Objectivism verses Material Dialecticalism, a clean debate

[Uncensored2008]

First a few ground rules. This thread is mostly so that editec and I can debate. But all are welcome to join. I just ask that we keep this respectful and about the subject, rather than the posters involved.

Thanks in advance.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not an Objectivist and editec is not a Marxist - this is purely for academic enjoyment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Objectivism is the economic theory promoted by Ayn Rand. It is based on a foundation of Laissez Faire Capitalism, but expands by adding distinct philosophical aspects. Rand promoted Objectivism as an epistemological as well as economic treatise. Rand attempted to capture the foundation of truth.

Some of the basics are;

1. Reality exists.

We are not projections of a metaphysical universe beyond our grasp, but corporeal beings interacting with a physical world that is exactly what it appears to be.

2. Reason is the only means that humans have to perceive reality.

Intuition, spiritual guidance, divine inspiration, etc. are all false and fraudulent. Only reason provides men with the ability to understand and interact with the world around them.

3. Man is an end unto himself.

Echoing Locke, Rand held that man is not a sacrificial animal to be offered for the service of others, but that each is rightfully deigned to pursue their own interests. Cooperation is often the best means to serve ones own interest, but cooperation is not subservience. Each member cooperating must gain from the transaction.

4. Laissez Faire Capitalism is the only just economic system.

Trade is the most noble act of man. To offer value in exchange for what one values is the foundation of good will. To never expect what one will not give in return is the foundation of morality. Laissez Faire will not support corporatism, as the government cannot pick the winners and losers nor crush upstart competition. Each must trade with others to receive what they need and want.

5. No man may initiate physical force against another.

All are free to defend themselves, but the initiation of force is a violation of the foundational compact between humans.

 

[oldfart]

OK, I apologize in advance for messing up your sandbox, but you did invite us in!

My disclaimer: My training is as an economist and historian (I have degrees and have published in both), the federal government paid for my graduate education so that I could concentrate on the Soviet economy, I am familiar with the Philosophical Radicals, and I am neither a Marxist nor an "Objectivist".

Objectivism is the economic theory promoted by Ayn Rand. It is based on a foundation of Laissez Faire Capitalism, but expands by adding distinct philosophical aspects. Rand promoted Objectivism as an epistemological as well as economic treatise. Rand attempted to capture the foundation of truth.

Some of the basics are;

2. Reason is the only means that humans have to perceive reality.

Intuition, spiritual guidance, divine inspiration, etc. are all false and fraudulent. Only reason provides men with the ability to understand and interact with the world around them.

Current research in brain science has demonstrated that we have had a grossly oversimplified understanding of how the brain works. There is a memory system that is accessed through the limbic system and bypasses the usual cognitive pathways, much of this stored information is not accessible through normal memory (for example, the smell of a dangerous animal or chemical). Adrenaline can trigger this system to impel action without conscious thought, while the "fight or flight" reaction is occurring. Brain scans have begun to map these pathways and they explain the statistical anomaly that these "intuitive" decisions are far more likely to be correct than would be expected otherwise.

My point here is that it is a mistake to let philosophy get ahead of the science of perception, cognition, memory, and other physiological functions. Rand begins debunking some ideas that are worth debunking, but then extends it to anything she cannot explain, a logical fallacy of the first order.

3. Man is an end unto himself.

Echoing Locke, Rand held that man is not a sacrificial animal to be offered for the service of others, but that each is rightfully deigned to pursue their own interests. Cooperation is often the best means to serve ones own interest, but cooperation is not subservience. Each member cooperating must gain from the transaction.

I really don't find much connection between Locke or any of the other Philosophical Radicals with Rand. Beyond that, Rand's conception of cooperation is more like a theory of contract law without enforcement. It breaks down fairly quickly when the number of parties increases or the time horizon expands beyond the near future. When you go beyond Rand to her "followers" whatever philosophical or other nuances that make her appear to be consistent or logical disappear almost entirely.

