Ask Ayn
I picked up the Centennial Edition of Ayn Rand Answers; The best of her Q & A. The new libertarian book store in town (Liber Books) has a whole shelf of her works and her "philosophy" is experiencing quite a revival nationwide. Her deluded,illogical,poorly analyzed and articulated "answers" speak volumes about the state of popular Thinking.
Question: Are individual freedoms in this country eroding?
Answer: "Freedom" in a political context means the absence of coercion exercised by the government (which has a legal monopoly on the use of force).We are moving rapidly towards the loss of all freedom."
A few points, first: what is with the questioners qualifier "individual"? second: why would Ayn think we are discussing anything other than the "political"? Main point: Why is it only the government that is capable of coercion? Is she unconcerned with all other forms? Certainly the coercion of capital is more subtle but is it any less forceful? Does the government really have that "legal monopoly"?
Rand either purposefully or erroneously assumes capitalists have no power of coercion or that such power is acceptable and not a threat to freedom. And that one is free though under the control of market forces. She neglects the "soft" force embedded in cultural narratives,hegemonic ideologies, and economic power relations (especially production).And then there is this focus on "legal" monopoly, ignoring the far more prevalent and perfectly legal force used by capital: intimidation,indoctrination, exhaustion through labyrinthine bureaucratic spinning. Of course capital can use extra-legal force and just say sue me! Either way,freedom is restricted objectively yet it escapes her notice.
Question #2: Do severely retarded individuals have rights?
Ayn answers: "Not actual rights-not the same rights possessed by normal individuals."
This is where the fascistic side begins to emerge. And what is with "actual"? Actualized by all citizens at all times? As opposed to formal rights?
"Like children, they (retarded people) are entitled to protections because,as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own."
We can assume Ayn would be on both the Committee to Assess Normalcy as well as the Improvement Committee. One wonders what happens to the un-improvable, both child and retard.
"But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to a retarded person because he is unable to function rationally. Since all rights rest on human nature, a being that cannot exercise his rights cannot have full human rights."
Wow. Rights rest on "human nature". She must know what that is. And the Jews in the concentration camps had no rights because they could not "exercise" them. "Function rationally" is another standard to which it would be helpful to have some coordinates but alas, none are provided. Certainly a retarded person could exercise her rights; what she could not do is defend them. This is what society would do, were it actually free. Her so called epistemology is actually simplistic, off-the-cuff sloganeering. Broad, inconsistent and at heart, reactionary. No wonder Atlas shrugged.
posted by troutsky @ 9:16 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
The libertarians are in for shock, if they believe "lack of coercion," has anything to do with politics. Like Freedom Road Socialist Organization (after split two groups with the same name) found out, it's an armed body.
Secondly it mediates, so revolution isn't a common occurrence. The second reason is a far second.
Of all the questions I'm sure was in that book, you focus on the rights of the retarded? Her point is that severely retarded people can't have the same basic rights non-retarded people have. When you have to be protected from your own self-destructive tendencies as well as other people's capricious actions, you can't function in a normal environment.
I suppose that technically a retarded person has a perfect right to run their finger up their butt crack and sniff it, they just should be discouraged from doing so in public.
A retarded person person has a right to work, but he is limited in his employment opportunities. I'm sure there are many leftists who would insist that a certain percentage of medical students should come from the ranks of the mentally retarded, but forgive me if I seek medical advice elsewhere.
And of course there is coercion in all areas of existence, not just in government, and by the way, also not just in the market system. I suppose there is no coercion in socialism? Pu-Leeese.
The more you keep trying to build the perfect world, the more coercion there will be, by definition.
"I'm sure there are many leftists who would insist that a certain percentage of medical students should come from the ranks of the mentally retarded..."
----------------------
Nothing like the right wing when they use hyperbole. Of course we would. Preferably neurosurgeons.
Myself, I would rather have Randoids look at her acceptance of a strict philosophic materialism, the labor theory of value, her views on the gold standard and realize that she incorporated a lot of her thought from Marxism. She just perverted it a bit.
As Troutsky points out, she was utterly clueless about the group origins of mankind and the necessity of preserving the commons.
