Small Question for Amicus: Does 'objective' analysis lead to a pro-war conclusion?

[Pure]

Question for Amicus: Do objective considerations lead to a 'pro war' choice in Iraq; i.e, 'stay the course' (more or less).

Here is one objectivist's view, one who's reconsidering. I find his argument sophisticated and intriguing-- that the 'state's' interests are not the type of 'self interest' approved by Rand or capitalist thinkers.

Interestingly, he suggests his position is NOT the majority view among Ayn Randians (i.e, they support beginning and continuing the Iraq war more or less as is.)

So which way do 'objective' or 'objectivist' considerations point?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/zupancic1.html

Do You Think I Could Get Away with Very Quietly Reversing My Pro-War Position?

by Neal Zupancic


I noticed in a recent conversation with an old friend that I am no longer a foaming-at-the-mouth warhawk. I expressed a sentiment that I was still "on the fence" about the issue. I believe that I have now come down from the fence, and am merely taking my time about saying good-bye to it. I'm a libertarian, and libertarians are anti-war. Pretty much as a rule.

But seeing as I was convinced of the libertarian philosophy some time after reading Atlas Shrugged, and Randians are quite voraciously in favor of the war, it makes sense for me to be somewhat conflicted. The authors at the Ayn Rand Institute, however, hold a tenuous position, as we can see summed up in paradoxical statements such as the one telling us that the solution in Iraq is "to start forcefully asserting our principle of individual freedom."

How exactly can you force someone to be free? Even in reading Atlas Shrugged I was never quite happy with Rand's views on what justified the use of force in some situations and not in others. She seems to say that it is perfectly all right to use force to further one's principles, as long as those principles are correct (and this is not in any way arbitrary, since the correct principles can be objectively determined).

So it is wrong to use the ultimate threat of force to collect income tax, but not wrong to use force to steal it back. Rand also places a value on human life at exactly equal to the extent to which the human in question is a competent follower of the correct principles – because if they aren't, they have failed in their capacity as humans and are really to be equated with dumb animals, or brutes, to use her term. Part of the justification for this mindset is that the brutes pull down the rest of us.

She implicitly forgives the hapless victims who wish nothing other than to do an honest day's work for succumbing to a system that is designed to cause them to fail – these people are expendable, but their situation is not of their own making. Given these values, it is not difficult to see why Rand would support war by a nominally capitalist State on a nominally religious one – the capitalists are decent, intelligent men and women who, like Atlas, hold up the world, while the religious folk are boorish sheep laboring toward their own destruction under the rule of a dictator who cares for them only to the extent that he can exploit them. However, the situation is not nearly that simple.

In Atlas Shrugged there wasn't a war. The competent people simply stopped supporting a corrupt system that was oppressing them, and watched it collapse. And yet far from being the utopian Galt's Gulch (a small valley run using objectivist/libertarian principles) that Rand wrote about, the America of today far more closely resembles the dystopian America that Rand used as a literary device to show us the ultimate ends of communism.

Rand wrote of the railroad as a symbol of the ability of free enterprise, and she wrote of the government incursions upon it as being indicative of the road towards ruin. Now the railroads are nationalized (they have been for years) and failing (ditto) and yet no one comments on the correlation nor does anyone take Rand's successful prediction as anything other than a lucky guess.

She wrote of successful entrepreneurs being punished and reviled for their success by less successful companies, and the Microsoft suit is as good an example of this as the historical examples she must have been aware of, like the successful lobby by the electric companies to be granted a State-sponsored monopoly. America is if anything much more anti-capitalist today than it was when Rand was writing her novels, and many of her worst fears have come true.

But in Atlas Shrugged she considers the American government to be buffoonish at best, and the scourge of humanity at worst. So why are her supporters supporting America? What moral right does America have now that America has become the enemy of personal freedom and self-ownership?

Rand's principles simply do not agree with the pro-war position, regardless of what her supposed intellectual heirs may believe. Furthermore, if Iraq truly is a corrupt and terrible nation that poses a danger to its own people, why not take the path of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged and abandon them to their fate? Clearly if Iraq is in fact a nation of dumb brutes presided over by religious exploiters, it can only collapse in on itself.

Contrarily, up until foreign involvement in the region Iraq was a center of prosperity and indeed of secularism. The rifts between socio-ethnic groups were stoked deliberately by foreign powers in order to achieve their own ends. Radicals gained a foothold because of our invasion of their land. And our invasion of their land, when they had never invaded ours, stolen from us, or otherwise used force against us, is directly at odds with Rand's postulates that man must act rationally in order to fulfill the promise of his nature, and that the use of force rather than rational persuasion denies man's nature as a rational animal.

Clearly, those in favor of war in Iraq do not consider the Iraqis people who can be reasoned with, and seek to deny their nature as man qua man. The reason for this delusion is obvious – Rand's disciples are not viewing things objectively, rather, they have set their sights on a supposedly expedient solution and sacrificed the principles they claim to follow on its altar. In fact, it is America that is not acting rationally. And why should it? America is not rational. America is not human.

Rand's principles apply to individuals. If America was an individual we could very well expect it to behave rationally. However, America is simply a name – a concept, a golden calf, a collective noun. As Rand demonstrates, collectives rarely if ever attain rational results – they are much more likely to drive competent individuals to antisocial behavior, punish success, and reward theft and deceit.

The Objectivist position in favor of war contradicts Objectivism itself, in many ways. The one way in which it doesn't is in Objectivism's disregard for human life. Individuals are just pawns in the struggle between the right principles and the wrong ones. To me, this seems like a pretty backward way of looking at things – after all, principles mean nothing without someone to hold them. The battleground of principles should accordingly be within the individual mind. The failings of the Objectivist case for war aside, I come now to my reasons for having supported the war in Iraq.

