Intellectual Odds & Ends 2

1) Because earners are now the children of the government (more laws, more fines).

2) Because non-muslims are civilized and do not fight back.

3) Because the marxist see the overwhelming success of freedom as their failure, freedom seperates the wills from the will-nots.

4) Because those who are doing wrong do like it when it is pointed out to them.

5) Because they are better than Us, one set of rules for them and another set for Us.

6) Because it matters to them, although it doesn't make a difference.

7) Because those being harmed cannot talk back and their Mother or Father will not speak up for them.

8) See 3).

Why is America always compared to perfection by those that criticize her, and never to any real country? Where on earth is there an example of a comprehensive system that works better than the one we enjoy?

Because it is in the American Culture to improve on things. Whether one liberal or conservative they will see things in America which you think can be improved based on your ideal of perfection. Some ideas are good some are bad, some bad ideas even get implemented and woe to us then because its hell to scrap anyone's project after the wheels are in motion. However, I hope the people don't ever stop trying to reach perfection. (\sarcasm) I mean perfection here in the stongest sense of the word, my definition of perfection. (\end sarcasm) Which means I accept their critism. I reserve the right to critisize their critism or ignore it(and often do). The one thing I can't do is tell people to stop critizing America or anything else.

As for an example of a comprehensive system that works better, that would require empirical evidence of a theoretical system. Creating a chicken and the egg senario. This is the reason for critism, to discuss the refinement of the current system to improve it.

I realize this wasn't the intent of your quip but I'm currently amused by my digression which fits in nicely with some casual research of mine into axiomatic philosophies. So now you get to read it. Besides you like contarian opinions. What you probably ment was closer to insult. Now back to what I get payed for ...

No fair lookiing up the answers in the back of the book!

"As for an example of a comprehensive system that works better, that would require empirical evidence of a theoretical system."

That is the problem the critics have. They compare to a non-existent theoretical model. I want empirical evidence of an ACTUAL system that works better.

In other words, don't cherry pick the socialized health care system of Norway without also comparing the rest of the system as a whole. This would expose the attendant bone breaking tax rates Norway has to support this benefit. Most of these comparisons are done al la carte, creating a false comparison.

The irony is, Marxism is supposed to be a better theoretical system, but has an abysmal empirical record. In that respect, I agree with the need for empirical support for any system put forth.

This should be commended:
Most of these comparisons are done al la carte, creating a false comparison.

I'll agree any system must work as a whole, any "a la carte" comparison is indecative of an incomplete thought experiment, which requires either additional critique or outright rejection. This naturally (ironically) leads to a critism of the current system were competence is a not a necessary qualification for office, but I digress.

This has issues:
The irony is, Marxism is supposed to be a better theoretical system, but has an abysmal empirical record. In that respect, I agree with the need for empirical support for any system put forth.

As for Marxism, it is an inherently flawed system based off invalid premises, hence doesn't even work in theory. It's ability to establish itself, however, was in large part do to old failing models stuggling to maintain themselves, resulting in revolution.

However, to reject a theoretical model outright because of no empirical proof, is shortsighted. Our current form of government was a vast experiment in the 1770's. No need for details. Also, our gov't has undergone numerous changes to get to this point. Hence, I maintain if presented a rational critism, and a logical theoretical model it may be worth studying or experimenting with.

Touche! You have smote my ruin on the mountainside. Agreed.

I like.

Regarding your Marxism question...There is no failure to own up to. You see past systems were either a) not done correctly or b) sabotaged by imperialist hegemony.

See how easy that is? Now let's march forth together brother workers!

Isn't it, "Brothers, let us march forth together for the workers!"? I mean, we plan on being in charge, don't we?

Scottie,
I believe I have an answer to your questions.

Evil exists in the world and is Liberalism's central tenant.

Liberalism is a philosophy based on taking and is practiced by takers.

No one using evil for gain will ever, or need not, be bothered by life's little incongruencies.

Publius

Glad you liked it. Don't be a stranger! Thanks for stopping by.

Oh yeah, it's perfect, those bozos just didn't to it correctly; but give me the reins of power and I'll show you how an enlightend dictator. . . er leader does it.

Your thought echoes that of the horse in Animal Farm. But he was eventually sold to the glue factory by the pigs.

I caution you about making blanket statements about the misguided folks on the Left. They are not evil so much as ignorant. They don't know that they don't know and think they know what they obviously don't know. Ignorance can be cured, but they have to engage in honest dialog.