This helps us understand that as much as Libertarians harp that freedom is the greatest good and individual rights the only "true" form of freedom, we know we are dealing with folks who haven't tried to think it out.
If there are no individual freedom, there is no freedom at all.
Bingo... you win Pagan!!
Pagan
Of course the left would insist on the rights of retarded people to hold jobs that they are not qualified for. How do you think KKKultur and Ducky got their jobs?
It is time to end all the small talk and point to where communism leads, North Korea and Cuba. It was just a scam by totalitarians to create a new monarchism.
The Cabin boy Capo's model is the crack addicted war criminal drug pusher thug Hugo Chavez. Stealing property and handing it to cronies will not save him from creating Zimbabwe redux.
Lets see the right to own property, free speech, persecution
of Jews, ability to deliver goods and services are all subject to the whims of Hugo the certified lunatic.
Arm the contras and get it over
Any Rand is one of the more extraordinary pseudo-intellectuals of the 20th century. Follow the link on this post for a hilarious spoof of her metaphysics.
http://iamyouasheisme.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/ive-been-ayn-randed/
Quite an argument from the Randian in that thread, Lichanos.
"Of course. But I don’t recognize that I have any responsibility for the lives of strangers."
In other words, he, like a lot of Libertarians, is from the Sonny Corleone school of ethics.
It's worth directing them to the work of George Price who did work on the evolutionary nature of altruism. It's part of the selection process.
My point about rights Pagan is that if they aren't universal, somebody is controlling them. Who gets that power?
I don't find much value in rights discourse personally because it always comes down to enFORCEment. I would much rather have a share of political power, accepting the fact there will always be antagonism between folks.I don't know if that qualifies as a "perfect world" but it might be a step towards the Good.
As for individuals and their freedom, people may be free to laugh and play but are they free to choose an ideology?
Ducky, Miriam Markowitz did a great review in the Nation of The Price of Altruism:George Price and the Search For the Origin of Kindness by Oren Harmen. As you say, he figured out that kin selection was predominate in certain instances. I thought Beak would have cited the article!
I'm all for altruism, and I agree wholeheartedly that it has an evolutionary aspect. But government has a limited ability to enforce altruism, and when it does, it generally becomes just as politicized as anything else government gets involved in.
As for rights being universal, of course ideally they should be, but in a practical sense they can't be.
Its true that the needs of society have to be balanced against the rights of the individual, but humanity is far too complicated for the kind of one-size-fits-all solutions typical of government control, which always leads to coercion and if anything puts the brakes on social development.
Whereas when you have limited government and respect for individual liberties, the natural inclination of people will be to seek out that perfect balance to the best extent possible.
Its no accident that most of the scientific, cultural, political, and social advances of the last two centuries came from countries that had the most relative freedoms and respect for human rights and dignity.
There have been a few exceptions to this (for example, Korea invented the first armored ships) but as a general rule, it holds true.
"I would much rather have a share of political power, accepting the fact there will always be antagonism between folks.I don't know if that qualifies as a "perfect world" but it might be a step towards the Good."
The problem with most ideologies is they tend to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. But that's a problem with human nature that becomes reflected in government. The best role for government is perhaps as referee, as well as servant of, not master of, the people.
"As for individuals and their freedom, people may be free to laugh and play but are they free to choose an ideology?"
Yes, to an extent, just like they are free to an extent to choose a religion, but have to balance that right against certain pre-conditions, such as laws against polygamy or human sacrifice, etc. Ideology gets problematic when it becomes stagnant, and/or when it is forced on others. Ideology after all is nothing but just another religion.
@Ducky
Did you follow the link to the 10 easy steps to be an Objectivist? It's really funny.
@Pagan
...government has a limited ability to enforce altruism, ... it generally becomes just as politicized as anything else government gets involved in.
Who could disagree with this? Does it need saying? Does this mean we should shrink government to zero? Are you an anarchist? If so, say so. Are are you saying that we just need to be very careful. I agree with that.
...humanity is far too complicated for the kind of one-size-fits-all solutions typical of government control
Who is advocating one-size-fits-all solutions? On the other hand, some questiions are not very complicated. Rich and powerful people want to stay that way, and usually are willing to exert great effort to bend society to meet that aim. History is one long example of this...
