tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4974502301266234013..comments2024-03-17T04:17:49.429-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Politics, Part 37Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50975447570749655892010-01-10T00:58:07.485-08:002010-01-10T00:58:07.485-08:00Anon,
"Resident, it pains me to say it, but ...Anon,<br /><br />"Resident, it pains me to say it, but at the time of the War of Independence Britain probably was the most civilized country on the planet."<br /><br />How so? Is there some chart to measure civilizedness? It is just plain old self-centredness, thinking oneself the greatest. And because the U.S. wasn't around, you must of course think that its "mother country" would be next best thing. Well, there is not the next best thing and there never was!<br /><br /><br />"As for the Teddy Roosevelt comments, they came from an American."<br /><br />So what? Am I to take nonsense seriously because they come from an American? Are American unable to develop a pathological hatred of other Americans, presidents included? Would you like to ask Mr Bush about it?Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8054597921590325382010-01-09T16:44:46.853-08:002010-01-09T16:44:46.853-08:00I’ll do a deal with you laj, if you can visit our ...<i>I’ll do a deal with you laj, if you can visit our website and find any support for reforms of capitalism, such as the NHS, welfare etc I’ll eat my hat. If you can’t will you please stop saying they are socialist policies or use such terms ‘socialised medicine.’</i><br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />I wish I could continue this discussion in good faith, but I cannot. I think it is a shell game that Objectivists (and Marxists) play. Objectivists play a more mixed form, moving between their capitalist ideal, and claiming that America was able to benefit from being as close to it as possible. In your case, you are arguing that because Marxists want to overthrow capitalism, they don't sympathize with leftist causes that reform or redistribute the wealth in a capitalist economy. <br /><br />I can't remember who said of Marxism, "Good theory, wrong species!" Oh, it was E.O Wilson:<br /><br />"What I like to say is that Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species. Why doesn't it work in humans? Because we have reproductive independence, and we get maximum Darwinian fitness by looking after our own survival and having our own offspring. The great success of the social insects is that the success of the individual genes are invested in the success of the colony as a whole, and especially in the reproduction of the queen, and thus through her the reproduction of new colonies.<br /><br />This was I think one of the main contributions of the idea of kin-selection. We now understand quite well why most species of social insects have sterile workers, and therefore can have communist-like systems. In which the colony is all, the individual is only a part of the colony, and the success of the whole community is what counts far above the success of the individual. The behavior of the individual social insect evolved with reference to what it contributes to the community, whereas the genetic fitness of a human being depends on how well it can individually use the society. We have become insect-like only by extreme contractual arrangements." <br /><br />http://www.froes.dds.nl/WILSON.htm<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that anything will change that sentiment on my part. I could argue details all day long, but I know from experience how difficult it is to debate an ideology that does not subject itself to specific empirical criticism. I hope you understand this.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />LajUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-81763364110417357142010-01-08T11:33:52.722-08:002010-01-08T11:33:52.722-08:00John: " The 'human nature' you think ...John: " The 'human nature' you think you have established as permanent and immovable is not. Not with consciousness being volitional."<br /><br /><br />This is a palpable non sequitur. Merely because "consciousness" is volitional does not mean that there are no innate desires or emotive tendencies that will bias the choices people make in one direction or another. The scientific evidence for such tendencies is enormous. The evidence for Rand's view of the matter? We're still waiting on that one. I've been asking this question for nearly 20 years: where is the evidence for Rand's view? I'm still waiting for an answer.<br /><br />"[Rand] always believed Objectivism ... could win out.... However, it is not a sure thing BECAUSE consciousness is volitional."<br /><br />Merely because "consciousness is volitional" (i.e., they can choose) does not mean Objectivism can win. Not all choices are equally likely. Depending on the psychological type, certain choices are far more likely than others. For example, people can choose to cut their arms off: in that sense, it is in the realm of the possible. But I'm not going out on a limb to suggest that very few people would ever choose to do such things; and if some philosopher created a movement based on amputating limbs, his ideology would never "win out."