It is almost axiomatic that the left vilifies those that disagee with them. I don't wish to respond in kind. We have better stones to throw than ad homoneim attacks here on the right. You do yourself and the rest of us no positive service by referring to the Lefties as evil; no matter how appropriate it may seem at the time. It just serves to delay the necessary dialog.

What's amazing is that none of that comment is made up. It's what I learned in my lefty days from my lefty professors. More currently, a while back I did a post on the "brains" behind the Latin American commie surge. He's some German (!) pointy-head who makes that exact argument: The Soviets did a-b-c wrong, the Cubans x-y-z, both were torpedoed by Capitalists. But HUGO...he's got it down and will lead the true socialist revolution. (btw...In this guy's book, the last time a society "got it right" was during the French Revolution.)

Scottie,

We may have to agree to disagree here. You say ignorant and misguided to describe those on the left that don't get it. Isn't that an ad hominem attack?

Aren't your questions meant for us to ponder what would motivate someone to hold seemingly conflicting beliefs? Moreover, isn't the underlying assumption that those that hold these beliefs understand the conflicts? If that is not an assumption then the answer is easy and is as you say....they are stupid, er I mean ignorant or misguided.

I used the socratic method to answer your questions and came to the same conclusion over and over again.

For instance add the question why to the end of all of Jimmy Carter's answers above.

"4) Because those who are doing wrong do like it when it is pointed out to them." Why would someone doing wrong not like it pointed out to them? Because they might have to stop. Why wouldn't they want to stop doing something wrong?

"6) Because it matters to them, although it doesn't make a difference." Why does it matter to them?

Ultimately I believe you will find my answer more and more palatable.


Publius

Good post, as usual. My newest is up now! The F-22 Raptor has debuted at Red Flag. Jet noise! The sound of FREEDOM!

Ignorance is not knowing and being unaware that you don't know. This is curable.

Stupid is being incapable of understanding. As Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.

Evil is knowingly promoting what you know to be wrong, or willfully acting with complete disregard to right and wrong.

Words have meaning. Since you wish to take things further, let's examine your original points:

P: "Evil exists in the world and is Liberalism's central tenant."
S: Actually, evil does exist in the world, but Liberalism's central tenent is equality of outcomes, or egalitarianism. The resulting trade-offs necessary to acheive this result are simply overlooked. It is short sighted, but not evil.

P: "Liberalism is a philosophy based on taking and is practiced by takers."
S: True in the sense that they would hobble the most productive or usurp the fruits of that produtivity for those they consider less fortunate. What they fail to grasp is that there are reasons why some are more successful and some fail. Instead of addressing the causes, they seek to unfairly redistribute the effects.


P: "No one using evil for gain will ever, or need not, be bothered by life's little incongruencies."
S: This implies that they know but do not care. I believe the Left honestly cares, but their caring causes them to make decisions based on emotion rather than intellect. This is not evil, just ignorant. One more cynical than I could posit that they DO know the results and don't care. In that case, the evil label would indeed apply.

The vast majority on the left are not evil. They advocate for policies that sound good to them. The do care, but don't understand the folly of the policies they promote. I cannot agree that the Left is inherently evil, and I have a decided distaste for hyperbolic language used to make a point. See my article "Redefining Words" further down the page.

http://heartlandpatriot.townhall.com/g/a0563b3c-8edf-4e20-86e6-1b7172aa2a4e

drop by when you get a moment; I've got a new post on ye olde blog.

Scottie,

Please forgive the long post to follow.

Things we agree upon:

1. Ignorance is not knowing and being unaware that you don't know. This is curable.

2. Stupid is being incapable of understanding. As Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.

3. Evil does exist in the world

4. P: "Liberalism is a philosophy based on taking and is practiced by takers."
S: True in the sense that they would hobble the most productive or usurp the fruits of that produtivity for those they consider less fortunate.

5. The vast majority on the left are not evil. 6. They advocate for policies that sound good to them.
7. Words have meaning
8. I have a decided distaste for hyperbolic language used to make a point.

9. I believe the Left honestly cares, but their caring causes them to make decisions based on emotion rather than intellect. This is not evil, just ignorant.

10. One more cynical than I could posit that they DO know the results and don't care. In that case, the evil label would indeed apply.

11. Evil is knowingly promoting what you know to be wrong, or willfully acting with complete disregard to right and wrong.