...when you have limited government and respect for individual liberties,... people will be to seek out that perfect balance to the best extent possible.
Joe Stalin couldn't have said it better. The question is what one means by limited government, and how one implements it. Then the arguments get going! To refer to my previous example, the richest and powerful are quite happy to have limited government, especially if it is limited in its ability to restrain THEM. Now, if it restrains ordinary people from organizing to oppose them, that's okay. (Of course, those people weren't in favor of 'limited government'.)
The best role for government is perhaps as referee, as well as servant of, not master of, the people.
I'm sure that you will get 100% agreement from people of any political stripe that they want government NOT to be their master, except some real fascists. How it should be their servant is far from being as simple as you put it. The power-elite have one idea, the other 99% of the population, if they were asked clearly, would probably have a very differen one. How do you decide?
If government is a 'referee' does it stand back and let the two fight it out? Certain holds are barred, e.g. bomb throwing. That's sort of what happened in the 1930s as unions gained power. They were enabled to struggle by the NLRB, of course, only so far. The power-elite hated FDR for just that reason.
Now, the notion of a fair referee is more like Reagan's: fire anyone who protests - they are totalitarian.
No need in over-complicating things, Lichanos. In terms of the US we have the constitution as our guide, and strict adherence to it is all we need, especially since there is a built in mechanism that provides for amending it when necessary, and which has been done many times. Nor is there any reason to jump to the conclusion that the wealthy and the not-wealthy are natural enemies. Admittedly there are times when there are conflicts between one group and another, but such is life.
I tend to speak in general terms, because I want to make a comment, not a blog post in and of itself. But to be specific, in the US, it is a misnomer to say "the people" rule. They do not, as this is not a pure democracy. Nor does the government rule, or its not supposed to. The constitution here in the US is what is supposed to rule. All the pe0ple have to do is be vigilant. Unfortunately, many times it is our own government we have to be vigilant against, more often than not, than against any perceived foreign enemy.
Power is more of an opiate than any religion could ever hope to be.
The Full Ayn Randa
In terms of the US we have the constitution as our guide, and strict adherence to it is all we need
--------------
All we need to accomplish what?
I imagine it has something to do with "freedom" which Libertarians offer as the highest good. It amazes me how they manage to just make conflicts of interest disappear.
Never mind that they do at times talk about nationhood and somehow think their little individual actors will magically build one all through the magic of the market which just failed so spectacularly that you have to be astonished they won't consider that problems in their philosophy.
So they just keep on. The answer to Libertarian failures is more Libertarianism. They don't understand that they are Stalinists with a different politburo. The saddest thing is they have been made to believe the can one day become one of the inner circle through the magic of the invisible hand.
Massive fail, Fucky, I'm not a Libertarian, nor even technically a conservative, I'm just a little ol' Federalist.
Pagan
You can't have an intelligent conversation with brain impaired religious fundamentalists. The cult of Marx is more dogmatic and divorced from reality than the folks at Al Queda.
Seriously, what does the reality impaired fish fool know about rights while backing Chavez who decided he is God and can steal from opponents and give to cronies.
Talking about rights with commies should be summed up in one sentence. Communists have the right to remain stupid.
Beak, observe how Pagan at least engages in a civil manner. He makes points, others debate them. Others make points , he debates them. They are called arguments, not attacks.
Pagan: I understand not wanting to be labled. I identify with libertarian socialism, which puts plenty of distance between me and anarchists. I agree the U.S. Constitution is a bold document, but it's interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. As Lichanos points out , it has been interpreted most beneficially for a select few.
Troutsky
One does not bandy points with political criminals. In your case you are merely ignorant. In the case of Ren he may seriously have knowingly violated several laws.
As an exponent of an ass backwards philosophy that advocates the extermination of my people in the name of populist alliances I look at you in the same manner as a Black Man looks at a Klansman.
In the case of Ren he is actively helping a government that has its gangs target Jews for kidnappings.
As Hugo's cabin boy he will feign ignorance and play Julius Rosenberg
and lie until the end.
Since you like Chavez so much what is preventing you from departing permanently other than your wife's higher IQ.
Post a Comment
<< Home