From the first, I viewed this war in terms of liberal vs. conservative, Democratic vs. Republican. As a knee-jerk reaction against liberal propaganda I began trying to justify the war. It was not hard – I grew up being taught that Iraq was a power-hungry nation questing for world domination and it was America's duty to stop it. I had followed the situation intermittently throughout the Clinton administration, mostly before I became a Republican, and I had read some statistics about the UN mismanagement of the aftermath on a libertarian website. The trouble was that at the time I was not well-versed in libertarian theory, and I misunderstood the point of the statistics.

The point was that the UN, as a collection of States, and possessing several characteristics of Statehood itself, was incapable of handling a situation such as the one in Iraq rationally. Indeed, the UN, led by America, had deprived Iraqis of the basic needs of life, and by some estimates caused a million fatalities. In my point of view, a war in Iraq would prevent another million fatalities in the next ten years. Just like in other episodes in American history, America would march in and everything would be okay. We'd put in peacekeeping forces and then restore the infrastructure such that Iraqis would no longer have to starve.

What my point of view failed to take into account was the inability of the State to fix its own problems. The answer to the destruction wrought in Iraq by the Statist US and UN was not, in fact, more State intervention. The further intervention made things worse, not better. I then attempted to detail some reasons why I am for the war – I was tired of hearing people dispute the official reasons, and wanted them to dispute my reasons.

I hoped that I could articulate the case for war better than the State could. And, in my opinion, I did. I made a case for war that was, by leaps and bounds, more convincing than the one Bush made. Somehow, I thought that this was an endorsement for Bush. When a snotty 22 year old is capable of producing better justifications for an action than the State is, there is a problem. The State's inability to complete so mundane a task as forming a convincing argument for its own actions somehow failed to deter me from supporting its endeavors. Eventually I turned to making light of the subject.

But the points I made as a joke are all too valid. War doesn't help people. America does launch wars of aggression relatively often. The US was not fighting for its own self-interest – the American people did not stand to gain by going to war. So the question is, who did? The politicians, clearly. All the pieces were there, but I did not put them together. The US was acting in a way that was detrimental to its citizens, for no apparent gain for those same citizens.

No wonder people took to the streets in protest. I called them selfish, and they were selfish – and so should we all be. We should evaluate an action and wonder what the expected gain is vs. what the expected costs are. If the gain is freedom for some people thousands of miles away and the costs are our lives and resources, is that really worth it? I still believe that my points about the no-win situation we seemed to be in may have been valid. If we kept oppressing Iraq, anti-American sentiment elsewhere would continue to rise and the credibility of the American State apparatus would have been threatened – and American credibility, such as it is, does indeed provide a measure of safety to us.

If we tried to stop all sanctions and leave Iraq alone it may indeed have armed itself to the extent that it could pose a measurable threat to world stability. If we tried to rely on the UN for a solution it undoubtedly would have continued its massive failure. If we went to war we risked the situation we have now – guerrilla warfare and an indefinite occupation. There is no way to know what would have happened had we chosen differently. What we can know is that the State got us into this mess.

War may indeed have been the best of all State options; however, that should not be taken as an endorsement of war, but as a damning indictment of the State. An institution that makes war inevitable should be discontinued as soon as possible. Any institution in which the best interests of the institution are at odds with the best interests of its members should be abolished by those members. As the State could not, in this situation, do anything but harm the interests of its members, so in many other situations it creates no-win scenarios and perpetuates cycles of violence, suffering, and misery.

Just as Mises demonstrated (see part 6) that one socialist intervention necessitates further socialist interventions in order to further the original goal, so does the history of America and Iraq demonstrate that one imperialist intervention necessitates further imperialist interventions, all in the name of peace and security and all taking the world farther from both of those goals. And even if there was a better option available, the failure of the State to discover it or utilize it strengthens the case against the State. I cannot judge what will be best for other people.

I cannot weigh the lives of a thousand US soldiers against the risks of allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. I have no standard of value by which to do so. Accordingly I should not be given the power to. Each individual should assess the value of his or her own life and take his or her own risks. George W. Bush may have made the best decision he was capable of, or he may not have – however, the fault lies not with the President but with the fact that the decision was given to him to make in the first place. No human being is omniscient and therefore no one can possibly weigh the outcomes of decisions affecting millions of people in any rational way.

By allowing the power to dispose of our incomes, efforts, and lives to fall into the hands of one person, or nine, or 435, we have relinquished our values and told some other group to enforce upon us their values instead, and they, unable to determine what is really best for us, have merely done what is best for them.

[...]

I have learned in the past year that regardless of morality, regardless of extenuating circumstances, regardless of personal philosophy, the State is not an appropriate tool to further a personal agenda. No matter how good or bad the agenda is, the State will make a mess of it. I think that people in Iraq should have a fair chance to rebuild their own peace and prosperity – I even think they should be compensated for what was stolen from them – but I no longer believe that the State can do it – whether it's America, the UN, or the fabled Iraqi democracy. December 30, 2004 [end]

Neal Zupancic is a bartender in New York City. He moderates the Knowledge Is Liberty weblog.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't see why not. The Soviets used 'objective considerations' all the time.

All this goes to prove is that Rand never lost the Marxist principles she grew up with. She merely replaced the 'objective' economic determinism of Marxism with the 'objective' economic determinism of Capitalism.

And I found the use of the U.S. railroads as an example of the 'perfection' of Capitalism quite laughable. Before the 'evil' State started to regulate them, the railroads were in a state of near constant failure, corruption and frequently went bankrupt. And much like Enron, the investors took a bath and the management got filthy rich.

Even when they worked, the railroads near monopoly power made doing business difficult for other businesses. Ask a late 19th century farmer what they thought of the railroads. Wear your asbestos underwear.

 

[amicus]

Well..it is now 2005 and I celebrated as I usually do, thus my reply may not be fully coherent, but I am appreciative of your question...

