Objectivism

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

Kane Augustus
Posts:120
Joined:Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm
Re: Objectivism

Post by Kane Augustus » Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:51 pm

ZAROVE wrote:Now now, I never said that people aren’t driven by self interest, I just disagree that all people always are.

There is a distinction.
I agree with you: people are not always driven by self-interest. I see that as an evident failing, to be honest. Rather, it appears to me to be a psychological disorderliness. Who can exist happily if they are discounting their own interests in life?
The problem with today’s Democratic World is that it deals in absolutes and never creates a workable system.
While it is that I would advocate a democracy over a monarchy, think that monarchism was a necessary evolution in human social groupings. In a sense, I look at monarchy as part of a progression toward responsible distribution of necessary freedoms. For example, were I to write out a continuum of the (at least) Western modes of human social arrangements it would look something like this:

Theocracy ---> Republic ---> Ecclesiocracy ---> Monarchy ---> Democracy.

I have, of course, omitted the fact that during Middle-Eastern theocratic reigns, there were two simultaneous ruling systems with the Romans (Republic) and the Greeks (Democracy). Neverthless, coming out of the middle ages saw a divestiture of centralised power being turned back to the people who were once governed by a single entity, the King. What was once the king's power, has now (at least as far as voting is concerned) become the people's power. Unfortunately, I don't see it staying that way for too much longer. The rest of the world seems intent on some shade of socialism that really does not bode well for any of us. Truth be told, I would prefer a Monarchy to Socialism any day.

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Objectivism

Post by ZAROVE » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:12 pm

“””ZAROVE wrote:Now now, I never said that people aren't driven by self interest, I just disagree that all people always are.

There is a distinction.”””

I agree with you: people are not always driven by self-interest. I see that as an evident failing, to be honest. Rather, it appears to me to be a psychological disorderliness. Who can exist happily if they are discounting their own interests in life?

The Trick is to make sure your self interest is the interest of others. Its not a failing, rather it is simply that we shouldn’t want for ourselves certain things. The Goal in Christianity is to not only change our focus rom our self interest to others, thereby ignoring our self interest, but rather to change what it is we are interested in so we no longer are so self centred to begin with, and our chief desire is the other party.





“”” The problem with today's Democratic World is that it deals in absolutes and never creates a workable system.”””

While it is that I would advocate a democracy over a monarchy, think that monarchism was a necessary evolution in human social groupings.
Not this again. Why is it that the Whig view of History has taken root? I blame it on that bloody rubbish “Evolutionary” notion we have that things progress upward in a Linear fashion.

Of course its all fiction. The idea that we went form primitive nomads to basic tribes, later on to form an Absolute Monarchy, which gradually eroded into a constitutional Monarchy, till it faded away in the face of Democracy is a purely modern invention. Today’s Trend toward Democracy was the product of Warfare and conquest, not Human advancement and evolution, and Republicanism is not some newer form of Government that came along to replace the Obsolete Monarchism, its just as old as Monarchism and is discussed by Plato and Aristotle.

Human History has been cyclical, not linear, and today’s Republican Supremacy will one day come to its end with Oligarchy, then return to Monarchy, and the whole thing doesn’t end till we do.

In a sense, I look at monarchy as part of a progression toward responsible distribution of necessary freedoms. For example, were I to write out a continuum of the (at least) Western modes of human social arrangements it would look something like this:

Theocracy ---> Republic ---> Ecclesiocracy ---> Monarchy ---> Democracy.

I have, of course, omitted the fact that during Middle-Eastern theocratic reigns, there were two simultaneous ruling systems with the Romans (Republic) and the Greeks (Democracy). Neverthless, coming out of the middle ages saw a divestiture of centralised power being turned back to the people who were once governed by a single entity, the King.
This is another rather common fatal flaw whenever I mention Monarchy. Monarchy was never actually Centralised in the Middle Ages. The idea that all power rested in the King who held absolute power, and whose word was law, didn’t exist in the Middle Ages. The Kings had very limited Powers, and had to constantly balance themselves against the Church and the Lords. The Local Aristocrat had far more powers than the King over his specific Domain, and on occasion had more money or manpower than the King, a position that often threatened the Kings Supremacy. History is filled with such intrigues.

Power in the Feudal System was highly decentralised, not centralised in the person of the King. The idea that somehow all power was vested in the King and centralised, and later divested from the King and given to the People, is just not reality.

Heck, in today’s Democratic world, power is more centralised than it was even in the early modern era Kingdoms such as France or England. The Democratic State will always claim more power unto itself in the name of the People than ever did a King or a Lord.


What was once the king's power, has now (at least as far as voting is concerned) become the people's power.
Not really. The Monarchies in the Middle Ages tended o serve as supreme Judges of conflicts beteen Local Lords, and as those who would have the responsibility to defend the realm. They held little real power.