4. Laissez Faire Capitalism is the only just economic system.

Trade is the most noble act of man. To offer value in exchange for what one values is the foundation of good will. To never expect what one will not give in return is the foundation of morality. Laissez Faire will not support corporatism, as the government cannot pick the winners and losers nor crush upstart competition. Each must trade with others to receive what they need and want.

This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking that I was referring to as unenforced contract law. Apparently everyone is free to "trade" but there is no one to enforce any rules governing the conduct of a market. Markets without rules don't exist; the strongest simply steals everything they want. Calling anarchy "laissez faire" does a disservice to markets and capitalism. Randians worst fear is that if they admit the need for rules (regulation) of markets, they do not have any principles to guide them in determining where to stop. In welfare economics, Randians have no process to integrate individual welfare functions into a social welfare function.

5. No man may initiate physical force against another.

All are free to defend themselves, but the initiation of force is a violation of the foundational compact between humans.

The first problem here is that this view seems remarkably naive in that it does not recognize in society a rationale for collective action against violence. This is why some on the right are so happy with it. Why have police when everyone can have their own weapons? A second fundamental flaw is that it arbitrarily narrows the definition of violence. In a Randian society where it is not clear who makes or enforces property rights, or who regulates markets and trade, what is the difference between theft and slavery resulting from disproportionate market power and mere hard business dealing?

So it's pretty obvious that I think the Randian "philosophy" is not thought out and compared to Bentham, Mills, and Smith is woefully childish. That we can be talking seriously about it is a symptom of an underlying profound lack of understanding of the last four hundred years of political and economic philosophy.

All the best, Jamie

 

[Circe]

2. Reason is the only means that humans have to perceive reality.

Intuition, spiritual guidance, divine inspiration, etc. are all false and fraudulent. Only reason provides men with the ability to understand and interact with the world around them.

Current research in brain science has demonstrated that we have had a grossly oversimplified understanding of how the brain works. There is a memory system that is accessed through the limbic system and bypasses the usual cognitive pathways, much of this stored information is not accessible through normal memory (for example, the smell of a dangerous animal or chemical). Adrenaline can trigger this system to impel action without conscious thought, while the "fight or flight" reaction is occurring. Brain scans have begun to map these pathways and they explain the statistical anomaly that these "intuitive" decisions are far more likely to be correct than would be expected otherwise.

My point here is that it is a mistake to let philosophy get ahead of the science of perception, cognition, memory, and other physiological functions. Rand begins debunking some ideas that are worth debunking, but then extends it to anything she cannot explain, a logical fallacy of the first order.

Very interesting. It reminds me of lately reading the famous Descartes essay "I think, therefore I am," and being aghast to see he quickly segued into the existence of God being a given. Later I decided he may have been worried about a heresy charge -- it was still possible -- but it was disillusioning. I thought Descartes assumed too much, the opposite error from your description of Rand assuming way too little. "The world is wider than we know" is a good operating principle, I have found.

3. Man is an end unto himself.

Echoing Locke, Rand held that man is not a sacrificial animal to be offered for the service of others, but that each is rightfully deigned to pursue their own interests. Cooperation is often the best means to serve ones own interest, but cooperation is not subservience. Each member cooperating must gain from the transaction.

I really don't find much connection between Locke or any of the other Philosophical Radicals with Rand. Beyond that, Rand's conception of cooperation is more like a theory of contract law without enforcement.

This reminds me of "Natural Law," a concept that drives me crazy. Obviously there is no Natural Law, because we cannot enforce our desiderata on God. We simply Declare a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but since God lets everyone die, many be enslaved, and most at some point be unhappy, obviously there is no effective Natural Law. Same with International Law. As there is no One Government to enforce any laws on sovereign states, there is no international law, as Bush II's war in Iraq despite the UN anguish showed dramatically. Some people argue that treaties are effective international law, but I think Charles de Gaulle had the best reply to that: "Treaties are like young girls; they last while they last."