"...war conclusion?
Question for Amicus: Do objective considerations lead to a 'pro war' choice in Iraq; i.e, 'stay the course' (more or less).

Here is one objectivist's view, one who's reconsidering. I find his argument sophisticated and intriguing-- that the 'state's' interests are not the type of 'self interest' approved by Rand or capitalist thinkers.

Interestingly, he suggests his position is NOT the majority view among Ayn Randians (i.e, they support beginning and continuing the Iraq war more or less as is.)

So which way do 'objective' or 'objectivist' considerations point?..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

First off, I, personally am not an 'objectivist', I found too many issues I differed with to accept the philosophy intoto and I never 'followed' anyone in my life.

I discovered Atlas Shrugged in the bottom of trash can aboard a US Navy ship during a mid watch in the radio shack at age 18. The book intrigued me. I read it straight through and then again. It opened a part of my mind as never before.

I do not often visit the Ayn Rand Institute, nor follow their lead in any aspect of contemporary politics.

The reason being, and it is a personal one, I won a medal for a speech at an Ayn Rand gathering in Los Angeles in the mid 1980's. Which was a good thing, but, in the process, I saw what the 'objectivists' had become, mainly, Libertarians.

The social issues, such as feminism and abortion, seemed to overrule the work Ms Rand did in Philosophy and the group no longer drew my interest.

I cannot speak for how Ms. Rand would view the current middle east situation. I can perhaps extrapolate, from her statements, in general, how one should 'rationally' approach the threats of middle east deterioration.

Rand stated, and I agree, that a sovreign nation based on the principles of individual liberty and human rights has the right and obligation to protect its citizens by use of military force.

When Ayn Rand began her novels, in the mid 1940's, the world was somewhat different than today. There was a world wide conflict between Communism, fomented by the Soviet Union and embarked upon world domination, and a strong but undirected United States, unsure of its position in world politics and fraught with an isolationist history. "Be not entangled in foreign alliances" stems from Colonial days.

Ploeski, if I recall, an oil field, controlled by the Nazi's became a target of allied forces in world war two. And even before, the oil resources of the middle east played a part in world politics.

What I have found useful, from a study of Ayn Rand, is her ability to find the root, the basic core or reason, in terms of an individual and expand that concept to include the wider abstract. I.E. that an individual has the 'right' to defend himself against aggression. A fairly easy concept.

To expand that to the 'right' to extend that protection to ones family, extended family, community, state and nation, follows in logical order.

Beyond the sovreignty of a nation, USA, the ability of a people to extend that 'protection' depends not only on resources, but on purpose and intent.

In the history of the United States, after the Lousiana Purchase, and the purchase of Alaska from the Russians, aside from the Philippines and Hawaii, it would be hard to make the case that America has attempted to colonize other lands or peoples.

Thus, for a very long time, the United States became an 'isolationist' nation. We did not want international involvement.

World war one and two changed all of that. International Communism, changed all of that. Unprepared, unwilling and reluctant, the United States, in the 50's under Eisenhower, was forced by circumstance, to formulate another world view.

I surmise that you know history, as I do, and you can track, as I can, the events, following the Berlin blockade and the Jewish State of Israel in the late 1940's.

You can also track the demise of European influence, worldwide, following the Marshall plan and the increasingly complex involvement of the United States in International affairs over the past 50 years.

So, rather than ask me the question you have, why not apply your own 'objectivity' to the very complex problem of the middle east.

Include, please, in your answer, Communist China, with 1.3 billion people. India and Pakistan, both Nuclear equipped, with a combined poplulation of nearly a billion. The conflict between North and South Korea, the animosity between Japan and China, the third world poverty of Malaysia and Indonesia and the insoluable problems of black Africa.

In the eyes of some, perhaps many, the United States should resume an isolationist policy. We should withdraw from world polictics and maintain our existence as it is.

We could do that.

Perhaps we should.

Once upon a time, I thought I might have an influence upon such decisions, I find, now, in my waning years that I do not.

The torch is passed to you and yours.

Good Luck and Happy New Year....


Amicus....(not bad after a fifth of gin, eh?)

 

[Pure]

thanks for the torch, amicus, but since I'm likely older, I pass it back to you.

wish you had read the damn thing.

NOTE to rg,

fascinating, about simpleminded materialism. of course that's not exactly in Marx but more in, say, Stalin. see Althussser, etc. but i can believe that Rand always dealt in caricatures, since that's her bread and butter, and 'creative' output.

 

[amicus]

Pure...I did read the damned thing...three times before I replied and again, just now, to fathom why you said that.

I surmise you wish me to defend an aspect of the free market by discussing railroads or the overall philosophy of Objectivism and the history of capitalism.

I do appreciate the article you pasted as it reminds me that after 40 years since her death and 60 years since the publication of Atlas Shrugged, the impact of her work is still felt.

In this continuing debate or discussion on this forum I have yet to have even one advocate of the left defend a command economic system. I hear only a continuing criticism of the free market.

Of course, I know why, a state controlled economy cannot be defended. First off it does not work and second, it destroys individual freedom.

But I would like one, at least one, to admit that.

amicus2k5

 

[Pure]

ami, i think you want life made a bit too easy. of course i'd choose Rand over Stalin, and any of the great 'robber baron' capitalists (Rhodes, Rockefeller I, Carnegie, and Charles T Yerkes, the fellow that built the "L" and rapid transit in Chicago) over Mao in his latter years.

{Added: on Yerkes, see http://www.chicago-l.org/figures/yerkes/index.html }

In this continuing debate or discussion on this forum I have yet to have even one advocate of the left defend a command economic system. I hear only a continuing criticism of the free market.

