Democracy

[broncofan]

I

I don't think there's anything enlightened about Ayn Rand's self-interest. It is vile and base. It is a philosophy based on turning a blind eye to the problems of the less fortunate then going a step further and blaming them for those problems. To see this philosophy used as the underpinning of governance anywhere in the world would be cause for concern for a decent observer. People who make mistakes do not deserve to die and grandiose enterpreneurs do not deserve to be lionized for their good fortune. This may sound like a strawman or an extreme interpretation of objectivism. However, if you've seen Republican governance in the U.S, it is hardly a stretch. And they are not even so bold as to blame people for their problems. Slashing disability, failing to address wage discimination, removing funding for public schools. These are the fruits of Ayn Rand's train analogy. Ayn Rand's model citizen overcomes a disability, is an auto-didact, and breaks down all barriers to discimination with her fist. Or gets a free train ticket.

Actually to be fair, she does not get a free train ticket. She pays for the train ticket, the train is poorly built and unsafe, and we do nothing to prevent it from crashing. Then when it crashes we don't extinguish the flames, but interrogate the burning victims about what they've done with their lives. Then when they are non-responsive we say, "ah yes, every bit as lazy as I thought". It's much easier than allowing them to mooch off of my ingenuity.

[an8150]

Indeed there are still robber barons. Rand called this "crony capitalism".

As to whether there is a communist (or, perhaps more accurately, a statist and collectivist) threat, I refute the suggestion that there is not by reference to those people on this forum who demand coercive state action (there is of course no other kind of state action) as a response to perceived ills.

Broncofan, your claim that objectivism "is a philosophy based on turning a blind eye to the problems of the less fortunate then going a step further and blaming them for those problems" is inaccurate, but it is I agree a stirring caricature. As for any deemed relationship between Republicans and Randians, well, she generally despised the GOP during her lifetime and I doubt she'd take a different view of the Romney/Paul ticket, whatever TEA partyers under the bed you may perceive.

[Prospero]

Refute is a word badly misused these days. You mean, I assume that you challenge or dispute. Refute means to categorically disprove.

And who demands coercive state action an8150? By that do you mean the application of the law? Or do you mean taxation?

And perhaps you'd care to give us you pocket summary of what you believe Rand's philosophy to be?

[Prospero]

So here for instance is the use of the word refute in a news story from today (a rather relevent one)

is this a correct usage? I think challenge would be better unless the Republican Governer of Ohio KNOWS that Romney is talking nonsense. (Which is likely)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...ent/?mobile=nc

Ohio Gov. Refutes Romney: ‘Chrysler Is The One Automaker That Has Increased Employment’


Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) is the latest Republican to refute one of Mitt Romney’s biggest talking points in the state, as he told CBS Monday morning that Chrysler is adding jobs in Ohio, not shipping them to China as Romney has claimed both on the campaign trail and in radio and television ads:

ANCHOR: And is Jeep creating more jobs in Ohio or are they sending them to China?
KASICH: No. Chrysler has, has — Chrysler is the one automaker that has increased employment.

[an8150]

In this thread alone, Prospero, coercive state action has been demanded, or impliedly demanded, by:

You, in relation to funding for PBS, your opposition to cuts in funding for "social programs", your opposition to tax cuts, your implied support for Big Government, your support for "affordable healthcare", your support for poorer and weaker citizens, your support for climate change policies.

Broncofan, with his complaints about slashing disability, failing to address wage discrimination and slashing public funding for schools.

For those of us who value human freedom, support for its opposite is a threat. Thus I refute the claim that such a threat no longer exists.

Please note, that I do not necessarily dismiss the concerns raised by you or Broncofan. I merely say that your cure is worse than the illness.

Rand, incidentally, was vehemently pro-choice.

As to a potted summary of objectivism, it stems from the belief that man exists for his own sake and to fulfill the potential of his own life. He does not, therefore, exist as a sacrificial lamb for the sake of others. That is not to say that a man may not choose to help others, but it is his choice to do so. That is, after all, the essence of the charitable impulse. Rand held that there was nothing wrong with charity, but she regarded it as overrated.