4. Laissez Faire Capitalism is the only just economic system.

Trade is the most noble act of man. To offer value in exchange for what one values is the foundation of good will. To never expect what one will not give in return is the foundation of morality. Laissez Faire will not support corporatism, as the government cannot pick the winners and losers nor crush upstart competition. Each must trade with others to receive what they need and want.

This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking that I was referring to as unenforced contract law. Apparently everyone is free to "trade" but there is no one to enforce any rules governing the conduct of a market. Markets without rules don't exist; the strongest simply steals everything they want. Calling anarchy "laissez faire" does a disservice to markets and capitalism. Randians worst fear is that if they admit the need for rules (regulation) of markets, they do not have any principles to guide them in determining where to stop. In welfare economics, Randians have no process to integrate individual welfare functions into a social welfare function.

5. No man may initiate physical force against another.

All are free to defend themselves, but the initiation of force is a violation of the foundational compact between humans.

The first problem here is that this view seems remarkably naive in that it does not recognize in society a rationale for collective action against violence. This is why some on the right are so happy with it. Why have police when everyone can have their own weapons? A second fundamental flaw is that it arbitrarily narrows the definition of violence. In a Randian society where it is not clear who makes or enforces property rights, or who regulates markets and trade, what is the difference between theft and slavery resulting from disproportionate market power and mere hard business dealing?

Very interesting! In your interpretation, the Randian right is equivalent to anarchy. Individuals can defend themselves, but there must be no police force, and certainly no SEC rules. Reminds me of an interesting point I realized about the anarchy/communism competition in the 19th century. The communists ate the anarchists' lunch, for the simple reason that the anarchists could not, on principle, organize! Whereas the communists, of course, were great at organization. I need to read Boaz or Murray on Libertarianism soon, I think. There has to be a middle way between anarchy and whatever is going on now.

Love your point that there can be no markets without rules and enforcement. John Galt will simply take everything for himself!

 

[Uncensored2008]

OK, I apologize in advance for messing up your sandbox, but you did invite us in!

I did indeed, and no need to apologize. My goal is a vibrant and adult conversation.

My disclaimer: My training is as an economist and historian (I have degrees and have published in both), the federal government paid for my graduate education so that I could concentrate on the Soviet economy, I am familiar with the Philosophical Radicals, and I am neither a Marxist nor an "Objectivist".

Sounds good. I have a MBA, with my concentration on economics.

Current research in brain science has demonstrated that we have had a grossly oversimplified understanding of how the brain works. There is a memory system that is accessed through the limbic system and bypasses the usual cognitive pathways, much of this stored information is not accessible through normal memory (for example, the smell of a dangerous animal or chemical). Adrenaline can trigger this system to impel action without conscious thought, while the "fight or flight" reaction is occurring. Brain scans have begun to map these pathways and they explain the statistical anomaly that these "intuitive" decisions are far more likely to be correct than would be expected otherwise.

This of course begs the question of whether such reactions are indeed perception, of whether they are what we consider instinct?

Obviously sensory input such as smell is not a function of reason. Still, I believe this misses the mark of what Rand was asserting. Rand was asserting that interaction with reality is secular, and not dependent on religious or spiritual elements.

My point here is that it is a mistake to let philosophy get ahead of the science of perception, cognition, memory, and other physiological functions. Rand begins debunking some ideas that are worth debunking, but then extends it to anything she cannot explain, a logical fallacy of the first order.

Again. I don't believe this is the point. Rand is simply stating that the physical world is what humans deal with. There are no spirits gods to look to for understanding.

I really don't find much connection between Locke or any of the other Philosophical Radicals with Rand.

Interesting. The concept of the self is dominate with Rand. The concept that selfishness is a virtue is directly lifted from Locke.

Beyond that, Rand's conception of cooperation is more like a theory of contract law without enforcement. It breaks down fairly quickly when the number of parties increases or the time horizon expands beyond the near future. When you go beyond Rand to her "followers" whatever philosophical or other nuances that make her appear to be consistent or logical disappear almost entirely.

Nonsense.