First, I'd hardly say the US in the last fifty years is a 'free market' and surely you'd agree. So criticisms of US economics is not criticism of the 'free markets' (approximations of which existed in the late 19th century). Many or most of today's 'great companies' (by assets and business activity), the standard- bearers of capitalism are heavily subsidized, not to say tied into the military complex, e.g. Bechtel, Lockeed. Pigs at trough, not exemplars of the enterprising, creative (Randian) human spirit.

Likewise, "command economy" is an abstraction, or at best an attempt to conjure up Stalin and remind people of 'commands' that led to an excess of left shoes with no mates.

Not being a liberal or "kerry-ite" rich liberal, I don't have the encumbrances you attack. Though I don't have all the details at hand, I'd say that, for example, the Finnish economy is well run, and there's lots of freedom. Germany too is not a bad example, as are Holland and Denmark.

I don't think any of these are less 'free' by any standard measures, such as freedom of the press, etc., although there are economic restraints (deviations from 'free market')

The other side of the argument is to look at quality of life: there are measures of infant mortality, quality and quantity of good medical care that's accessible, 'standard of living,' completion of high school. Most of the countries named outrank the US on a number of these scales, as well as on composite scales.

In closing, I don't see, and have never seen from you any real evidence (objective!) that there's much correlation of 'free markets' with 'freedom' in the sense of civil liberties. {Though it is true that some dictatorships have attempted extensive economic intervention ('commanding').} But I think it's counterproductive just to focus on extremes, or allege that the bad one is just around the corner. Indeed, I think many 'liberties' have been extended in the US in the last 100 years despite increased deviation from a 'free market.' (Fewer prosecutions for blasphemy, and for oral sex.)

---

PS: Ami, it may surprise you, but I was raised Republican, and in late high school was an admirer of Goldwater. I checked out Rand, but because of my reading in philosophy, I could not take her philosophizing seriously. I used to 'teach' a novel or two of hers in a literature course, but despite their 'zing', they are not really that good as novels: they're canvases for her to advocate her ideas (like the socialist realism in art, in the Stalin period).

 

[rgraham666]

One could hardly call the economies of the late 19th Century 'free'.

Certainly, there was less government interference than there is now. But many parts of the economy were ruled by monopolies or trusts. Who 'commanded' the economy with an efficiency Stalin would have envied.

And 'free markets' and 'freedom' are, in my opinion, somewhat incompatible.

Free people are too likely to say, "I'm not putting up with this shit." Or, "You want to take advantage of the nice infrastructure we've put together. Then help pay for it asshole!"

It's not a surprise to me that the business community is so hot over China. There are never going to be any unions in China. And nobody will talk back, more than once.

As one of my favourite writers puts it, "Capitalism was content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirious under General Pinochet."

 

[amicus]

Pure....


I am certain you are well read and knowledgeable about many things and I would not accuse you of not knowing American business history.

It is is for others who may read that I point out a few things about the history of business, manufacturing and corporate endeavors.

There was very little 'private' wealth in Mercantile Europe as the American colonies took hold and prospered. The European legacy of upper and lower class, of landed gentry, left very little room for commercial enterprise outside the approval of the Lords and Ladies, blueblooks, one and all.

I want to skip forward, past the Revolution and past the war of 1812 into the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution that eventually brought prosperity and a better life for American citizens; still keeping in mind that the accumulation of wealth was still basically reserved to a certain upper class engendered by the English mercantile system.

Those ingenious industrialists you pass off as 'robber barons' were actually something quite different. If you seriously read the history of the development of steel, oil and coal industries, the backbone of the industrial revolution, you will find some truly gifted and amazing men.

Men, including entrepeneurs, scientists, inventors and planners doing things that had never been done before, creating industry that mass produced goods, employed many and pumped money into a growing economy.

Factories sprang up and communities formed around them, railroads opened new areas for settlement and commerce and land for anyone who would venture forth.

Any one of the areas, mining, manufacturing, oil, coal, railroads, iron ore, gold, silver, the ingredients that a free people turned into wealth and prosperity and the foundation for a nation that was to soon surpass Europe and the rest of the world.

There were those then, as now, who saw this progress, this industrial revolution as destructive of the pastoral lifestyle of peasant europe.

But for those of you who enjoy truly fascinating reading, explore the growth of american enterprise in those fields and the spin offs, the building of towns and cities and the growth of an urban society in the wildnerness. It is a marvelous story and one all americans should be proud of.

Were I not so engaged in just defending the ethical and moral base of a free market economy, I would join with many who criticize the restrictions and regulations placed upon business and industry.

As I said at the beginning, I can not open your eyes, but for those who read and perhaps do not know the history, perhaps, just perhaps a few might find their eyes opened to the truly magnificent accomplishments of a free market place in a free country.

I am currently speaking with a young woman in Vienna, Austria who spoke to me of the apathy of Europeans. The lack of energy and ideas, a deadness of spirit that seems to pervade the continent. She has a doctorate in Diplomatic affairs but is disheartened by the socialist agenda that dampens individual endeavor and chills those who would go on to new things.

That, in essence, is the core of the evil of socialism; it destroys the will of the individual to create. Europeans, some of them, get 5 weeks vacations and pay for 14 months a year and are unhappy in their work and in their lives. The same malady afflicts Canada and England and I hear it from all I speak with.

There is no vitality in Europe, it is a stagnant society and getting worse by the day.

It makes it easier for me to understand the jealous hatred expressed by many about the United States.

The novels of Ayn Rand, yes, tedious for some, but when a novel such as Atlas Shrugged continues to be sold in great numbers 50 years after first publication, one is compelled to question why.

rgraham, you are comfortable in your safe web of belief, and I feel no need to event correct your misapprehension of Monopolies and Trusts, anyone who wishes to understand why companies such as Microsoft become targets of the bureaucrats and the second rate companies that cannot compete, need only read the history.

