Nihilianth said:
The Endangered Species Act happened. You cannot, logically, say it "killed more endangered animals than anything else," without knowing what would have happened had it not been passed.
Nonsense. Anyone with half a brain could figure it out. "Shoot, shovel, and shut up" isn't some complex system devised to outwit the law; it's a brute-force attempt to do so, one that is obvious.
Here's the issue: in order for the ESA to be applicable, someone has to report a listed species. If no one reports it, no one can enforce the law. Thus, the obvious solution is for people to ensure that no one reports endangered speceis. The law creates an inicentive to kill endangered species.
[ETA: Also, what I intended--which is obvious given the context--is that the ESA killed more endangered species than pretty much anything else
that kills endangered species.]
Belz... said:
Rights are defined and enforced by humans.
Enforced? Yes. Defined? Only in the sense that we articulate the concept. The concept itself exists whether we wish to acknowledge it or not.
They are also frequently violated. Otherwise you'd have no reason to define them since they would amount to laws of physics.
The first sentence is true--which is why (yet again) I am not an anarchist. The proper role of government, in an Objectivist society, is to protect rights. If rights could never be violated, there'd be no need for government.
The second is nonsense. We define laws of physics, after all, so your example refutes itself. Furthermore, you are applying non-Objectivist epistemology to Objectivist ethics. In Objectivist epistemology, a definition is necessary to state one understands a concept. Some concepts, such as "up", can be extremely vague; I personally have spent no small amount of time defining the term, but that's because of a long-standing joke between me and an uncle. Most people could define the term well enough to use it every day. Rights, however, in as much as they form the foundation for human interaction and for all rational law, require a tad more rigorous definition.
That's fine but ignores the "social" part of "social species."
Not at all. Rights are the "social" part of "social species". Social--NOT collonial.
Yes because, whatever your beliefs are, they are correct and only people who agree with it "get it". Or not ?
No, of course not. I had been thinking about these ideas for a long time, and could defend them well before I read Rand. My point was merely that Rand didn't convince me of any of the fundamentals. A few concepts were new to me, such as the sanction of the victim and her ideas on how concepts form (I had no strong opinions on that at the time, and basically ignored it until I realized how closely alined with the scientific process they were).
That said, if someone criticizes Objectivism because it fails some criteria established in opposition to Objectivism (not intentionally, but still), I would say that no, they don't understand it. It's akin to saying that Catholicism is false because it violates some text in the Koran. A philosophy, to be true, must be internally consistent and consistent with the outside world. It need not be consistent with other philosophies. So, for example, your criticism that the rights need to be defined, therefore they are human constructs is not a valid criticism of Objectivism and betrays a certain lack of knowledge about the philosophy--because it contradicts a foundational principle of Objectivism (specifically, of its epistemology).
jimbob said:
Even if everyone behaved according to the precepts of objectivism - society would still be dysfunctional as the narrow self-interest in such a system would include holding everyone else to ransom for everything that you have property rights over.
This criticism is so irrational and violates so many aspects of Objectivism it can only be stated by someone who knows nothing on the topic. "...
nor ask any man to live for mine" is right in the oath all the people in the Gulch took. To ignore something the author herself defines as one of the most important aspects of the philosophy is to ignore the philosophy.
Here's the thing: Living in a society is, under normal conditions, GOOD. It helps everyone to live in a society. When other people prosper, it makes my life easier. Therefore I
want other people to do well. What possible good would it do me to have a bunch of money and no one to trade with? What possible good would it do to have a whole lot of land but no one to sell crops to? The concept is insane. Am I going to trade what I have for less than its value to me? Of course not; I'm not a sacrificial animal. But neither am I a butcher intent on "getting mine" and damn the cost. I want other people to be able to do great things in their careers--or even modest things--because each time it happens it makes MY career easier.
The problem with your interpretation of Objectivism is that you view self-interest as a narrow range. This is not the way the philosophy works. Self-interest is a long-term concept. What you are describing is ultimately self-destructive. It may help you out for a little while, but in the end it'll come back and bite you, hard. The kind of predatory selfishness you describe is short-sighted in the extreme.
Finally, I love how you smuggled in "ransom" in your description. The only possible interpretation is that you don't view property rights as absolute--were we to accept your description of events, we would have to start with the premise that property is collective, and that
ownership as such is somehow a violation of rights. This is not the Objectivist view. If you own something and do not wish to sell it to me, I may be extremely unhappy, even to the point of finding ways to economically ruin you--but in the end, I will respect your right to say "No" to a sale. It's YOUR stuff; I have NO right to it, PERIOD. If you want to sell it to someone else just to spite me, have fun. I may object to it, but I have NO say in what you do with it. Thus, it is impossible for someone to hold their own property for ransom under Objectivism; they can refuse to sell it, they can hoard it, they can destroy it if they wish, but they cannot hold it for ransom because the term "ransom" is inapplicable to one's own property.
Would an Objectivist society be nice? I'm no Utopian; I know it wouldn't be all sunshine and lollypops and unicorns. What it would be is just. And between the two, I would much rather take my chances with the latter.