In a free market, cooperation is paramount to success. Rand espoused the concepts of the supply chain long before most economists latched on. The idea that production is a cohesive whole rather than fragmented elements assembled at a final stage is the whole point of the Dagny Taggart / Richard Riordan alliance in "Atlas Shrugged." Further, what do you mean by "without enforcement?" Rand fully supported courts and legal action for breach of contract.

This is exactly the kind of muddled thinking that I was referring to as unenforced contract law. Apparently everyone is free to "trade" but there is no one to enforce any rules governing the conduct of a market.

Rand was not an anarchist.

Markets without rules don't exist;

Someone has never been to a swap meet or a yard sale.

The most vibrant markets are unregulated.

the strongest simply steals everything they want.

Theft is a crime. Rand never advocated criminality.

Calling anarchy "laissez faire" does a disservice to markets and capitalism.

Calling Objectivism "anarchy" is either ignorant or dishonest. Rothbard flirted with anarchy, but Rand got nowhere close.

Randians worst fear is that if they admit the need for rules (regulation) of markets, they do not have any principles to guide them in determining where to stop. In welfare economics, Randians have no process to integrate individual welfare functions into a social welfare function.

Regulation of markets is a far cry from criminal and civil law.

Laissez Faire does not mean that contract law is jettisoned, nor that criminal law is repealed. It simply recognizes the fact that regulators are criminals who use "regulation" for their own gain. Regulators provide protection from the invisible hand for those who benefit the regulator. They stymy the market forces that ensure equilibrium to benefit those whom they engage in graft with. This is the case 100% of the time. Whether it is Obama using the IRS to force the public to buy the product of Kaiser and Blue Cross with his fascist Obamacare scheme, or a local city council taking bribes from a landscape company in return for awarding all city contracts to them. Fraud and graft are the reason for market regulation, in all cases.

The first problem here is that this view seems remarkably naive in that it does not recognize in society a rationale for collective action against violence.

What part of "initiate" did you not grasp?

This is why some on the right are so happy with it. Why have police when everyone can have their own weapons? A second fundamental flaw is that it arbitrarily narrows the definition of violence. In a Randian society where it is not clear who makes or enforces property rights, or who regulates markets and trade, what is the difference between theft and slavery resulting from disproportionate market power and mere hard business dealing?

Again, what you state is complete nonsense. Laws are laws. Laws should be local, as should law enforcement. But nothing from Rand advocates a lack of civil and criminal law.

So it's pretty obvious that I think the Randian "philosophy" is not thought out and compared to Bentham, Mills, and Smith is woefully childish. That we can be talking seriously about it is a symptom of an underlying profound lack of understanding of the last four hundred years of political and economic philosophy.

It's obvious that you either lack even a fundamental grasp of Objectivism, or are misrepresenting it.

All the best, Jamie

And you as well.

 

[Katzndogz]

The more people argue against Rand, the more apparent it is that they don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. They are just repeating what other liberals tell them. They don't even know what the words mean.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Karl Marx was a 19th century intellectual. Often those on the right bristle when I describe Marx as an intellectual. Some call him evil, others an idiot. But the truth is that Marx was an intellectual.

Marx and Rand share this trait, both were academics and intellectuals. Both suffered one of the common failures of intellectualism, lack of real world experience to temper intellectual theses.

Marx based his theories on the works of Hegel. Hegelian Dialectics formed the foundation of the views of Marx. I have no intent to delve into Hegelian thought, but briefly the dialectic holds that one system is subverted and replaced by another. That what is present replaced what was passed, and will be replaced by what is future. Hegel was a highly religious man and wrote from a Christian perspective.

Marx took the core of Hegelian Dialectics and formed a purely secular, or material philosophy he termed Material Dialecticalism. Marxist commonly also use Dialectical Materialism - both terms are correct and have the same meaning.

The dialectic is a struggle of one form over another. Marx concentrated on class as the foundation of the struggle. That the lower classes were or are in a constant state of struggle with the upper classes. That the lower classes periodically rise up and overthrow the upper class, thus assuming the role of the upper class themselves, until the cycle repeats and they are overthrown.