[trish]

coercive state action (there is of course no other kind of state action)

Utter nonsense! To characterize all state action as coercive is just the sort of adolescent rubbish the “objectivists” revel in.

When you will yourself to send a post are you coercing yourself? When you follow the stipulations of a contract of which you are a party, are you being coerced?

We have an institutional democracy of, by and for the people. We act through the State to address our issues and better our lot. The law reflects our collective will.

When people agree to be citizens in a representative democracy, they agree their collective actions will be decided upon in accordance with the recipes outlined in the Constitution. Accepting citizenship (by voting, for example) is agreeing to this contract.

We do not coerce ourselves to act; neither do we keep contractual promises only under threat of punishment. If you do either of these things, you should probably get some counciling.

[an8150]

Trish, do you mean there is some way I can opt out of being a citizen in a representative democracy the better to live my life free of others' injunctions? If so, please can you tell me how I might do this?

If state action, as you say, is not coercive, then by definition it cannot be in accordance with law. If it is in accordance with law, then it is by definition coercive.

With respect, you would be better off defending what I perceive to be your principles simply by saying, "yes, it's coercive, but my beliefs justify that coercion because they are sufficiently important". I still could not agree with you, but such a statement would at least have the benefit of intellectual candour/rigour.

There is of course no law obliging me to post here.

[Stavros]

QUOTE=Prospero;1230691

Stavros - the bulk of my knowledge of US politics comes from direct contact with Americans, with my time spent in Washington and other parts of the US and from a wide reading of primarily US sources. So I find your imputation that I am ignorant a tad patronising.
-I thought it was clear that I was referring to the British people in general, not you and me. I am aware you know more than most about US politics, and most of my criticism was of your judgement rather than your knowledge.

(Daley means plenty to me. Do you have any evidence to suggest there were sirty tricks in Obama's election there? Smearing obama with the Ghost of Mayor Daley is somewhat cheap otherwise. There are mountains of evidence for republican attempts to tamper with the electoral process. As you well know.)
-My point was that you cannot pretend the Republicans are the only party trying to fix their way to an election. But you are entitled to be biased.

Iran has friends in the Lebanon - Hizbollah and in Gaza. And would very possibly attempt to hit US bases in the region. The oonfrontation between Saudi Arabia and its allies and iran is already being fought in proxy
-Surely the whole point of the incidents by proxy that have been taking place in the Middle East since 1948 if not before, is that they avoid precisely the kind of military attacks you refer to.

the object for the new american century certainly attempted to extend US power - and i agree he didn't attempt to make the world a better place. But he did make it a worse place. DThe balance of power in the region has been altered with a powerful Sh'ite community in Iraq, previously supprised by Hussain, now potentially Iranian allies.-The Project for a New American Century was more concerned with extending US influence than a US presence, making the US indispensable to the region. It is debatable if the Middle East is worse off because of regime change in Iraq, because the regional impact was not that great, most Arab regimes were glad to see the back of Saddam anyway; there is no balance of power in the region anyway - and to assume that there is one and that it has benefited the minority Shi'a is to award them with influence they do not have. The Shi'a in Saudi Arabia are viewed as a threat as they are in Bahrain; in Lebanon they are big in numbers but limited by the Constitution; in Syria they are under attack and for the next generation will never enjoy the power they once had and wasted.

On this we disagree and i have spelt out my arguments - one of the most important being the impact of Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. I suspect if the Republicans win then there is a possibility that Romney will face a revolt of his own if he adopts the vaunted centrist policies he is now proclalming to win the undecided voters. If he loses then the party will become more radicalised. What impact that would have in the longer term is unpredictable and somewhat subject to the US economic performance over the next four years. But if Obama wins and yet the radicalised Republicans retain control of Congress then we can expect more gridlock and the blocking of any attempt at measures that might help the economy)
-Drama, drama drama: appointments to the Supreme Court are important but historically appointing one conservative or liberal judge doesn't make a radical difference when they vote on the law rather than with their ideology, this is an over-egged pudding if ever there was one, but I am sure Americans will have a different take on it. If the Republican party's 'silent majority' do embrace libertarian causes -and I don't know how far this can go- their candidates run the risk of becoming unelectable, and in any case, candidates can say what they like on the husting, in power their radicalism is often neutered by reality -as happened to Obama over Guantanamo. Gridlock in Congress if caused by Tea Party delegates could also backfire on them.