It is but the elitist intellectuals sipping Couvoisier and tapping their toes to Brahms, while enjoying the dividends of their investments who wish to politically manipulate and control the market place for their own ideology.

as someone said, thas my story and I'm stickin to it.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

ami, you said,

I am currently speaking with a young woman in Vienna, Austria who spoke to me of the apathy of Europeans. The lack of energy and ideas, a deadness of spirit that seems to pervade the continent. She has a doctorate in Diplomatic affairs but is disheartened by the socialist agenda that dampens individual endeavor and chills those who would go on to new things.

That, in essence, is the core of the evil of socialism; it destroys the will of the individual to create.

Well, we'd have to specify some measures of quality of life, and well as creative endeavor. To take an example I'm somewhat familiar with: Nokia, is a large Finnish company, which is a creative leader in developing new Information and Communications Technology. Siemens, I believe is German, and also a leader in its computer field.

So we'd have to agree on measures of creativity and real business build up, as one sees with Sony and Mitsubishi of Japan.

It's been observed by many that much US (large) business activity, is in the form of mergers (e.g., Time Warner with AOL) and other splits, junk bond issues, and 'reorganizations' that don't create anything except profits for a few insiders.

Further, 'deadness of spirit' has to be weighed against other things, like 'deadness of Black babies' in NYC. As you know, US, for infant mortality is not even in the top 10 of industrialized nations.

So you tell me the indicators of a 'good life' and we'll look at the US vs other countries such as those I've mentioned. Tell me the measures of industrial-technological innovation, and we'll see how things stack up. Please supply some figures.

PS, as to
Any one of the areas, mining, manufacturing, oil, coal, railroads, iron ore, gold, silver, the ingredients that a free people turned into wealth and prosperity and the foundation for a nation that was to soon surpass Europe and the rest of the world.

This is too onesided, in pitting the US against Europe. Both England and Germany developed massive industrial machines in the period in question. Capitalism was neither invented nor pioneered in the US. British industrialists like Cecil Rhodes set up railways, roads, and mines in Africa that transformed the face of the earth. It's true that there's been an American ascendancy after WWII, but the early capitalist transformations you speak of (1850-1930) were happening in a number of places, including Japan.

Again, you miss the point that in this period (post 1930) that for you, is US decline of internal 'free market', there is increasing freedom in the US, measured by 1) voting (extension to Blacks), 2)free speech, 3)freedom of religion, 4) extensions of due process, and 5) protections of privacy.

According to your analysis, Americans should be losing freedoms, since, say, the New Deal, and that is simply not the case.

I've given five areas of 'civil liberties' and I dare you to name some areas of decreased freedom in the US, in this period outside the area of business and commerce, and the tax burden necessary to support basic public services, unemployment insurance and [old age] social security benefits. ** Some exceptions to these new freedoms were brought about by Mc Carthy, and lately GWB-- hardly 'command economy' types.

----
**These exceptions are justified since we're not arguing about whether restricting the free market restricts some business activity (obviously it does); we're arguing about whether restricting the free market produces restrictions of freedom *elsewhere,*, and in civil liberties, democratic and criminal process, etc.

 

[gauchecritic]

Don't wish to derail the thread but would like to point out that I personally have defended both socialism and communism by comparison with capitalism. I seem to recall that quite a number of others have defended at least 'liberalism' without actually attacking capitalism.

I also seem to recall that lots of the 'attacks' on capitalism were actually attacks on multinational near monopolies, not quite the same thing.

One last thing. Microsoft became the largest player in the game in much the same way as VHS did over Betamax which was the superior system.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

One last thing. Microsoft became the largest player in the game in much the same way as VHS did over Betamax which was the superior system.

A further derail. Sorry Pure and ami but I've never really given a fuck about Rand or the others who believe that Capitalism is not just an economic system which best produces stability amidst the chaos of human greed, but rather a religion.

The Microsoft example has always fascinated me especially in modern day. Right now, the Windows OS, the cornerstone of the Microsoft empire is only resisting the death spiral of its shoddiness because it is the sole platform for which all games come out for. For day-to-day activities and reliable programs people are turning to the reborn competitor of Apple or the intriguing Linux. Apple has its cornerstone of graphics and ease-of-use. For non-gamers it represents another "user-friendly" system for noos. This system is also more favorable because since it is based on Unix, it's far more stable than Windows.

But for those who truly enjoy the best of all programs and systems and for companies that actually do care if key secrets are known by Timmy AOL User Age 6 is Linux.

Linux is the type of example that makes guys like amicus explode. Here is a system that is vastly superior to anything on the market that is utterly open source, free to anyone, and aided by an army of devotees grateful for the superiority and freedom. This army has not only aided distribution, but has also released the highest quality of nearly every conceivable application (including a Windows OS simulator for game playing) for yet again no money. And since these objects are all open source and free to the world, no company can try and buy them out or shut them down in a competition killing manner (not even Microsoft's flawed doggy, SCO).

Basically Linux and Open Source are examples of communism in it's idealistic form, the form that's free from the plunge into totalitarianism or state-controlled economies that make it ill-suited for the real world. Something built of quality for no money which is perpetuated by gratitude and the desire of its users to make it even better for themselves and the community at large. Philosophical good and goodwill free from the fetters of greed (because the greedy can just drink of the labors and not contribute without hurting anything and actually aiding the goal of both a greater number of users and good advertisment by word of mouth).

The whole example of Linux and its slow domination of the weaker and virus-laden Microsoft system is intriguing in how it shows both a working example of working communism as well as revealing a myriad of the reasons why it wouldn't work on a larger scale. It has also revealed how competition-hindering actions by corporations have a negative effect on delivering the best product to the people. Overall a beautiful example only hearlded in the underground, in the anarchic online community where it has thrived (along with anarchy (so far, here's hoping it lasts)) of a myriad of things.

Anyway, just wanted to throw that two cents out there into the miamasa of shit.