It is interesting to note that in materialism, Marx and Rand converge. "The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." - Das Kapital. Notice that this parallels the statement of Rand that the physical world is the only reality. So Marx also rejects cosmic and religious influence, thus divorcing his views from Hegel.

Marx described the dialectic in Das Kapital as "Development is a process whereby insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes lead to fundamental, qualitative changes. Qualitative changes occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, as leaps from one state to another." What this basically means in the class struggle is that changes in culture and even fashion, create contradictions that subvert the foundation of a society and give rise to revolution. This is why the left engaged in a 40 year "culture war" in America. Using the Marxian dialectic, fundamentally altering the culture of the nation must lead to a revolution where the lower classes will overthrow the upper classes. The culture, morals and values of the upper classes have already been defeated, paving the way for military victory.

Essentially, culture and religion are a unifying foundation. Quantitative change in these areas creates discord and the conflict of opposites, which will abruptly spark violent revolution at some point, as the dichotomy of opposing cultures places too great of strain on a society.

Marxism seeks to guide the cycle of the dialectic toward a society that breaks free of the class struggle, and thus ends the cycle. Marx postulated that moving from a market society to a totalitarian socialist dictatorship, would lead to the dissolution of of the state and a nirvana of communism, where all material goods and real property are held in common for the good of all.

 

[oldfart]

"The world is wider than we know" is a good operating principle, I have found.

Agreed. One of the most significant attributes of a knowledgeable person is that they know what they do not know. The Dalai Lama has stated that if science can disprove an afterlife or reincarnation (which be believes is a possibility), Buddhists will have to change their cosmology.

This reminds me of "Natural Law," a concept that drives me crazy. Obviously there is no Natural Law, because we cannot enforce our desiderata on God. We simply Declare a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but since God lets everyone die, many be enslaved, and most at some point be unhappy, obviously there is no effective Natural Law.

I think "Natural law" is a pretty slippery concept. If you identify it with the classical concept of "Tao", in the sense that those who act in conformity with Tao have better results than those who act in opposition to Tao, I think it has content. But Taoists do a much better job of exposition on this than do advocates of natural law who often get caught up in theological constructs.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I'm going to jump in here. I don't have a lot of knowledge about the subjects, but I am eager to learn new things. As far as background goes I have a simple Bachelors in Information Technology. Obviously nothing to brag about in comparison to the far more educated people in this thread.

I don't see Marx's ideal of communism being possible in the real world. People will always act in their own self-interest. Not all people perhaps, but certainly enough to foil communism from reaching his perfect state where the means of production belong to all-as-one. Marx's Vanguard Party that is supposed to initially take power before turning over power to the people would never relinquish the power.

In a perfect world where every person thought not only of their own well-being, but the well-being of everyone around them communism might work. That isn't reality though.

I think it is much safer to bet on humanity's selfishness. If I can make something of value and sell it to someone else and they can in turn sell their value to me we can all be entirely selfish and yet still work together towards prosperity.

 

[konradv]

I'm going to jump in here. I don't have a lot of knowledge about the subjects, but I am eager to learn new things. As far as background goes I have a simple Bachelors in Information Technology. Obviously nothing to brag about in comparison to the far more educated people in this thread.

I don't see Marx's ideal of communism being possible in the real world. People will always act in their own self-interest. Not all people perhaps, but certainly enough to foil communism from reaching his perfect state where the means of production belong to all-as-one. Marx's Vanguard Party that is supposed to initially take power before turning over power to the people would never relinquish the power.

In a perfect world where every person thought not only of their own well-being, but the well-being of everyone around them communism might work. That isn't reality though.

I think it is much safer to bet on humanity's selfishness. If I can make something of value and sell it to someone else and they can in turn sell their value to me we can all be entirely selfish and yet still work together towards prosperity.