<br /><br />Estimates on the likelihood of behavior is an important component behind the logic of the social sciences. It allows us to make estimates as to what is likely, what is possible, what is improbable, and what is nearly impossible in the realm of social action. Applying this methodology to Objectivism, it is difficult to conclude that Objectivism will ever win out. There are far too many people who are, for psychological and economic self-interest reasons, intractably biased against it. (In addition, there is the problem in Objectivism of too many empirically dubious claims, but that is a consideration affecting only a handful of people.)gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21489069589177753122010-01-08T07:09:35.138-08:002010-01-08T07:09:35.138-08:00Resident, it pains me to say it, but at the time o...Resident, it pains me to say it, but at the time of the War of Independence Britain probably was the most civilized country on the planet.<br /><br />As for the Teddy Roosevelt comments, they came from an American.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54634698477862623292010-01-08T06:54:38.979-08:002010-01-08T06:54:38.979-08:00I’ll do a deal with you laj, if you can visit our ...I’ll do a deal with you laj, if you can visit our website and find any support for reforms of capitalism, such as the NHS, welfare etc I’ll eat my hat. If you can’t will you please stop saying they are socialist policies or use such terms ‘socialised medicine’<br /><br />Just type Socialist Studies into google you’ll find us.<br /><br />Steven JohnstonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6094613585495745062010-01-08T06:37:52.785-08:002010-01-08T06:37:52.785-08:00Actually Laj the SPGB, of which I am a member has ...Actually Laj the SPGB, of which I am a member has been quite consistent on what socialism is and isn’t since it’s inception since 1904.<br /><br />But thank you for taking the time to respond I really wish I could take the time to answer your question, but I’ll have to duck that one, for various reasons but would love it if you were to e-mail your query/questions raised here to enquires@socialiststudies.co.uk<br /><br />One point though, please don’t ever become a leftie! There is a world of difference between a leftie and a socialist.<br /><br />On our website you’ll find a rebuttal of the criticisms Pete Singer levelled against socialism.<br /><br />Steven JohnstonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-8329337979541130912010-01-08T06:09:23.274-08:002010-01-08T06:09:23.274-08:00Mr W.,
what corner of this world are you from tha...Mr W.,<br /><br />what corner of this world are you from that you regard Teddy Roosevelt as a proto-Hitler?<br /><br />You must be Anglo-American of course since you view Britain as the most civilised country on the planet. How convenient.Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-26934311656024440462010-01-08T06:06:34.064-08:002010-01-08T06:06:34.064-08:00Steve (who I presume is also Spartacus):
Whilst w...Steve (who I presume is also Spartacus):<br /><br /><i>Whilst we are asking favours of each other can I ask one of you? I’m not sure if you, Laji, do use meaningless terms like “semi-socialist countries” or using terms like “socialised medicine”. If you do will you and others please, please, please stop. The state providing ‘free’ medicine is nothing to do with socialism, as my above wikipdeia link shows. Nor is nationalisation or welfare or any of the other reforms carried out in the name of ‘socialism’. Socialism is nothing to do with reforming capitalism. Got it? Phew! Glad we cleared that one up. If you want someone to blame for ‘socialised medicine’, welfare or nationalisation why don’t you try the conservatives, Bismarck was one and it’s him and his ilk that are to blame for all the above ‘ill’s I mentioned.</i><br /><br />I cannot honor this request. You have a very different view of human nature (and language) from myself. One of the problems I have dealing with Marxists, who are to me very similar to Objectivists (intellectuals taken up with a ideologically charismatic Jewish genius with an insulated, rationalistic/anti-empirical and limited view of human nature) is that Marxists think that they can hide behind the claim that true socialism (or communism or Marxism) has never been realized and that we should not talk about the real world as being motivated by just the kinds of ideas Marxists and Objectivists preach when the shoe fits. Only perfect Marxism or Objectivism would truly work (of course, they then point to limited examples of what they desire when it suits them, but that is another story).<br /><br />This to me is nonsense. The main reason why Marxism gained traction was because it claimed to be a scientific solution to the kinds of problems that social democrats and egalitarian liberalism saw with capitalism. Peter Singer has pointed out that Marxism has a view of human nature that is not compatible with what evolutionary biology etc. is bringing to light and that if the Left wants to be realistic about its commitment to egalitarianism, then it needs to incorporate what science says about human nature into its criticism of inequality.<br /><br />You can't restrict people from associating the desire equality under socialism etc. with government policies driven with the egalitarian vision in mind. I cannot stop people from talking about capitalism as being motivated by greed and competition and promoting inequality and having no inherent safety net for the not-so well off.<br /><br />I'm of the opinion that if more leftists had a deeper appreciation for what science says about human nature, I would over time become a leftist because that is where most of my natural sympathies lie. I want an equality fostered by strong charity but not charity so heavy handed that it destroys competitive incentives and induces poverty. Moderation is not a bad thing you know!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55773386882627211312010-01-08T03:23:14.867-08:002010-01-08T03:23:14.867-08:00Washington responds.