In today’s Democracy, though, “the people” rule only nominally. The Truth is, all this talk about the people picking leaders is hogwash. For 8 years Bush was President an we had 8 years of people who hated him, who happened to be half the country, complaining about it. they didn’t vote for him, so somehow he wasn’t their president. Now, Obama is President and we’ve had two years of exactly the same sort of thing. The half of the population how didn’t vote for him rejects him.

The idea that “We, the people’ pick our leaders is an absurdity. We hold a massive popularity contest and however gets the most votes at that Moment wins and leads everyone. There is no such thing as a General Will of the people, just competing factions that continually divide against each other and attempt to quell each other, and their too busy fighting each other to really come together and fix the problems our society faces.


This allows the Politicians to intentionally highlight tout social differences to Galvanise their base to defeat the other party’s base, by telling how Threatening they are.

In the end, the Wealthy politically connected individuals will get into office a sour “Public Servants” who basically set laws and lead us, making them really Rulers who pretend to be Servants, whose power rest son that Social Division and having 51% of the vote.

“The People” is a joke of a concept.

It also violates the Principle of Individuality that is suppose to be Paramount to it as Democracy is inherently about communal power over the individual, just as Voting will never bring Unity as its divisive by its very nature. This is why Aristotle hated Democracy.


Unfortunately, I don't see it staying that way for too much longer. The rest of the world seems intent on some shade of socialism that really does not bode well for any of us. Truth be told, I would prefer a Monarchy to Socialism any day.

You do realise that Socialism is a higher form of Democracy, right?

Communism is the Highest Form of Democracy.

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Objectivism

Post by met » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:49 pm

An interesting question to me, Kane, is . . . "can people truly exist happily by only pursuing their own happiness?"
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
. . . We have some built-in attraction to these ideas in North America because they're largely the same as what we're taught as children. They echo our myths and our values - "the self-made man" - "freedom" - "each individual's pursuit of fortune and happiness for his or her own self. "But is it true? Someone was just telling me last week how a recent survey concluded North Americans are the LEAST happy and most psychologically dysfunctional group of people on the whole planet - in spite of being materially the richest. ( This bore out an anecdote the Dalai Lama likes to tell too, relating how shocked he was, shortly after he first arrived here, to discover how MISERABLE all those wealthy, ruggedly-individual North Americans looked and acted all the time; TT (i think) posted it up here somewhere once.)

. . . So what's that mean? . . . Are people here (and Rand) overlooking some basic human factors, some basic needs? . . . Like the need to relate to others and live in community?


What's Ayn Rand and the Objectivists have to say about community? Does that have any actual or intrinsic value for them?

. .. if not, is it REALLY rational and realistic to expect people to find happiness each in isolation?
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Objectivism

Post by ZAROVE » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:53 pm

I actually agree with you Met. I think we need a balance. The trouble is, people wan us to choose between individualism or being part of a larger community and putting it first. I think this is a rather unfair choice. Why can't I be an individual in the context of being part of a community? Why can't we balance communal needs and social responsibility with individual needs and desires? Why is it one or the other?

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts:1073
Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location:Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Objectivism

Post by QuantumTroll » Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:01 am

ZAROVE wrote:I actually agree with you Met. I think we need a balance. The trouble is, people wan us to choose between individualism or being part of a larger community and putting it first. I think this is a rather unfair choice. Why can't I be an individual in the context of being part of a community? Why can't we balance communal needs and social responsibility with individual needs and desires? Why is it one or the other?
It's not one or the other everywhere. It's just in countries with a screwed-up history of politics where the debate is so skewed. The particulars of why the US is in this category are for another time, but in Western Europe and in a lot of political science there's a more nuanced debate about the relationship of individual and community than you're apparently aware of. There are people who, very reasonably, argue for the individual right to do what s/he wants as long as it doesn't harm others, and then there are people who, also very reasonably, argue that the needs of the community put additional constraints on the individual. The question isn't whether we can be individuals or a community, but where in the spectrum we want to be and how.

Complaining that "people want us to choose between [two extremes]" is silliness. Which people? And in the US, especially, who is standing up right now and asking people to put the community before themselves? I mean, the US mainstream "left" is quite a bit right of the middle, and "socialism" is considered a dirty word and a curse. The big political debate in the US is about right-wing extremism vs. right-wing moderation. Anything further to the left just isn't taken seriously (perhaps excepting Ralph Nader and his fans).

Kane, you said
I enjoy the notion of laissez-faire capitalism, and think it would sort out a good many problems with people's lack of creativity as a means of self-subsistence.
What about the obvious problems with laissez-faire capitalism? It's clearly not a workable system since it inevitably leads to an exponentially growing wealth gap. What about abuses of economic force?