The converse is also true in the way it relates to Libertarianism/Objectivism. Just as people acting in their own self-interest will foil Marxism, people acting against the interest of others foils Libertarianism/Objectivism. To have a civilized society some controls are necessary to keep the strong from enslaving the weak.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm going to jump in here. I don't have a lot of knowledge about the subjects, but I am eager to learn new things. As far as background goes I have a simple Bachelors in Information Technology. Obviously nothing to brag about in comparison to the far more educated people in this thread.

I don't see Marx's ideal of communism being possible in the real world. People will always act in their own self-interest. Not all people perhaps, but certainly enough to foil communism from reaching his perfect state where the means of production belong to all-as-one. Marx's Vanguard Party that is supposed to initially take power before turning over power to the people would never relinquish the power.

In a perfect world where every person thought not only of their own well-being, but the well-being of everyone around them communism might work. That isn't reality though.

I think it is much safer to bet on humanity's selfishness. If I can make something of value and sell it to someone else and they can in turn sell their value to me we can all be entirely selfish and yet still work together towards prosperity.

My BS is also in IT - or rather the predecessor to, "Management Information Systems." MIS became IT over time.

 

[Circe]

The converse is also true in the way it relates to Libertarianism/Objectivism. Just as people acting in their own self-interest will foil Marxism, people acting against the interest of others foils Libertarianism/Objectivism. To have a civilized society some controls are necessary to keep the strong from enslaving the weak.

Whoa! konradv, are you saying that Objectivism IS Libertarianism? If so, that is something I never realized.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The converse is also true in the way it relates to Libertarianism/Objectivism. Just as people acting in their own self-interest will foil Marxism, people acting against the interest of others foils Libertarianism/Objectivism.

In what way?

To have a civilized society some controls are necessary to keep the strong from enslaving the weak.

The 13th amendment seems sufficient for that.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I'm going to jump in here. I don't have a lot of knowledge about the subjects, but I am eager to learn new things. As far as background goes I have a simple Bachelors in Information Technology. Obviously nothing to brag about in comparison to the far more educated people in this thread.

I don't see Marx's ideal of communism being possible in the real world. People will always act in their own self-interest. Not all people perhaps, but certainly enough to foil communism from reaching his perfect state where the means of production belong to all-as-one. Marx's Vanguard Party that is supposed to initially take power before turning over power to the people would never relinquish the power.

In a perfect world where every person thought not only of their own well-being, but the well-being of everyone around them communism might work. That isn't reality though.

I think it is much safer to bet on humanity's selfishness. If I can make something of value and sell it to someone else and they can in turn sell their value to me we can all be entirely selfish and yet still work together towards prosperity.

The converse is also true in the way it relates to Libertarianism/Objectivism. Just as people acting in their own self-interest will foil Marxism, people acting against the interest of others foils Libertarianism/Objectivism. To have a civilized society some controls are necessary to keep the strong from enslaving the weak.

I think I would agree with that. The problem is the eternal question, "Who is watching the watchers?" Would not the corruption of the watchers necessarily invalidate at least some of the protection that these controls provide? How do you limit or eliminate that corruption?

 

[Circe]

I think "Natural law" is a pretty slippery concept. If you identify it with the classical concept of "Tao", in the sense that those who act in conformity with Tao have better results than those who act in opposition to Tao, I think it has content. But Taoists do a much better job of exposition on this than do advocates of natural law who often get caught up in theological constructs.

Yes! I've heard that concept of it. That it's better to work with the universe than against it, better to work with our natural instincts than against them, that these are natural laws. I love the Book of Tao and probably have 15 different versions including an audiobook, though I prefer the original, the old Lin Yutang, since I read it first.

The older point of view, I THINK, being a veteran of many 50-page arguments on forums, is that someone asserts that something he thinks people should get is Natural Law -- Pursuit of Happiness, no slavery, no genocide, universal health care, universal food subsidies, no capital punishment, etc. These are always things people do not in fact have but the asserter feels strongly that people ought to have them, and calls that feeling "Natural Law."

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I think "Natural law" is a pretty slippery concept. If you identify it with the classical concept of "Tao", in the sense that those who act in conformity with Tao have better results than those who act in opposition to Tao, I think it has content. But Taoists do a much better job of exposition on this than do advocates of natural law who often get caught up in theological constructs.