Oh and amicus, minor point, but I'd imagine that many people anywhere would be quick to moan about the dearth of creativity in the modern day. Salinger, Francis Bacon, Kesey, and the Beats all commentated on the mechanization of the souls in America. How we have let ourselves become slaves to the latest fashion, trend, and advertisement without an ounce of individuality. And don't get me started on the truly modern nihilistic thinkers and postmodern authors. Europe would be even more likely to receive that criticism now that they are beginning to unify. I doubt it truly means what it would seem to the crafters of creativity. For instance today in cinema and television, the winners for innovation and imagination and creativity are England and Japan who've produced entertaining, thoughtful, original pieces while American free corporate syndicates have mostly recycled old trash and concepts and all truly innovative shows have met unfortunate endings. It is a shame that in a nation such as ours that has contributed a hefty weight to the world of imagination that we are so anti-creativity in the modern quest for empty profit.

 

[amicus]

The unholy trio of Pure, Gauche and the evil one himself Luc has descended contiguously upon the White Knight of freedom, alas alack woe is the world can the brave Knight sustain?

By the way, Luc, Seasons Greetings...

"...Basically Linux and Open Source are examples of communism in it's idealistic form, the form that's free from the plunge into totalitarianism or state-controlled economies that make it ill-suited for the real world. Something built of quality for no money which is perpetuated by gratitude and the desire of its users to make it even better for themselves and the community at large. Philosophical good and goodwill free from the fetters of greed (because the greedy can just drink of the labors and not contribute without hurting anything and actually aiding the goal of both a greater number of users and good advertisment by word of mouth)...."

This concept of idealistic utopia, nirvana, has been the bane of irrational dreamers since the time of Plato and before. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need..." I thought Rand explored that graphically in the motor company she illustrated in Atlas Shrugged.

The crass, hurly burly confusion of the free market, the movement of goods and services between supplier and consumer, has always threatened the tender hearted who have no stomach for the 'real' world of common people with common goals and oftime even more common entertainment and recreation.

That the market place supports Nascar and WWF, and the NBA and NFL and soap operas and really bad television and films is proof to some that the free market, capitalism, produces blind consumerism at the lowest common denominator.

That self same market place also produces the Boston Symphony, the finest architecture in the world, drug research second to none, the best Universities in the world, a transporation system second to none (in terms of numbers) and the cutting edge technology in all scientific endeavors.

Democracy and the free market are both 'messy' endeavors, open ended efforts of 300 million people going elbows and assholes into the future in a direction 'they' choose individually.

It is not the ideal of socialist dreamers and planners who continue that Orwellian vision of a managed society of antlike workers and visionary leaders all calmly marching in step for the common good, the 'greater good' of utopian dreamers.

That the common masses in this messy democracy, by spending their US dollars as they choose, and voting for whom they choose, can accomplish what they have, causes the garden variety european social democrats to have fits.

When the Pures, and Gauches and Luc's of this world, if given the opportunity could guide us to Nirvana of a much higher quality it must be galling to see the world 'Americanized' by the ugly americans hawking their wares at McDonalds in Paris and Walmart right next door.

Just as the Aussie began as a prison colony, we Yanks came from everywhere, escaping oppression and feudal mercantile europe and totalitarian asia. We've done a rather bang up job of preserving our sovreignty and extending our influence around the globe and in general sticking our noses into every degraded corner of the world.

There are far more than enough of you out there to point out our failings and inadequacies, I need not even address them.



"...Well, we'd have to specify some measures of quality of life,
and well as creative endeavor. To take an example I'm somewhat familiar with: Nokia, is a large Finnish company, which is a creative leader in developing new Information and Communications Technology. Siemens, I believe is German, and also a leader in its computer field.

So we'd have to agree on measures of creativity and real business build up, as one sees with Sony and Mitsubishi of Japan.

It's been observed by many that much US (large) business activity, is in the form of mergers (e.g., Time Wwith AOL) and other splits, junk bond issues, and 'reorganizations' that don't create anything except profits for a few insiders.arner

Further, 'deadness of spirit' has to be weighed against other things, like 'deadness of Black babies' in NYC. As you know, US, for infant mortality is not even in the top 10 of industrialized nations....."

Well...Finland joined the Nazi's in 1941 and invaded Russia and I need not remind you of the US Marshall plan that rebuilt Europe following WW2. And Japan was defeated and occupied and rebuilt as a market economy as was Taiwan and South Korea. If you gather my meaning, those economies exist because of the United States, not in spite of it.

Further, they can now compete as the US shouldered the bulk of the burden of defense against the Soviet Union during the Post ww2 and cold war eras.


"...It's been observed by many that much US (large) business activity, is in the form of mergers (e.g., Time Wwith AOL) and other splits, junk bond issues, and 'reorganizations' that don't create anything except profits for a few insiders...."


Well it is simply not true, and I think you know it that 'much' of business activity is in the form or mergers...some of the market works that way for reasons of its own. Junk bond issues can raise billions of dollars in venture capital with little risk in terms of dollars and large returns is the new venture is successful. Mergers and acquisitions serve a purpose and while the benefits may not be easily observable to the common observer, they serve to refresh the foundation of industry, bring in new management and wean off unproductive enterprise. I suggest the stock market pretty much takes care of its own. Since nearly half of all Americans own stocks and bonds in a very diversified market, perhaps you ought to 'rethink' your statement.

Accuse me of being racist no doubt, but demographics in America, minus African Americans and newly arrived Hispanics, paints an entirely different statistical pool than that you refer to.

As you may have read elsewhere, I view Roosevelt's imposition of forced retirement taxation, Social Security as a monstrous scam and outside the constitutional boundaries of what our government is permitted by law to do. I would like to see it abolished.

There is also no constitutional mandate to impose mandatory education (public schools) or mandatory medical care, (medicare, medicaid) on the American public. These are left liberal, progressive incursions into the stated freedoms of a people to determine their own future.

