Post-Randian Objectivism

[Merton]

As an Objectivist, I would ask you to pick another name for your musings, then. We get enough flak as it is, and if you know your ideas are substantially different from Rand's it doesn't make sense to tie your thoughts to hers in name.

Fair enough.

The highlighted part direclty contradicts Objectivism.

How so?

Again, Rand wrote specifically about this subject, and demonstrated that voluntarily submitting to a commune/collective/group is WORSE than doing so under coersion. At least if you're coerced you didn't do it to yourself, which means you may be a victim. If you do it to yourself you're the perpetrator.

Again, I don't follow. The inherent willingness to help others is a bad thing?

Labor is necessary to add value to material items, but it is neither sufficient by itself nor is labor necessarily what converts unowned nature into property.

So is there a defining aspect of property then? Or is everything up for grabs?

I have to ask: which of Rand's works have you read? I'm not asking to be sarcasting or anything--I merely want to know what your understanding of the philosophy is, so that I know where I need to start in showing the errors you're making.

I haven't read a fiction novel in quite some time, so the only work of hers I have studied is the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Land IS property. It may not take effort to make, but it takes effort to convert to a useful purpose (even if that effort is only to put a fence around it and say "Stay out, I like my woods the way it is"). That effort--ie, making the land useful--is what allows land to become property (the USA did exactly that with the frontear, and while we can certainly debate whether they had the right to do so they did have the right idea for how to determine who owns unowned land).

I'm not going to address this because it is predicated upon the labor theory of property, which you do not accept. No need to put the cart before the horse.

Besides, by your logic ALL property would be "under democratic control". You can't have a stove without a house--so it's part of the land, by your logic. Can't have a TV without electricity, so it's public property as well. Can't have a bed.....can't have a computer.....can't have a couch.....I'm skeptical as to whether you can have cloths or not. Your line of reasoning will eventually lead to the total collectivisation of all property.

Not exactly. People can treat land as private property, but this privilege is granted by the community. A contract between the private entity and the community permits the "landowner" (technically a lessee) to use the natural resources in the area for personal benefit. Any buildings constructed on this land is considered the landowner's property until the lease expires, at which time it is returned to collective administration. Anything that can be removed from the house still belongs to the owner, and I see no reason why the owner couldn't bulldoze any buildings at the end of the lease either, if he or she were so inclined.

Besides, if the land isn't property neither are crops--which means FOOD isn't property. Neither are mines--which means MINERALS are "under democratic control". That pretty much eliminates all property right there, as all raw materials are either mined or grown. And the idea that you can own property but not the means of production is called "communism", just about as far away from Objectivism as you can get.

That's not the only aspect of communism, but yes, they do have that feature in common. Food is not property unless it requires labor input--I know we don't agree on this, but I'm just explaining my rationale--and so agricultural products would be considered the property of the landowner. Of course, if a community would rather grow their own food collectively, they can do that as well.

 

[Merton]

Contrariwise, direct "democratic" control of basic resources is a farce. Humans are stupid, shortsighted, selfish, and greedy, and don't stop acting that way because of high-minded words. That's where Marx went wrong, he gave humans far to much credit for decency and fairness. We can see how that worked out. I see the same flaw in your "Communalism".

I can only assume you are talking about the failures of Marxist regimes, which owed more to numerically small but powerful elitist organizations borne of violent revolution than adherence to any particular economic theory.

Well-regulated Capitalism is the only system we have (now) that recognises and attempts to compensate for that. We can also see where it ends up when you leave off the bolded part.

I agree that laissez-faire capitalism turns out poorly, but it seems to me that state capitalism encourages a frightening cooperation between business and government that borders on fascism. Either way, the people lose.

 

[Dinwar]

How so?

It violates the concept of property defined by O'ism.

Again, I don't follow. The inherent willingness to help others is a bad thing?

That's because you're still viewing ethics as synonymous with altruism. In O'ism the desire to help others is ammoral. You can if you want, but it's an extremely minor issue, usually completely irrelevant. If you try to make OTHERS help others you're trying to violate their rights (again, you don't own their property, and have no say in what happens with it).

So is there a defining aspect of property then? Or is everything up for grabs?

I already gave it.

I haven't read a fiction novel in quite some time, so the only work of hers I have studied is the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Uh-HUH. So you don't really know much about her philosophy. Again, it always amazes me that people feel confident in criticizinig Objectivism without even understanding what the philosophy is.

Not exactly. People can treat land as private property, but this privilege is granted by the community.

No, it's not. The only justification for this line of reasoning is "We can take it away if we want", which means "Might makes right".

 

[Dinwar]

II agree that laissez-faire capitalism turns out poorly, but it seems to me that state capitalism encourages a frightening cooperation between business and government that borders on fascism. Either way, the people lose.

Rand termed this "Croony Capitalism", and had a lot of rather nasty things to say about it. Suffice to say James Taggart is exactly the type of businessman you're talking about.

You don't get to use the government to dictate how businesses operate, and in return they don't get to use the government to dictate how anyone else operates either.

 

[Merton]

This is not rationalism in the philosophical sense. For a nice summary, see Sean Carroll's blogpost on the matter.

True. To be fair, I think Rand says "Reason" here, perhaps to avoid this confusion.

This sentence is contradictory.

How so?

There is no such thing as natural rights. Jeremy Bentham had it right, they are nonsense on stilts.

So would you say there is no objective morality at all? That morality is determined by those in power?

Would this really be better than the current nation-state system? Already we have a global tragedy of the commons (think global warming) and it would be even worse in a world of city-states.

I don't follow. City-states needn't be entirely isolated and probably ought to be confederated to promote cooperation and trade. It would also seem to me that, with land administered via direct democracy of local residents, environmentalism would be a top priority, preventing the tragedy of the commons. NIMBY and all that.

Your philosophy is lacking in its foundation because it is based on Ayn Rand, who was mightily confused. I would recommend reading up on David Hume's ideas to get a sounder foundation for your worldview, particularly on morality. Hume + Darwin = A very good worldview foundation.

Actually, very little of this philosophy is owed to Rand; I am mostly influenced by liberal/libertarian/anarchist philosophers (Locke, Chomsky, Foucault, Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman, Tucker, etc.).

Try have a read of a few other Sean Carroll blogposts, as he has written very well on these issues:

Metaphysics Matters
Abortion and the Architecture of Reality
Marriage and Fundamental Physics

Thanks for the links! I frickin' love Sean Carroll!

 

[Merton]

Oddly enough, Objectivists agree. The philosophy is completely against anarchy, and one reason I call myself an Objectivist is that Objectivism is the first philosophy I've encountered to actually make a rational argument against the political theory of anarchy (which is nothing like what most people assume--not that YOU assume it; I'm just explaining why I added the "the politicaly theory of" to "anarchy").

Sorry to be nitpicky like this, but it's anarchism, not anarchy. Anarchism is the political philosophy that hopes to achieve a specific kind of anarchy. There are several different kinds of anarchy, but I support "anarchism without adjectives," as I feel we anarchists share enough in common that adjectives serve only as distractions.

 

[Piscivore]

I can only assume you are talking about the failures of Marxist regimes, which owed more to numerically small but powerful elitist organizations borne of violent revolution than adherence to any particular economic theory.

Right. You can't trust humans to adhere to any theory (economic or political) that is predicated on them acting like rational, altruistic, mature adults. We have to construct our social, political, and economic systems to handle the greedy, the stupid, the short-sighted, the self-destructive, the malicious, and the spoiled.

I agree that laissez-faire capitalism turns out poorly, but it seems to me that state capitalism encourages a frightening cooperation between business and government that borders on fascism.

"Cooperation", hell; if the state owns the means of production the rich simply buy the government, or thugs like Stalin muscle their way in. No, the state has no business owning the economy.

Contrariwise, the proposition that government has no buisness in the economy at all doesn't work either. The rich end up feudal masters, like we saw in the Nineteeth Century.

Either way, the people lose.

That's why we need to look past economic and political philosophies engendered in the Nineteenth Century (and I'm counting Objectivism in that too; it seems to me based on what I've read of Rand to be basically just "the opposite of whatever Marx said"). This whole "left-right" thing is a false dichotomy. Neither is entirely correct, nor entirely flawed.

 

[Merton]

It violates the concept of property defined by O'ism.

[...]

I already gave it.

Sorry, I must've missed it (and can't seem to find it)... would you please point me to it or retype it?

That's because you're still viewing ethics as synonymous with altruism. In O'ism the desire to help others is ammoral. You can if you want, but it's an extremely minor issue, usually completely irrelevant. If you try to make OTHERS help others you're trying to violate their rights (again, you don't own their property, and have no say in what happens with it).

I agree, but you said that voluntarily helping your community is worse than being coerced to do so. How does this make sense?

Uh-HUH. So you don't really know much about her philosophy. Again, it always amazes me that people feel confident in criticizinig Objectivism without even understanding what the philosophy is.

I don't recall criticizing her philosophy much at all: I don't need to know anything about Rand to criticize capitalism, my Ethics are derived from natural rights philosophers, and I agree with her about reason and metaphysical objectivism.

No, it's not. The only justification for this line of reasoning is "We can take it away if we want", which means "Might makes right".

Those with power make the rules; that's just life. We can ameliorate the effects of this by creating constitutions that protect negative liberties and diffusing power among the people by implementing direct democracy.

 

[Piscivore]

So would you say there is no objective morality at all?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I want to respond; No.

Where does objective morality come from, if it exists? What is an example of an objectively moral tenant?

That morality is determined by those in power?

No, morality is determined by each individual person, cobbled together (usually involuntarily and unconsciously) out of his experiences. Highly influenced by the culture he grows up in, and subject to coercion and manipulation, but nonetheless each person shapes his own morality to some degree every time he makes a decision or has a new experience.

Actually, very little of this philosophy is owed to Rand;

Then yeah, you need to not use the name of her philosophy. Rand wanted "empiricism", but that was taken.

I am mostly influenced by liberal/libertarian/anarchist philosophers (Locke, Chomsky, Foucault, Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman, Tucker, etc.).

Forget philosophy. Look at psychology and sociology.

 

[Dinwar]

I agree, but you said that voluntarily helping your community is worse than being coerced to do so.

Not really, though I can see where you'd get that. Submitting to moral authorities is anethema to Objectivism. You're an adult--you need to act like it. Even a voluntary organization that dictates how its members act is a tacite admission that you're too much of a coward to live your own life.

Those with power make the rules; that's just life.

So you don't believe in rights. No surprise--your criticisms of capitalism and concept of property pretty much demonstrated that already. However, what you're describing isn't a society either; it's a bunch of thugs crushing one another and declaring that they're right because they're strong. And that's what your democratic ownership of property will become.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't mean to skip out on the rest of your post, Piscivore--just ran out of time.

No prob, I'm going to wait too before replying to yours.

 

[Merton]

"Cooperation", hell; if the state owns the means of production the rich simply buy the government, or thugs like Stalin muscle their way in. No, the state has no business owning the economy.

Contrariwise, the proposition that government has no buisness in the economy at all doesn't work either. The rich end up feudal masters, like we saw in the Nineteeth Century.

So government control is bad, capitalist control is bad, but both of them together is good? What about neither?

 

[Merton]

This wasn't addressed to me, but I want to respond; No.

Where does objective morality come from, if it exists? What is an example of an objectively moral tenant?

I have posited here that objective morality is derived from an emergent property of the brain, sapience. This quality grants individuals self-sovereignty, which results in the natural rights I've described previously. An example of an objectively moral tenant would be that it is categorically immoral to kill someone without his or her express permission (any modification of the another's body, mind, or property without permission would be immoral).

Then yeah, you need to not use the name of her philosophy. Rand wanted "empiricism", but that was taken.

Will do.

Forget philosophy. Look at psychology and sociology.

How about if I look at those in addition to philosophy?

 

[Merton]

So you don't believe in rights. No surprise--your criticisms of capitalism and concept of property pretty much demonstrated that already. However, what you're describing isn't a society either; it's a bunch of thugs crushing one another and declaring that they're right because they're strong. And that's what your democratic ownership of property will become.

Umm... no. If you'll notice, my Ethics are based upon natural rights, which includes property rights. The rights in which I believe may not be the same as yours, but that's no reason to pretend they're absent.

And no, I don't want egoist anarchism either: if I believed might made right, I wouldn't have such a strict adherence to natural rights in this philosophy. That's the world in which we currently live, but we can do better.

 

[Piscivore]

However, what you're describing isn't a society either; it's a bunch of thugs crushing one another and declaring that they're right because they're strong.

Have you met any humans? This is what civilization is. Only these days, "strong" = "rich".

And that's what your democratic ownership of property will become.

That's what every philosophy becomes, because that's who people are.

Rand had to make up her infallibly competent and wise characters because they don't exist in reality. The industrialists she idolized in "Atlas Shrugged" were in reality the cheats and liars that used insider trading and under-the-table deals to shut out smaller competitors, conspired with or outright bought the government, used private armies, overt violence (literal "guns to heads", pulled triggers included), and economic serfdoms to supress and enslave their "employees". Basically, feudalism. That's what government was invented to counter in the first place; the arbitrary tyranny of the powerful. Kings, despots, and the rich don't need or want governments. The Magna Carta wasn't drafted to reign in the tyranny of the serfs.

 

[Dinwar]

Umm... no. If you'll notice, my Ethics are based upon natural rights, which includes property rights. The rights in which I believe may not be the same as yours, but that's no reason to pretend they're absent.