I am not American, but as an outsider I just dont think this is as key an election as Kennedy in 1960 and Reagan in 1980, the two most important elections since 1945.
/QUOTE

[broncofan]

Indeed there are still robber barons. Rand called this "crony capitalism".

As to whether there is a communist (or, perhaps more accurately, a statist and collectivist) threat, I refute the suggestion that there is not by reference to those people on this forum who demand coercive state action (there is of course no other kind of state action) as a response to perceived ills.

Broncofan, your claim that objectivism "is a philosophy based on turning a blind eye to the problems of the less fortunate then going a step further and blaming them for those problems" is inaccurate, but it is I agree a stirring caricature. As for any deemed relationship between Republicans and Randians, well, she generally despised the GOP during her lifetime and I doubt she'd take a different view of the Romney/Paul ticket, whatever TEA partyers under the bed you may perceive.

The only state action that has any effect is forceful. Actually, there can be tax incentives or positive reinforcements to good behavior and these are occasionally effective but for the most part there is no regulation without enforcement. But I'm sure you know that regulations cannot be implemented on the honor system.

By recognizing the existence of crony capitalism you seem to realize that some regulation is necessary. Then why label the support of any regulation "communist" or "collectivist"? Are you positing a system without any regulation at all? Then what are the origins of this dreaded crony capitalism that Ayn Rand is known so well for fighting against;?

She probably despised the GOP for their social policies. I am sure she would not want the GOP to police people's private practices or impose their religious mores on the general public. However, she would almost certainly be on board with cutting all of these programs that save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. I don't see it as a caricature to say the tea partiers are selfish individuals who have turned on their fellow citizens; victims of enabling myths about welfare moms and people faking disability. The 47% rhetoric we heard from Romney sounded a lot like the parable of the train. These people do not want to take responsibility for their lives, for their actions, and are essentially drains on society. How do I misinterpret her?

I always love how the Libertarian view is couched in rhetoric about freedom. Have you ever known anyone with a disability? Do you think they see it as a threat to their freedom if they receive monthly stipends or if employers are forced to take affirmative actions to accommodate them (with the possible defense of undue hardship if the employer's business is threatened)? You cannot say that these are the few permissible regulations since you've already gone on record labeling those who support any regulation as virtual communists.

So here is the result empirically. Sick people die in a ditch. Individuals cannot get gainful employment because of a disability. Our food and drugs are not regulated and cyanide powder is marketed for the common cold. These are not strawmen as you've already said coercive action by the government constitutes a collectivist mentality and is the road to communism. What are your prescriptions? We allow the private litigation system to regulate adulterated products after they've done their harm? Or should we get rid of litigation as well? We wait until you develop a philanthopic instinct to personally save the ditch dwellers or we just let them die in the ditch? If we save them from the ditch are we communists or decent human beings? Not addressing these problems or pretending they're aberrant is not my idea of being responsible.

[trish]

If you participate in the elections, you've opted in. If you accepted a driver's license, you've opted in (not necessarily to being a citizen but you accepted a contract to obey the traffic laws). If you bought property in a municipality, you've opted in. Do you follow the stipulations of a contract only because you are coerced? Or do you choose to follow them voluntarily because you are a person of integrity?

When government builds an interstate, launches a satellite, agrees to let a logger harvest from a national forest, takes the census or cashes your tax check, it is not coercion.

You talk about your right to freedom and liberty. Where does that right come from? Do you think it's written into the laws of the universe? Is it to be found somewhere in quark theory? Is it god given? Rand thinks neither of these things. Freedom is a social construction (at least the right to it is), it is the result of an implicit (often explicit) agreement. Your freedoms are broad yet circumscribed by that agreement. (E.g. you cannot shoot out your neighbors window simply because you want some target practice. You cannot drive down the wrong lane on the interstate. You cannot refuse to pay your taxes. Most people follow the stipulations of the contract voluntarily; i.e. they are not coerced.) If you exempt yourself from the contract, you give up your freedom as well. If you break the contract, then yes you may be compelled to pay the penalty.