Yes! I've heard that concept of it. That it's better to work with the universe than against it, better to work with our natural instincts than against them, that these are natural laws. I love the Book of Tao and probably have 15 different versions including an audiobook, though I prefer the original, the old Lin Yutang, since I read it first.

The older point of view, I THINK, being a veteran of many 50-page arguments on forums, is that someone asserts that something he thinks people should get is Natural Law -- Pursuit of Happiness, no slavery, no genocide, universal health care, universal food subsidies, no capital punishment, etc. These are always things people do not in fact have but the asserter feels strongly that people ought to have them, and calls that feeling "Natural Law."

It is funny how people are eager to declare what Natural Law is. For being so natural and universal these Natural Laws seem to be pretty varied.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes! I've heard that concept of it. That it's better to work with the universe than against it, better to work with our natural instincts than against them, that these are natural laws. I love the Book of Tao and probably have 15 different versions including an audiobook, though I prefer the original, the old Lin Yutang, since I read it first.

The older point of view, I THINK, being a veteran of many 50-page arguments on forums, is that someone asserts that something he thinks people should get is Natural Law -- Pursuit of Happiness, no slavery, no genocide, universal health care, universal food subsidies, no capital punishment, etc. These are always things people do not in fact have but the asserter feels strongly that people ought to have them, and calls that feeling "Natural Law."

Can you offer a reasoned argument as to why Material Dialecticalism is superior to Objectivism?

 

[oldfart]

Great! Game on!

This of course begs the question of whether such reactions are indeed perception, of whether they are what we consider instinct?

I don't have a background in biology or brain science, so I am out of my league here. But as I understand the research, various areas of the brain store memories. These are "tagged" in some fashion so that we can cognitively retrieve them. But in addition to this, other memories are being stored of the same perceptions. These are stored in different regions of the brain from cognitive memories and are quantitatively and qualitatively different. Logical detail is truncated, but emotional responses are bolstered. This type of memory is retrieved through the limbic system and may explain what you call instinct. But all of this is based on sensory inputs and an information retrieval and decision-making system in the brain which is independent of any paranormal explanation.

Obviously sensory input such as smell is not a function of reason. Still, I believe this misses the mark of what Rand was asserting. Rand was asserting that interaction with reality is secular, and not dependent on religious or spiritual elements.

It's been a long time since I read any Rand (like 40 years), so I may be misrepresenting the position. It's also hard to separate what Rand believed and wrote about from the broader issue of how her concepts are used by others. With those caveats, I still have a distinct impression that Rand was going a bit beyond discounting spiritual or religious elements, and including all behavior and decision-making which did not fit her "utility calculus" as Jeremy Bentham would have put it.

Interesting. The concept of the self is dominate with Rand. The concept that selfishness is a virtue is directly lifted from Locke.

As I read Locke he was making a moral argument parallel to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" argument for markets. He saw "selfishness" as a virtue because he believed it led to greater good for society. I think Rand sees this as secondary and puts forth the dominant self as a good in its own right.

In a free market, cooperation is paramount to success. Rand espoused the concepts of the supply chain long before most economists latched on. The idea that production is a cohesive whole rather than fragmented elements assembled at a final stage is the whole point of the Dagny Taggart / Richard Riordan alliance in "Atlas Shrugged."

I simply missed this in my reading of Rand. You are right.

Further, what do you mean by "without enforcement?" Rand fully supported courts and legal action for breach of contract.

But how did she propose to enforce legal action? Some are enforced with criminal penalties, which most Randians would eschew. Is her view of society one of constant litigation as the solution to contract disputes? How would she enforce a judgment for monetary damages or enforce a cease and desist order?

Rand was not an anarchist....Calling Objectivism "anarchy" is either ignorant or dishonest. Rothbard flirted with anarchy, but Rand got nowhere close.

I agree. Anarchism is much better thought out. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the cheap shot).

Regulation of markets is a far cry from criminal and civil law.