Things we disagree upon:

1. Evil is Liberalism's central tenant.
2. Whether or not the use of the word evil here is hyperbolic or not.

From number 11 above, Evil implies a conscienciousness to one's actions. Without the conscienciousness, there can be no evil. This is why we both agree the vast majority on the left are not evil.

However, we would agree that Nazism was evil, but not all Nazis were evil. There is a big difference between the tenants of a philosophy, and ascribing those merits to all who claim alliegance to the philosophy. As pointed out, and we agree here, many do claim the liberal mantel, many out of ignorance.

Liberalism is not about usurping the fruits of others, because this supposes no legal right or authority.

Usurp: To seize and hold, as the power, position, or rights of another, by force and without legal right or authority.

Liberalism attempts to legitimize its ends by cloaking the taking in law. According to Locke, Burke, and the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, the moral function of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. By proposing the exact opposite, Liberalism proscribes amoral, and therefore evil, government action.

The Declaration of Independence agrees here too...."experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Words have meaning and I meant what I said. Liberalism is evil. And I assure you, I am not carelessly using this word to get some impact. If this word has no power anymore, then again, I agree with you and share your fears about humpty dumpty.

By using the word evil I want to reframe the debate. Instead of asking how much medicare, social security, medicaid, etc we need, we should be asking the question of whether we should have these programs at all. If we can show that they are founded on the evil premise of taking something from others and redistributing it then we have a chance.

Finally, if we can't convince somewhat like-minded individuals that a philosophy that believes in taking something from others isn't an inherently evil philosophy we are in trouble.

OK, my brain hurts and American Idol is coming on.

Publius

Great essay! Funny and thought-provoking.

I understand your position better now. Please forgive my knee-jerk reaction to calling those with which we disagree - "evil".

I take it that you think the Left's position is inherently evil since it takes from the producers without what you would consider valid authority, and doles this comfiscated bounty (booty) to its favored victim groups as a means of maintaining power. In that sense, I agree with you 100%, that is in fact evil. Having reread your original post, I find your argument entirely consistent. Forgive me for misinterpreting your words.

Good to have you back my friend! I'll bet you have a lot of catching up to do, so I'll just give you the short and sassy. Missed you bro'

You are way too kind. I really do need to work on being clearer in my thoughts and spelling (conscienciousness?)...that's not even a word.

Publius

I value the give and take of the discussions I have with others here, and I prize the ones that challenge me and my positions. You are always welcome here, as are all honest intellectual brokers.

Thank you for your post and response. Come back often to add your take to the discussion. It is welcome here.

Read much Ayn Rand?

are two works that deeply influenced me, but bored me with their relentless pounding on the same theme. At least one of these works should be required along with Econ 101 to get a college degree.

Yeah she's very wordy. Unfortunate consequence of trying to explain a philosophy inside of a novel. You pretty much have to take notes to on some of the characters speeches. BTW Anthem is short, light, and entertaining. I haven't read We the Living.

Anyway, Publius's arguments seemed to very objectivist, which I'm currently researching in my spare time.

As far as college courses that need to be required we could spend alot of time there. We could really start at the trivium: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. How else can one understand econ 101?

Logic, Grammer, Rhetoric all get my vote. Impossible to be truly educated, and to futher educate yourself, without these essentials.

The universtities aren't receiving high quality "feed stock". Grammer should have been accomplished by the end of junior high school. Logic and Rhetoric should be taught at the High School level. All three should be taken to a more advanced level in college. Today, many don't even get the fundamentals in these subjects by the time they recieve a degree.

And you could also make a good case for comparative philosophy (ie. Kantian vs. Utilitarian Theory) as a core requirement.

AC I have read Atlas Shrugged and it has influenced my thinking some. Allow me to explain. For years I have known there was a book out there called Atlas Shrugged. I had no idea what it was about, who wrote it, when it was written etc. It's kind of like knowing there is a great movie out there that everyone says is a must watch movie, but not knowing anything about it. Anyway, one day I was bored and fooling around on Ebay when I decided to order a softcover copy of the book. I have to admit it was hard to get started and I was about 300 pages into the book when I realized that the author was stating her case for her philosophy. I enjoyed the book, thought it a little hokie at times, but the reason it resonated with me is because it confirmed some of my previously held beliefs. These are:
Taking is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.
Government sanction taking / stealing is wrong.

She's not the first one to come up with Thou Shalt not steal...or thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods...etc.