“I was overrated as a Presid...Washington responds.<br /><br />“I was overrated as a President? Maybe, but at least I was not a proto-Hitler like Teddy was.<br /><br />Though when I said, government of the people, by the people for the people that was just BS. I mean I only gave 1 in 33 of them the vote!<br /><br />How did I get away with it? King George & Parliament gave 1 in 4 the vote, though not in the colonies of course.<br /><br />As for waging a war on civilisation, I was fighting British civilisation, which at that time was the most civilized country on the planet.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86906036457727746102010-01-08T02:32:47.935-08:002010-01-08T02:32:47.935-08:00Mr Anon,
"Had Washington, in order to save t...Mr Anon,<br /><br />"Had Washington, in order to save the republic, been forced to do both, or either of these, what would you have liked him to do?"<br /><br />As I am not American, I have no inclination of thinking the well-being of your revolution (bei it justified or not) justifying any means.Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65037561639903761122010-01-08T02:31:33.192-08:002010-01-08T02:31:33.192-08:00Mr Washington,
"my buddy Spartacus, when he ...Mr Washington,<br /><br />"my buddy Spartacus, when he said he would destroy Rome, he did not mean physically destroy Rome!"<br /><br />Only he did not say it. Don't project your urges on other beings. How can you be buddies if you never met?<br /><br />"You, and that shining example of virtue Theodore Roosevelt are correct when you describe him as low-life."<br /><br />I don't feel to bad about being in the company of Teddy Roosevelt. Maybe he is overrated as a president but so are you!<br /><br />"Good to see my war on civilization was right and Spartacus was wrong"<br /><br />You waged a war on civilisation? I thought you left this to Mr Paine.<br /><br />"Don’t talk to me about the US constitution I wrote the freaking thing!"<br /><br />No, you didn't! And everybody can read it so we don't need the supposed author explaining it. <br /><br />"I framed it so the principles of it were not based on the Christian religion, now look at the Senate, it’s full of these pompous ..."<br /><br />Again, there is no requirement for the people - whom the constitution gives the selection of Senators and Representatives to elect non-Christians if they feel others are more qualified.<br /><br />"True, but in fairness to my nemesis King George, neither did he."<br /><br />King George doesn't need your fairness as nobody had accused him of that. At best your statement vindicates Crassus as he crucified those who crucified (some of) their prisoners before. I wouldn't go that far.Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4895521206346593522010-01-07T06:52:43.238-08:002010-01-07T06:52:43.238-08:00“I don't see when you tried to burn London to ...“I don't see when you tried to burn London to the ground, and pillaged Warwickshire.”<br /><br />Had Washington, in order to save the republic, been forced to do both, or either of these, what would you have liked him to do?<br />Remember that America was a colony of the British Empire, in a sense if was part their ‘Rome’<br /><br /><br />Steven JohnstonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27131848339274475752010-01-07T06:39:12.752-08:002010-01-07T06:39:12.752-08:00Washington writes.
"I don't see when you...Washington writes.<br /><br />"I don't see when you tried to dismantle the functioning thirteen states then in exinstence in North America to replace them with chaos."<br /><br />True, but in fairness to my nemesis King George, neither did he.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35533389948315735402010-01-07T06:36:57.089-08:002010-01-07T06:36:57.089-08:00Washington responds.
“Right just to clear up over...Washington responds.<br /><br />“Right just to clear up over my buddy Spartacus, when he said he would destroy Rome, he did not mean physically destroy Rome! Just the principles on which it stood. You’d make a good spin Dr. Resident, I don’t feel too bad about myself now.<br /><br />As for Tom Paine being a low life we should never have left him help frame the constitution. You, and that shining example of virtue Theodore Roosevelt are correct when you describe him as low-life.<br /><br />Good to see my war on civilization was right and Spartacus was wrong/<br /><br />Don’t talk to me about the US constitution I wrote the freaking thing! I framed it so the principles of it were not based on the Christian religion, now look at the Senate, it’s full of these pompous, stuffed shirts spouting religious BS, all trying out do each other on the religious front. Not what we founding fathers intended. “Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-83163973226050771172010-01-07T06:20:20.615-08:002010-01-07T06:20:20.615-08:00Dear dead former President,
I don't see when ...Dear dead former President,<br /><br />I don't see when you tried to burn London to the ground, and pillaged Warwickshire.<br /><br />I don't see when you tried to dismantle the functioning thirteen states then in exinstence in North America to replace them with chaos.<br /><br />But maybe Mr Pain would have done so. I suspect so. You shouldn't associate with such low-lives as him.Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-390408195236767132010-01-07T06:09:50.768-08:002010-01-07T06:09:50.768-08:00Geroge Washington responds.
Thank you Resident, b...Geroge Washington responds.<br /><br />Thank you Resident, but the awful truth is I'm was just a another of the<br /><br />"...wannabe destroyers of civilization have never come up with anything better. Just chaos and disorder."<br /><br />At least Spartacus wanted to free the slaves, I regret not listening to Tom Paine over that matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19842038115788794842010-01-07T06:06:07.183-08:002010-01-07T06:06:07.183-08:00Abolaji,
Thanks for your response.