Democracy, individual freedom, guaranteed human rights, all relatively new in human history, have made giant steps in a brief 300 years. Not for an instant would I apologize for the progress brought about by freedom and the free market place. Which, I might add, are intimately related...but that may be the subject of a future post.

2005...may it be a good one for all...


amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Hey ami, thanks for the season's greetings.

Perhaps you misread me, but my point was that communism CAN'T work on a larger scale because it does not factor in human greed, but that Capitalism does and is thus more stable.

The example of Linux and Open Source software is intriguing because it's a form of communism that somehow has stabilized itself through the distributing power of the internet. Similarily the internet is the only form of anarchy (that comes readily to mind) that has actually stabilized and proven viable.

That these are micro exceptions to a macro rule (that Communism and Anarchy will FAIL in the greater world and collapse into totalitarianism) was I thought a pretty clear point that I had made. Sorry to have seen it pass by your "Luc is a commie" filter again. Perhaps another circuit path will show you the point I was actually making.

 

[amicus]

Well, Luc...I am no familiar with the OS you mentioned or its history..but when you start off assuming that all will agree that human 'greed' is endemic, yes...I filter it out.

Socialism can not fuction on a large scale because it denies the natural impulse of each human to be free. Not for your pre supposed religious fervor that man is born evil and greedy.

But then, I am surprised that we can agree upon what day it is, with times zones and all....


cheers and ciao...


amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Well, Luc...I am no familiar with the OS you mentioned or its history..but when you start off assuming that all will agree that human 'greed' is endemic, yes...I filter it out.

Socialism can not fuction on a large scale because it denies the natural impulse of each human to be free. Not for your pre supposed religious fervor that man is born evil and greedy.

But then, I am surprised that we can agree upon what day it is, with times zones and all....


cheers and ciao...


amicus...

Um...k.

Okay, it is true that I believe that most people are greedy at least to some degree, though due to my romanticism I still hold out hope that the number of people that would gladly pay other people's blood for money is in a minority.

Yeah, yeah, and now the but. BUT, it doesn't take a majority of greedy people to make communism or anarchy fail in a macro world, it takes one. And not even you can disagree that there is at least one greedy person in the world.

The Linux Open Source example corrects this communistic error because if someone is "greedy" they do no harm to the distribution or to the innovation and inadvertently aid membership and advertisement.

But I suppose you are correct that our world views do clash inconsolably now that I take the two seconds to think about it. Yes, indeed they do. You assume that people cannot exist in the freest forms of government and economy because of a lack of freedom and I assume that utopia cannot exist because of human nature.

Add that to our greater worldview clashes and yes, I suppose even in this civil frame we find ourselves at an impasse.

Enjoy your January ami. And it's Sunday.

 

[amicus]

Y'know, Luc...When I was a wee tad, I spent time fishing, even spent time flipping rocks into a pond just to watch the ripples.

People do things for all sorts of reasons, pleasure, entertainment or work, in order maintain existence or acquire things they desire.

Seldom to they give away their time to others for others to use as they choose. Altruism, sacrifice of self, can be justified in a parent caring for a child or a loved one, but reason tells me a rational person does not sacrifice his or her identity, time or effort for the 'greater good' without a gun to the head.

I may be wrong, but for you to get me into a socialist environment, you would have to use that gun as I would surely not volunteer. Now maybe there is only one who thinks such as I do, but even you will admit, the odds are against that.

Yeah...it is Sunday...football is on...damned Dolphins died again.



amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Y'know, Luc...When I was a wee tad, I spent time fishing, even spent time flipping rocks into a pond just to watch the ripples.

People do things for all sorts of reasons, pleasure, entertainment or work, in order maintain existence or acquire things they desire.

Seldom to they give away their time to others for others to use as they choose. Altruism, sacrifice of self, can be justified in a parent caring for a child or a loved one, but reason tells me a rational person does not sacrifice his or her identity, time or effort for the 'greater good' without a gun to the head.

I may be wrong, but for you to get me into a socialist environment, you would have to use that gun as I would surely not volunteer. Now maybe there is only one who thinks such as I do, but even you will admit, the odds are against that.

Yeah...it is Sunday...football is on...damned Dolphins died again.



amicus...

Some people are just nice. Some people are bastards. In the Linux world geekiness seems to be the big motivator. People want a program that works and does something nifty. They share it for free because others have done that for them and because of credit and to some just because they are kind-hearted (like Linus Torvald and whoever came up with GNU).

I don't think you are the only one who would be nice or altrusic only if they had no other choice. However, I know for a fact that there are others who have been nice and altrusic even when they received nothing except pain and condemnation (he was an atheist too, you'd have definitely called him rational. Talk about no reward)

Liked the Dolphins when they still had Dan Marino and before what's-his-name started fucking with Marino's gameplan. Now I mostly watch baseball.

BTW, you inadvertenly proved my earlier greedy point (the age old "what's in it for me").

 

[amicus]

BTW, you inadvertenly proved my earlier greedy point (the age old "what's in it for me").


I call that 'rational self interest' not a bad thing, but a good one and has nothing to do with greed.

 

[gauchecritic]

Seldom to they give away their time to others for others to use as they choose.
amicus...

I don't call 20 out of approximately 100 people that I know personally as being seldom. I'd call it minority. I'd call it payment for favours received (in a what goes round kind of way). But I wouldn't call 20% seldom.

On the other topic (one of your favourites) can you really say that you would be who or where you are today without government interference? Without state schooling? Without taxes?

You look at the economy of the world from your lofty, educated, money soft perch and completely ignore everything that put you there.

Now I'm not saying that I contain or even ever refer to exactly those same things that placed me several places below you, but they are the things that I rail against and that you would uphold and continue into a soft, decadent, autocratic future.

