <BR/>it can be a potential "Objectivist Quote of the Day"<BR/><BR/>¬Quote is from an Objectivist <BR/>⇔ <BR/>it can not be a potential "Objectivist Quote of the Day"HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.com