I am not an objectivist though. I believe in limited government. I believe in the founding fathers ideals, I believe the US Constitution as written is one of the true wonders of the world, I believe in many ideas of Locke and Burke, and I believe the signers of the Declaration of Independence agonized over every word in that document before they pledged their sacred honor and signed it.

Check out my new blog. It is a little dry now, but I believe it needed a charter.

Publius

All very well said. Why can an underage girl have an abortion without her parent's knowledge, but that same girl would be unable to get a library card without her parent's signature?

Joy (aka happiness): what you experience when you attain your values

Value: that which you seek to obtain or retain

Virtue: the actions by which you seek to obtain or retain your values
--------
Note: the above one-line definitions' are loosely paraphrased from one of Ayn Rand's books (I can't remember which one!).
--------

I'm sure that a suicide bomber feels a perverse kind of 'joy' just before he blows himself up. After all, he has just attained his 'value' which just happened to be the destruction of innocent lives. In his loony-tunes world, his action is 'virtuous', truly deserving of multiple virginal defloration rewards in his benighted paradise. For the record: my sympathies are with the virgins!

So, it comes down to this: happiness depends on your value system. So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a universal 'virtue', although it has come to be known as the foundation of a free society.

Values, on the other hand, make all the difference.

Somewhere in all this is a clue to WHY conservatives are losing the MORAL debate.

http://voice.townhall.com

Long time no see; welcome back!

A twelve year old can't even get her ears pierced without parental permission!

Welcome to the Heartland! Always good to see a new face. You might want to review Dennis Prager's articles for some pretty thoughtful analysis on our duty to be happy.

Thanks for stopping by and your thoughtful comment. Please come back often and join in the conversation, you are most welcome here.

I wasn't claiming that you were an objectivist, I just noticed some of your arguements were similar to hers. I'm not an an objectivist either as I think her philosophy has several holes nor do I think that a government purely based of her philosophy could actually sustain itself. However, I do find it interesting and enjoy playing with thought experiments in such a universe, much to the annoyance of my girlfriend who says, "Its a book why can't you just appreciate it!".

I threw that disclaimer in there just in case. I think one of the main problems with objectivist philosophy is it doesn't take God into account. I also read somewhere that Ayn Rand hated the game of chess. This troubles me for two reasons: I love the game, am an avid player, though not very good and it would seem to me that chess would be the ultimate objectivist's game. Two minds using reason and logic against each other to win, and there is no escape from the truth in the end. You either win, lose, or draw.
Publius

Yeah, God is definately not part of Rand's objectivism. As for chess, I never heard that about her and was bored so I googled it. Found an open letter to Boris Spassky at: http://www.worldchessnetwork.com/English/chessNews/evans/040809.php. Apparently, Rand thinks chess is a game and games are important. However, she doesn't value chess masters, as she claims their virtue is limited to a game.

I might disagree(within her philosophy) with her assessment based on the fact that Chess Players, are in a sense entertainers. Rand has no problem praising the productive acheivement of musicians, actors, or authors, it seems a professional chess player(Pro Athlete) would fall in the same category. This is rough though, I may change my mind. Any objectivists out there want to explain it to me? Anyway, something to think about ... Thanks for that!

Anyway, my chess ability is all based on my opponent not knowing any basic openings. Which means I suck:).

I'll go read you're blog now.
Hey Scottie are you gonna boot me for being off topic?

It is impossible to be off topic on a thread under an article labeled "Intellectual Odds & Ends"! I'm just enjoying the give and take here and letting you two carry the ccnversation for a spell.

I'm not an expert on Ayn Rand, but I think that she placed a high value on expertise and skills in various areas.

In her Objectivist world-view, all forms of expertise came from the same source (the human mind), and therefore have value.

I have no idea if Rand disliked a particular chess player (AC's link appears to be kaput), or even chess players in general. It would seem unlikely though, given her respect for intellectual achievement. Of course, there are people of great achievement who may suffer from inconsistent thought in other areas - so, one's expertise in a given field may be worthy of respect, but it isn't a blank check.

For example, it is possible respect the considerable acting talents of say, George Clooney, but to also consider him intellectually dishonest when you come to know his stance on Communism. Not knowing Boris Spassky's politics, perhaps there was something along these lines?

I usually don't dwell on Rand's personal likes & dislikes. I don't particularly care about her personal life either, because that is the sort of attention that borders on cult-like devotion to a person, not the ideas.

However, I was impressed at an early age by the consistency of her positions. Many young people desperately seek a level of consistency that is not to be found in politics or organized religion. Rand's viewpoint has that value, and that alone probably is the reason why some people in every generation are influenced by her books.

Also, she had the ability to see parallels and connections that most would've missed. For example, she identified Racism as a form of Collectivism. While that is obvious when you think about it (ascribing the characteristics of a group to an individual), that connection had never been made before!

Sorry about the dead link. My paraphasing was weak because I counted on it. Also, it was reprinted in one of her nonfiction books, so its not just a personal perspective. Here is the text I paraphased:
Quote
"I am not a chess enthusiast and know only the rudiments of the game. I am a novelist-philosopher.

Games are an important part of life, they provide a necessary rest and offer us an opportunity to see certain skills honed to perfection. Grandmasters possess precious intellectual power, yet that power deserts you beyond the confines of the 64 squares. Oh yes, Comrade, chess is an escape from reality.
End Quote
Hence my percieved lack of value. In fact in Objectivism "production is the application of reason to the problem of survival". I only disagreed in the context because of the value of entertainment provides some chess players with an income. I also think it coincides nicely with Objectivism Aesthetics as Pub describes the game to be greatly in line with romantic idealism.

As to why I cared? I don't it, was a way to burn fifteen minutes not studying math, similar to what I'm doing now:). I find Rand and her philosophy interesting, though buggy. If I think something is interesting, I study it.

Side note on studying the personal lives of philosophers. It's somewhat useful to see how they applied their philosophy in their lives. If you see a philosopher who's depressed trying to tell you how to be happy, I don't think I'd listen...

Oh yeah, I didn't address the politics question there's more text ... still not all but here:

"I am not a chess enthusiast and know only the rudiments of the game. I am a novelist-philosopher.

Games are an important part of life, they provide a necessary rest and offer us an opportunity to see certain skills honed to perfection. Grandmasters possess precious intellectual power, yet that power deserts you beyond the confines of the 64 squares. Oh yes, Comrade, chess is an escape from reality.

This is why chess has always been so popular in your country and why there have not been many American masters. You see, in this country, men are still free to act.

Because your rulers proclaimed this championship match to be an ideological issue between Russia and America, I rooted for Bobby to win. So did all my friends who are sick and tired of the global clashes among the faceless, anonymous masses of collective.

Still she dismisses the value of chess players and as an author novelist she knows the value of language. So shouldn't especially if reprinting it in a book. As to the second to last paragraph, I don't think she caught on to the U.S's enthusiasm for sports.

.. comments, if they were made as a 'general' criticism of Chess players, or other sportsmen.

The reason for my disagreement would be that such a criticism would have to apply to art, music and almost everything that wasn't directly tied to production/survival. However, that would be in direct contradiction to many of the other points that Rand has made about art, music etc. Therefore, I doubt if she intended it as a 'general' criticism - whatever her flaws, she was a paragon of consistency!

If her point was made to counter some Comrade's claim of ideological superiority of the Soviet Union vs. Capitalist America, then the point is narrowed down - and might be acceptable in that context.

Actually, there were some things that worked quite well in the Soviet Union. I have a post called "Successful Soviets - and oxymoron?" that speaks to this point.

Click on:
http://voice.townhall.com/g/5ebda3ce-d308-4c4b-9b5f-d26e65dc1d70
to read this post!

Regarding the personal lives of philosophers: you know what they say about 'skinny cooks'? So, a unhappy philosopher probably hasn't figured out the 'meaning of life'! Or he has, but doesn't like it.

Jokes aside, one DOES look for consistency between a philosopher's ideas and their actions. Otherwise, their positions would be seem hypocritical, as in 'do as I say, not as I do'. Observe that this type of hypocrisy is often found in our politicians.

However, it is possible for a philosopher to espouse the correct ideas - but fall short in living up to their own ideals. Such a failing would certainly diminish their standing as a PRACTIONER of their ideas, but should not necessarily take away from the accuracy or consistency of their ideas.

Many logical fallacies result if we attribute the characteristics of the group to the individual and vice versa. In his book "How the Left Was Won", Richard Mgrdechian calls the phenomenon "Groupdividual" and gives many good examples.

In that sense, perhaps Rand was infering that the achievments of the individual (Spasky) were being usurped to glorify the collective (USSR), and in so doing reduced the individual achievement to mere propaganda to further the goals and stature of the collective.