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Objectivism

Post by ZAROVE » Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:12 pm

AH but I do know Europe, and the problem with Europe is that, it isn't as Nuanced as you'd think. In Sweden for instance they have seized a Child from Parents who were Homeschooling, and Germany has outlawed Homeschooling. In most Nations in Europe, the State has the unequivocal right to educate the Child, and the Parents don't. What content such education has is also dictated by the State, and often contrary tot he Values of the parents. The goal is always to create a sort of conformity to a certain perspective, and thus rejection of other sorts of ideas.

Just look at the UK. ( I actually post on Lords of The Blog, and no one has yet accused me of beign ignorant of the debate) Baronss Murphy, one of the Life Peers who have regretably replaced the much mroe sensable Hereditary peers, wants to close Faith Schools down. Why? She claims they destory social cohesion. The reality is she just wants to use the schools as agencies to indocernate Children into her own Humanism.


What about Sexual POrientation? Most European Natiosn have jumpe don the bandwagon of Gay Rights, to such an extent that its basiclaly outlawed to even disagree with the Agenda.


Property Rights are bare minimal, with heavy regulatiosn on how one can use their own land. Free association and Free Markets do not exist either, as peopel are told who they wil or will not do buisness with.


I'm afraid I dont se it as more Nuanced an do see it as Favouring collectivism over Individuality, the opposite of America which tends ot favour individualism over COmmunity.

Its just a difference of degree.

Kane Augustus
Posts:120
Joined:Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: Objectivism

Post by Kane Augustus » Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:27 pm

QuantumTroll wrote:What about the obvious problems with laissez-faire capitalism? It's clearly not a workable system since it inevitably leads to an exponentially growing wealth gap. What about abuses of economic force?
A fair question, to be sure. And when I am a little more versed in the theory, I may be able to offer an answer. For now, please forgive my ignorance.

ZAROVE
Posts:412
Joined:Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Objectivism

Post by ZAROVE » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:31 am

Thats why I think that both Socialism and Capitalism are remarkably horrible things to run a societ by. Capitalism works well in the Marketplace, and allows rhe consumer and the entrepeneur vast optiosn to grow their wealth or material goods and meet their needs, and is by far the single best system on the planet for such matters. However, if you base a society aroudn a Capitalist principle, it will extend past the Marketplace and into every other area, where it doens't really belong. Look at the recent example of Fulton Tennessee and its subscription Fire Department, wich allowed a mans home to burn. That was simply wrong. I think the Government ( I this case city or county) should operate nonprofit emergency services, that will be paid for put pof the Taxes of the whole community, and used to ensure everyones mutual safety. Police, Fire De[partment, and emergeny medical including ambulance s4rvices should all be run on a social level.

So should the Post Office.

As a result I think Capitalism is a failure in socially needed emrgency protections and society requires a functioning Governemntal support mechanism.


But Socialism fails because it takes over aras its not suppose to, too. When Socialism mixes withthe Marketplace it stifles growth and destorys Freedom.


So I advocate Capitalism for the Marketplace, and Communal support as opposed to Capitalism for certain other things. Though I'd not be classed as a Socialist given that I don't beleice in Egal;itarianism and Democray, seeign them as innefficient failures that don't even protect the rights everyone so identifies with it.

And, this is why I advocate the older model, which was a Government by subsideary. We'd have an agreed upon Authority, a King, whose principel duties wodl include settlign disputes between rival local Lords, and nesurign the peopel who are his subjects are protected, but who coudl not Violarte their rights. Rights to be written on a Charter that is not Amendable.

A State Religion would also be erected, and though no one woudl be forced ot attend it, it woudl be seen as the general spiritual voice and moral concinece of the Nation. Other Faiths may also have official Govenrment representation, thugh thye'd be of lesser rank than the State Church.


The Focus woudl be on our Duties as much as on our rights.

The big problem with Socialism is that it offers us a faceless beureucracy that regulares evrrythign ostentatisuly int he name of "the People", a mass that never really agrees on anything.

This way our Focus is on our King, and our local Lord.

We'd have duties that would be centred around service to each other centred around our relationship to the owners of the estates or National Goverment. This provides an oeganic, agreed to point of reerence for everyone else to follow.

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts:1073
Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location:Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Objectivism

Post by QuantumTroll » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:48 am

ZAROVE wrote:AH but I do know Europe, and the problem with Europe is that, it isn't as Nuanced as you'd think. In Sweden for instance they have seized a Child from Parents who were Homeschooling, and Germany has outlawed Homeschooling. In most Nations in Europe, the State has the unequivocal right to educate the Child, and the Parents don't. What content such education has is also dictated by the State, and often contrary tot he Values of the parents. The goal is always to create a sort of conformity to a certain perspective, and thus rejection of other sorts of ideas.
Hmm, your argument is that the debate about individualism vs communalism (or whatever we should call it) isn't nuanced in Europe because children are forced to go to school? When I put it like that, I hope even you see that this is not a rational argument.