Given the choice of freedom or death then you and a very large percentage of people would opt for hidden option c: Carrying on as always.

And therein lies the biggest problem with freedom, the freedom to be ignored in the direst of circumstances, which, given self interest and greed as motives, is always the easy option for onlookers.

 

[amicus]

Gauchecritic...

"...You look at the economy of the world from your lofty, educated, money soft perch and completely ignore everything that put you there...."

Perhaps you did not read the post where I noted my employment in the fields at .50 cents an hour, or my forest fire fighting summer at 15, for 30 dollars a week, or my first radio job at $1.00 an hour.

Perhaps you have presumed too much of my advocacy of a free market system as opposed to a controlled one.

My interest in a free market system is not a vested one, rather an intellectual one.

I have worked as a butcher in a meat market and fished commercially for salmon and tuna, I have been a logger and driven a dump truck, a fry cook, a dishwasher and a security guard, just to name a few.

I served in the military as an enlisted man and did college on the GI bill and working as a pizza cook and a disk jockey.

But if you wish to see me in my New York Penthouse, bent over my laptop manipulating my portfolio of high return investments, then, so be it.

amicus...even more and less than you might think...

 

[gauchecritic]

I actually said "money soft perch". Anything else you took from that sentence was your own doing, I merely ascribed to you a present time modicum of wealth. Viz: an internet connection and the equipment and time to use it.

However much you care to paint a picture of library access and then home to wood fueled fire then sleep on the ashes to stay warm, I shall use my freedom to deny you that.

Having said that (and being disprovable with phosphor dots) I shall further say that you do indeed have a vested interest in your free economy in order that you may enjoy your (my imagined) benefits. For without that free economy that you espouse, and which you roundly accuse your interfering goverment of destroying you would not be in any position to refute the aforementioned.

Let me put it this way. Through your own perseverance (and government sponsored GI bill) you are (deny at will) far and away better off than some 50% of your countrymen. Your bootstrap people in your bootstrap economy fall naturally into their relative strata without the aid or benefit of history, government, slaughter, slavery, greed or malice. Yet you find the time and famous aggression to denigrate any and all attempts to alleviate that same 50% (neither by taxes nor state help) from their undeniable (relative) poverty.

I put it to you mi amico that you do so from a priveledged position and it is this very position that gives you the freedom so to do, bootstraps notwithstanding.

Speaking of standing. You know the phrase "on the shoulders of giants"? Then understand this; uneducated, lower-class, underpriveledged people have shoulders too. What are you standing on?

 

[amicus]

Gauchecritic...


"...Speaking of standing. You know the phrase "on the shoulders of giants"? Then understand this; uneducated, lower-class, underpriveledged people have shoulders too. What are you standing on?..."


On my own two feet and determination, my friend, since I ran away from an abusive home at age 12.

I was born with a somewhat high intelligence quotient, IQ, which I had no clue of until about age 25, I rather suspect you carry the same burden.

You most likely know that the average IQ in America, is between 110 and and 115, depending on which source you use. You also most likely know that there are millions and millions in the 80 to 90 IQ range. They are the uneducable, the trailer trash, the menial laborer who can do no more than they can do.

I sense it is your opinion that those 'with' should be taxed to support those, 'without' and of course, I disagree. The best humanitarian gesture is to provide low prices for the things they need and work for them to do to earn a living. That is a true humanitarian ethos and a true free society ethic. They keep their dignity and do not feel as wards of the state and those who produce do not feel like benefactors.

I do not expect you to agree, but perhaps others will see the logic.

We, as a people, take care of our blind and maimed and retarded and less endowed, without your bleeding heart altruism and guilt trips, thank you anyway.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

Ami, just for the record, you never answered the original question whether 'objective(ist)' considerations lead to the conclusion of
'stay the course' --more or less--on Iraq.

As to your statement,
I call that 'rational self interest' not a bad thing, but a good one and has nothing to do with greed.

Also, just for the record, you ignore the fellow Randian's argument that the individualism of rational self interest does NOT lead to support of the STATE's action in pursuit of alleged 'state interests' or self declared reasons/pretexts for intervention in Iraq. In particular, if you support the present admin's Iraq policies more or less, you are committing the cardinal Randian sin of supporting 'statism' over individualism.

 

[amicus]

Well, I supposed I should be pleased that you know enough about Objectivist ethics to weave a web of entrapment for one who is in basic agreement with the principles of that philosophy.

You do recall September 11, 2001, yes, I am sure you do.

Without that event, the United States would not have conquered Afghanistan or Iraq. The 'containment' of the terrorism of UBL would have continued status quo.

Ayn Rands Objectivist philosophy was not strong on international events; perhaps the defining statement was that a free nation was morally justified in assisting an oppressed nation if it were capable, purely on humanitarian principles.

I think that is fairly easy to understand. If a single man observes a crime being committed, he has a moral 'right' to intervene on behalf of the innocent victim.

Not too hard for you to comprehend, right?

A single man, an individual, a town policeman, a county sheriff, a State trooper, a national guardsman, a marine, a secretary of defense, all these people are 'employed' to protect the innate rights of the individuals under their protection.

As Christian Missionaries felt the call to save the heathens, so it is the obligation of a free people to extend that freedom to the oppressed. Like it or not, as Great Britain before, we are the Policemen of the world.

Why? Because we can and because we should, in the interests of humanity.

It does not take a philosopher with the world wide stature of Ayn Rand to make that point; it is self evident to all who cherish human freedom and dignity.

Thus I need not refer to Ayn Rand, or Objectivism to justify American presence in Iraq; any rational person, respecting human liberty and freedom, instantly understands.

Why you do not understand, is your problem, not mine and not the free worlds; we know why. We put at risk the lives and the futures of our young to fulfill a moral obligation that all free people have.

amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

Perhaps you'd like to edit that last post mi amico and replace either the 'conquer' or the word 'free'.