"But on...Abolaji,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. <br /><br />"But one of the things that I hope we can agree on is that there is a risk of being misinterpreted ..."<br /><br />Absolutely! The various anons and the various ways of quoting and responding confused me in the beginning, which is why I later desisted from adressing people and only referred to comments which are as good or bad as they are regardless of who made them.<br /><br />"I agree with the substance of just about everything you've written."<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />I don't think that the German health care system, started (somewhat) by Bismarck and necessarily be compared to other forms of "socialised health care" (note: not socialist health care) as practised for instance in the English NHS. I know too little about the proposed American system to comment on it.Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2816309448256984972010-01-07T05:59:41.004-08:002010-01-07T05:59:41.004-08:00Dear President Washington,
I do not fault you for...Dear President Washington,<br /><br />I do not fault you for fighting this war - but neither do I pretend that you are this great, unprecedent, unsurpassable heroic figure. (But please, change your wet clothes when you come in from the fields.)<br /><br />But you obviously do not understand what separation of church and state - a concept not contained in the text of the U.S. constitution nor in the 1st amendment but over time nonetheless established in all U.S. states - means: it does not mean that the people cannot elect whomever they please into office.<br /><br />So if there is no atheist among Senators (if that is true) I can only say: so what!Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04007210807000718712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78757084321409537162010-01-07T05:52:47.848-08:002010-01-07T05:52:47.848-08:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Hea...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Health_Insurance_Bill_of_1883<br /><br />Whilst we are asking favours of each other can I ask one of you? I’m not sure if you, Laji, do use meaningless terms like “semi-socialist countries” or using terms like “socialised medicine”. If you do will you and others please, please, please stop. The state providing ‘free’ medicine is nothing to do with socialism, as my above wikipdeia link shows. Nor is nationalisation or welfare or any of the other reforms carried out in the name of ‘socialism’. Socialism is nothing to do with reforming capitalism. Got it? Phew! Glad we cleared that one up. If you want someone to blame for ‘socialised medicine’, welfare or nationalisation why don’t you try the conservatives, Bismarck was one and it’s him and his ilk that are to blame for all the above ‘ill’s I mentioned.<br /><br />Steven JohnstonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56398000619356290742010-01-07T04:06:33.665-08:002010-01-07T04:06:33.665-08:00Well I don’t wish to cause any issues with the men...Well I don’t wish to cause any issues with the men and women of this site, who have better things to do than engage with me. On an intellectual level of course. I could not, countenance, engaging on any other level.<br /><br />Steven JohnstonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80902505572775261152010-01-07T03:39:28.305-08:002010-01-07T03:39:28.305-08:00That’s just what Milton Friedman said about Keynes...<i>That’s just what Milton Friedman said about Keynes.That’s just what Milton Friedman said about Keynes.</i><br /><br />And he obviously did (maybe not to you, but to me).<br /><br />As for the problems with not signing your name, it's a problem with *everyone*. It's the few that choose to engage you that will make it an issue.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37644778984482360462010-01-07T03:17:52.739-08:002010-01-07T03:17:52.739-08:00"I agree with the substance of just about eve..."I agree with the substance of just about everything you've written."<br /><br /><br />That’s just what Milton Friedman said about Keynes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17387765019190145972010-01-07T03:15:32.426-08:002010-01-07T03:15:32.426-08:00“have asked Marxist "Anonymous" to use a...“have asked Marxist "Anonymous" to use a distinctive signature to sign his posts or to number himself so that his identity can be tracked with no success. “<br /><br />I feel terrible now, obviously a number of you are confused, well at least two of you are. Can you forgive me?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79216178569883820412010-01-07T03:08:24.284-08:002010-01-07T03:08:24.284-08:00Resident:
sorry but I have no time for this "...<i>Resident:<br />sorry but I have no time for this "I did not say that" game when I never said you said that.</i><br /><br />Agreed, and I have asked Marxist "Anonymous" to use a distinctive signature to sign his posts or to number himself so that his identity can be tracked with no success. But one of the things that I hope we can agree on is that there is a risk of being misinterpreted when we respond to comments based on our synopsis of them without taking time to figure out who said them and how they were intended to be received. If you quoted who you were responding to when responding and maybe attached a name to the post, as you just did, this could have been easily avoided.<br /><br />I agree with the substance of just about everything you've written.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845776740665082229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56194986340233106392010-01-07T02:47:52.042-08:002010-01-07T02:47:52.042-08:00More from Washington:
“Hell I tried to separate t...More from Washington:<br /><br />“Hell I tried to separate the church and the state in the republic but I couldn’t even get that right. There isn’t a senator that does not believe in god, in fact in some of the Southern States some senators claim to have actually met Jesus. I even fell out with Tom Paine as he was upset that I kept slaves, but then, didn’t everybody? I mean keeping slaves was acceptable…that Lincoln! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, curse his bones. In fact when it came to voting, well I was not going to let the slaves vote, as for the native American Indians don’t make me laugh…ditto for women to! In fact, only around 1 in every 30 adults over the age of 18 I gave the vote. But look on the bright side King George didn’t gave any of us the vote.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com