Moreover, you're aware that we have private schools, religious schools, and special schools, besides the regular public schools, I hope. Even in the homeschooling situation in the US, the state sets requirements as to the curriculum. We do this because we believe every child should have a fair shot at being a normal, informed, and educated member of society. And, for reference, the government recently ruled that Christianity should continue to have special significance in the curriculum, I imagine for the very good reason of its special historical and current influence on this country.

The debate in Europe, in the political forum, newspapers, TV, etc does treat the question of where on the spectrum we want our society to be quite explicitly. One of the recurring battles in this war in Sweden is the monopoly on selling strong alcohol. Should the government control access to socially acceptable poisons? Why or why not? Lots of other items are debated, all in the context of how the individual and society at large stand in relation to each other, including transportation, health care, education (esp. regarding "free" and religious schools), unemployment insurance, parental leave, the role of the EU, etc. Similar discussions occur in at least the Netherlands, Norway, and France, the other European countries I keep tabs on a little more closely.

In short, it's easy for me to support the argument that there's an ongoing and public debate about issues regarding the relationship between individual and society. It's also easy to show that the debates have two (or more!) sides, and the political process tends towards some kind of "middle" of the spectrum. I'm not saying that all sides are properly represented, nor that the results are in any way optimal, but I don't see any support for your assertion that this is a black-and-white issue.
Just look at the UK. ( I actually post on Lords of The Blog, and no one has yet accused me of beign ignorant of the debate) Baronss Murphy, one of the Life Peers who have regretably replaced the much mroe sensable Hereditary peers, wants to close Faith Schools down. Why? She claims they destory social cohesion. The reality is she just wants to use the schools as agencies to indocernate Children into her own Humanism.
Which tenets of humanism are incompatible with your faith? The Golden Rule? Don't be ridiculous, humanism isn't a threat to religion and faith. And if you're worried about using schools to indoctrinate children into secularism, then I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Catholic schools are the #1 producers of Wiccans, don't you know? More importantly, you haven't addressed her argument, you merely accuse her of a hidden agenda. Her argument is quite valid. If you want a mixed society, it's important for children and youths of different cultures to be in regular contact with each other. By separating children into different schools by religion, you make it very difficult for this to happen among some key groups, notably Muslims and the stronger Christian traditions. Closing religious schools or preventing them from being exclusive is an obvious way to effectively increase cross-cultural contact in younger people. And parents, for that matter. There's a lot of good in that, which might outweigh any negative effects you see. There's always Sunday school and weekday afternoons and evenings for more parent-directed education...
What about Sexual POrientation? Most European Natiosn have jumpe don the bandwagon of Gay Rights, to such an extent that its basiclaly outlawed to even disagree with the Agenda.
I'm going to ignore this, but would love to spend a thread with you about this in the future...
Property Rights are bare minimal, with heavy regulatiosn on how one can use their own land. Free association and Free Markets do not exist either, as peopel are told who they wil or will not do buisness with.
O rly? Then explain this list. You don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is told "who they will or will not do business with" (and it's "with whom", by the way). Look at the list, and find the South American nations that the US has helped make into libertarian, capitalist countries. Look at Central America. Look at the parts of the Middle East and South-East Asia where the US has been able to make "progress". These are the places where laissez-faire capitalism have had free reign. And look where they fall on the list. Some of them are below Bulgaria. Well done, indeed!
I'm afraid I dont se it as more Nuanced an do see it as Favouring collectivism over Individuality, the opposite of America which tends ot favour individualism over COmmunity.

Its just a difference of degree.
You're right in a sense. The end results in Europe are more on the side of collectivism than in the US. But this is the result of a debate that is wide-ranging, conscious, and nuanced. In Sweden, we have privatized things that the US government has not, like the post office. This is only possible if we actually discuss a wide range of ideological possibilities and not just collectivist ones. And we keep some things public, like selling strong alcohol, which you do not, because we've decided we like collectivism because it works.
Kane Augustus wrote:
QuantumTroll wrote:What about the obvious problems with laissez-faire capitalism? It's clearly not a workable system since it inevitably leads to an exponentially growing wealth gap. What about abuses of economic force?
A fair question, to be sure. And when I am a little more versed in the theory, I may be able to offer an answer. For now, please forgive my ignorance.
No problem. I only ask you to consider the fact that in capitalism, barring any other forces, wealth yields more wealth. This is an exponential function. Any initial inequality can only grow, and grows without bound. Think about what the consequences are and which forces can act as a brake.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Objectivism

Post by Metacrock » Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:20 am

If it's true that N European nations have taken children away form their parents for homeschooling I would like to see some docs.

Home schooling is a n old venerable tradition for the rich. I bet if people have money they can get away with it. I would like to see proof.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply