d8d0d960   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.politics.libertarian   
   XPost: alt.society.anarchy   
   From: anarcissie@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 03:06:52 -0700, Charles Bell wrote:   
      
   > On Oct 23, 10:10 pm, Anarcissie  wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:46:49 -0700, Charles Bell wrote:   
   >> > On Oct 23, 11:07 am, Anarcissie  wrote:   
   >> >> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:05:42 -0700, Charles Bell wrote:   
   >> >> > On Oct 22, 11:11 pm, Anarcissie  wrote:   
   >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:00:30 -0700, Charles Bell wrote:   
   >> >> >> > On Oct 22, 10:26 am, Anarcissie  wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:28:17 -0700, Charles Bell wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> > On Oct 15, 1:09 pm, Dänk 42Ø  wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:40:11 -0400, Anarcissie wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> >> I suppose Rand's philosophy is basically the same as   
   >> >> >> >> >> classical liberalism,   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> > No.  To the extent Rand's philosophy agreed with   
   >> >> >> >> > Aristotelean Hobbes'   
   >> >> >> >> > radical individualism, is the extent to which Objectivism   
   >> >> >> >> > appears to resemble what is called classical liberalism, but   
   >> >> >> >> > as the philosophical base of British classical liberalism   
   >> >> >> >> > (Locke, Hume, Adam Smith) lies in Locke but also in   
   >> >> >> >> > Protestant Puritanism, Rand disagreed completely with,   
   >> >> >> >> > one, Locke's nominalist concept of human understanding and,   
   >> >> >> >> > two, the God-based granting of natural rights, and therefore   
   >> >> >> >> > everything that is given today as a basis for individual   
   >> >> >> >> > rights. Rand was as opposed *philosophically* to American   
   >> >> >> >> > conservatives as to American liberals whom she saw as basing   
   >> >> >> >> > individual rights in a collective rather than wholly   
   >> >> >> >> > naturally from the individual (as Hobbes).   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> I probably should not have used the word 'philosophy', which   
   >> >> >> >> is too general.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >> What I was referring to was her set of beliefs with regard to   
   >> >> >> >> functional politics.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > However, I thought I made clear (elsewhere, not here) that   
   >> >> >> > Rand's specific political statements -- incoherent and   
   >> >> >> > sometimes just wrong (in my opinion, of course) -- is not the   
   >> >> >> > interesting part of Rand's work. That one can come to an   
   >> >> >> > interesting divergence away from what is frankly liitle other   
   >> >> >> > than vanilla American libertarianism while sticking very   
   >> >> >> > closely to her own derivation of her politics is an important   
   >> >> >> > way to describe why she herself rejected libertarianism but did   
   >> >> >> > not very well explain why.  It is quite simply: she claimed   
   >> >> >> > that every individual has a moral right to uncoerced freedom of   
   >> >> >> > action . .   
   >> >> >> > . but from that  moral principle she concocted the political   
   >> >> >> > principle of the non-initiation of force which I consider   
   >> >> >> > wrongly stated and wrong, absolutely, if accepted as axiomatic,   
   >> >> >> > i.e., Rothbard's non-aggression principle. In other words,   
   >> >> >> > in my opinion, even as a political principle taken directly   
   >> >> >> > from a moral precept, an individual has a right to uncoerced   
   >> >> >> > action even if that requires the initiation of force to secure.   
   >> >> >> >  The best concrete example is DUI traffic law in which a person   
   >> >> >> > is apprehended, tried, convicted, and punished when he has   
   >> >> >> > actually never harmed a person or damaged property. [*] A   
   >> >> >> > libertarian strictly adhering to the non-agression princile   
   >> >> >> > would have to disavow not only all DUI law but all traffic laws   
   >> >> >> > unless a person is injured or property damaged.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > [*] To my knowledge, Rand never addressed this subtlety, but   
   >> >> >> > Objectivists have used convoluted logic of "potential harm" as   
   >> >> >> > a "threat to do harm" as a kind of inititation of force.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> It doesn't seem all that convoluted to me.  Think of a game of   
   >> >> >> Russian roulette in which you spin the chambers of the revolver   
   >> >> >> and point it and someone else's head without his consent, and   
   >> >> >> propose to continue the game indefinitely.   
   >>   
   >> >> > I reject that sort of analysis because I reject so-called game   
   >> >> > theory explanation for generalized human behavior. An individual   
   >> >> > does not make and cannot make deterministic-outcome decisions   
   >> >> > without also yielding to subjectivism, that is: denyng causality.   
   >> >> > [Objectivism, by the way, rejects determinism, except within a   
   >> >> > narrow range of physics solutions. The deductive school of   
   >> >> > Objectivists -- the Mr. Spock wannabes --  are simply wrong about   
   >> >> > how the human mind really works ]   
   >>   
   >> >> >> >>  Attempting to set up   
   >> >> >> >> a series of irrefutable positive beliefs about the universe,   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > (1) A is A.   
   >> >> >> > (2) Existence exists.   
   >> >> >> > (3) Consciousness exists; ones exists possessing individual   
   >> >> >> > consciousness.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > Refute.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Well, I'd say the initial problem is one of definitions.   
   >>   
   >> >> > No. The initial problem is that you refuse to address the issue   
   >> >> > because you cannot do so without contradicting your rather   
   >> >> > ignorant assessment of Objectivism.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> It's sort of like the problem of answering the question 'Does God   
   >> >> >> exist?' Before you can give the usual answers, 'Yes', 'No',   
   >> >> >> 'Maybe',   
   >> >> >> 'We don't know', 'We can't know', etc., there is the big problem   
   >> >> >> that the major terms 'God' and 'exist' are poorly defined, if   
   >> >> >> indeed they are defined at all.  'Consciousness' is not well   
   >> >> >> defined either, and 'Existence exists' has a recursive definition   
   >> >> >> problem.   
   >> >> >>  As for 'A is A'   
   >> >> >> we might want to say 'A = A' because that will give us an idea   
   >> >> >> what '=' means, whereas 'is' is used in a variety of ways, some   
   >> >> >> of which do not denote equivalence.  Also we probably want to be   
   >> >> >> reminded that '=' does not postulate or prove existence, for   
   >> >> >> example, 'unicorns = unicorns' or 'xox = xox'.  But if you just   
   >> >> >> want to say your three points are reasonable presumptions for   
   >> >> >> daily life most of the time -- unless one's daily lives involves   
   >> >> >> certain borderlands of physics and mathematics -- I can't see any   
   >> >> >> big objection.   
   >>   
   >> >> > And yet you resort to a kind of intellectually convoluted   
   >> >> > game-theory mindset as to how one really solves the problem of   
   >> >> > moral existence in society and reject a manifestly self-evident   
   >> >> > solution.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)