How do you think regulation is achieved? Shunning? Ask Bernie Maddoff or my homeboy Bernie Ebbers.

Laissez Faire does not mean that contract law is jettisoned, nor that criminal law is repealed. It simply recognizes the fact that regulators are criminals who use "regulation" for their own gain. Regulators provide protection from the invisible hand for those who benefit the regulator. They stymy the market forces that ensure equilibrium to benefit those whom they engage in graft with. This is the case 100% of the time. Whether it is Obama using the IRS to force the public to buy the product of Kaiser and Blue Cross with his fascist Obamacare scheme, or a local city council taking bribes from a landscape company in return for awarding all city contracts to them. Fraud and graft are the reason for market regulation, in all cases.

Sorry, I thought you wanted a thoughtful conversation. I didn't expect you to lose it completely.

Again, what you state is complete nonsense. Laws are laws. Laws should be local, as should law enforcement. But nothing from Rand advocates a lack of civil and criminal law.

I admit to spouting a lot of nonsense. Some of it even mistaken. But you have decided to bail on your own argument and revert to adhominems. That's sad.

 

[jwoodie]

This sounds a lot like a faculty lounge conversation about what to have for lunch. Is there some specific proposition in all of this or is it just a specious linguistic exercise? From what we now know, Marx's economic theories are the equivalent of trying to prove that the Earth is flat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Great! Game on!

I don't have a background in biology or brain science, so I am out of my league here. But as I understand the research, various areas of the brain store memories. These are "tagged" in some fashion so that we can cognitively retrieve them. But in addition to this, other memories are being stored of the same perceptions. These are stored in different regions of the brain from cognitive memories and are quantitatively and qualitatively different. Logical detail is truncated, but emotional responses are bolstered. This type of memory is retrieved through the limbic system and may explain what you call instinct. But all of this is based on sensory inputs and an information retrieval and decision-making system in the brain which is independent of any paranormal explanation.

I'm an IT guy who went for an MBA to become more marketable. I make no pretense of any knowledge of neuroscience.

It's been a long time since I read any Rand (like 40 years), so I may be misrepresenting the position. It's also hard to separate what Rand believed and wrote about from the broader issue of how her concepts are used by others. With those caveats, I still have a distinct impression that Rand was going a bit beyond discounting spiritual or religious elements, and including all behavior and decision-making which did not fit her "utility calculus" as Jeremy Bentham would have put it.

This may be. Rand got pretty strange toward the end. Still, the basic premise is simply that we perceive reality through our cognitive functions. Rand and Marx agree on this point, BTW.

As I read Locke he was making a moral argument parallel to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" argument for markets. He saw "selfishness" as a virtue because he believed it led to greater good for society. I think Rand sees this as secondary and puts forth the dominant self as a good in its own right.

{"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS.} - Ayn Rand.

The above passage appears to be precisely what Locke advocated, in my opinion.

I simply missed this in my reading of Rand. You are right.

Thank you for that acknowledgement.

But how did she propose to enforce legal action? Some are enforced with criminal penalties, which most Randians would eschew. Is her view of society one of constant litigation as the solution to contract disputes? How would she enforce a judgment for monetary damages or enforce a cease and desist order?

One of the main distinctions between Rand and Marx is that Rand advocated the Constitutional system of the United States. Simply put, those mechanisms are already in place. Our system of torts and liability is what Rand advocated.

I agree. Anarchism is much better thought out. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the cheap shot).

Since I lean toward Rothbard more than Rand, I would actually agree with your comment.

How do you think regulation is achieved? Shunning? Ask Bernie Maddoff or my homeboy Bernie Ebbers.

Maddoff and Ebbers existed ONLY BECAUSE of regulation. Neither could exist in a free market.

Sorry, I thought you wanted a thoughtful conversation. I didn't expect you to lose it completely.



I admit to spouting a lot of nonsense. Some of it even mistaken. But you have decided to bail on your own argument and revert to adhominems. That's sad.

There is no ad hom intended, just a sober analysis of the material.