If those with power make the rules, rights cannot exist unless those in power GRANT those rights--and a granted right is a contradiction (it's a privilage, not a right). And your "property rights" are equally contradictory, as I've pointed out before.

 

[Dinwar]

Rand had to make up her infallibly competent and wise characters because they don't exist in reality.

The highlighted part is wrong. Her characters WERE NOT infallible. Dagney and Rearden made specific errors which were pointed out over and over again. John Galt admitted to committing a serious error. Rand didn't expect people to be perfect, but to be honest. And I don't expect people to be universally happy in a capitalistic society. I'm no Utopian; I acknowledge that people would be hurt, sometimes very badly, in capitalism. Like I said--and like you admitted earlier--all other forms of society treat humans like children (except, oddly enough, the rulers--some people, for no reason ever given, are assumed to be uniquely gifted and able to rise above the squalling rabble of children that passes for humanity in these views). We're not, and I have little sympathy for people who refuse to take up the responsibilities of adulthood (the mentally handicapped, of course, are an exception--there is an objective reason they can't do so, and therefore it's not a moral failure).

 

[Piscivore]

So government control is bad, capitalist control is bad, but both of them together is good?

Excessive government control is bad.
Unrestrained capitalist control is bad.

Moderately strong, impartial as possible governemnt with equal access to all acting as a brake on capitalism, regulating use of "commons", and providing other necessary services the private sector can't or won't responsibly provide is good.

What about neither?

Unrealistic. In absence of formal structures of populist government the old, tribal-based forms will take hold. Despots, warlords, and kings. See: Somalia.

 

[Piscivore]

The highlighted part is wrong. Her characters WERE NOT infallible. Dagney and Rearden made specific errors which were pointed out over and over again. John Galt admitted to committing a serious error.

I didn't say "infallible" I said "infallibly competent". They only fail when the plot needs them to. But I'll take your point.

Rand didn't expect people to be perfect, but to be honest.

And that's not realistic.

And I don't expect people to be universally happy in a capitalistic society. I'm no Utopian; I acknowledge that people would be hurt, sometimes very badly, in capitalism. Like I said--and like you admitted earlier--all other forms of society treat humans like children

Because they are, for the most part. Even on this board, where we are supposed to be the most rational, scientific, dispassionate ones, we are a squabbling rabble throwing our emotional feces all over the place. If we can't act like "adults", who can?

To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones: "A person is rational. People are dumb, panicky, emotional, dangerous animals. And you know it."

(except, oddly enough, the rulers--some people, for no reason ever given, are assumed to be uniquely gifted and able to rise above the squalling rabble of children that passes for humanity in these views).

I have no illusions that my "rulers" are not also a spoiled, squabbling rabble. You'll find no "Philosopher Kings" in my thinking.

My underlying assumption is that every single person acts in their own self interest. This is not a moral imperitive as Rand suggests; they cannot do otherwise. There is no pure alturism; every such act is predicated on some benefit to the actor, even if it is trading their own life for some poilitcal goal.

The purpose of government is to allow equal access to the reins of power, equal access to redress of grievances, and equal access to economic and social opportunity for every member of society. Not those that are what we consider "adults", not those who can afford it, not those that have the right ideas. Everybody.

Anything more is too much. Anything less leads right back to despotism.

We're not,

Yes we are. Depending on how pessimistic I feel at the moment, I'd say at best 10% of us act in an "adult" manner, or as little as 1%.

...and I have little sympathy for people who refuse to take up the responsibilities of adulthood (the mentally handicapped, of course, are an exception--there is an objective reason they can't do so, and therefore it's not a moral failure).

You don't have to have sympathy or respect for them. You don't even have to find them particularly "moral". Doesn't make them any less a part of society than you.

 

[Dinwar]

Unrealistic. In absence of formal structures of populist government the old, tribal-based forms will take hold. Despots, warlords, and kings. See: Somalia.

The song Serious Steel demonstrates why this is true. Anarchism isn't so much a bad thing as it is an unstable thing--as soon as all government is abolished, people will form new ones.

Moderately strong, impartial as possible governemnt with equal access to all acting as a brake on capitalism, regulating use of "commons", and providing other necessary services the private sector can't or won't responsibly provide is good.

I agree, to an extent. A government that protects rights and helps enforce contracts is necessary. Where you and I disagree is, I believe, in what we consider the "commons". I think that the commons is a very, very limited set of specifically-defined properties and resources (those necessary for the functioning of government, or those temporarily held by the government while the parties disputing the property are in arbitration); the majority of property and resources in any country should be privately owned.