More Arguments With Objectivists
For those who don't know, this is another wordy response to some wordy responses to a fairly unwordy comment by me on Miniature American Flags, that Objectivist blog I frequent. Again, it being a response, it probably won't make a lot of sense unless you're aware of the comments it replies to, so feel free to ignore.
Derick, you make a few false analogies. You make it sound like the first thing one knows about tax is when one receives a letter in the mail asking one for it. That’s just not so. We have to have a full-time job before we pay income tax, and though, yes, we have to pay tax on goods we buy before that, we also receive free education, healthcare, etc., and our parents probably pay for a lot of what we buy, and, well, maybe I can concede (assuming your definition of force is correct, and assuming that the instigation of force, so defined, is wrong (I’ll get to this later)) that people under 18 should not be taxed in any way. Will you still contend that anyone over 18 who is taxed is taxed forcefully? If you are, your analogies are false. We enter into a job knowing full well we have the choice to move to another country instead of taking the job, with its tax. When we accept the job (if we do), we sign a contract saying, ‘yes, I grant the government the right to tax me.’
You’re absolutely right to say that the government can’t suddenly appear on your land and demand you to pay them tax, or to leave. And so, no one who was around when the law dictating that we should pay tax should be forced to pay tax. But that time is long gone. The government was here before you and me.
“An industrial society is not created and sustained by forceful rulers, but by the work and ingenuity of private individuals.”
And the same goes for corporations. A corporation is created and sustained by (among other things) good and ingenious workers, who are no more the corporation than they are the state. What happens if a corporation becomes as huge and powerful as the government nowadays? If it owns roads, aeroplanes, healthcare, and even creates a private and more efficient alternative to the minimalist government’s police and law forces? Now, let’s say it devises a wonderful way to effectively tax us. Say, it charges us to use anything it provides (including roads), and it provides everything. It can set up economic sanctions on employers that don’t agree to tax their workers, and give the tax to this huge corporation. What is the fundamental difference between this corporation and a government? The CEO doesn’t have a right to tax us any more than a head of state – they both got where they are by saying the right things, working hard, etc.
The state DOES have a right to tax us. We, free individuals, give it that right every time we pay tax and partake of its services.
On to your definition of force: ‘sins of commission that negate someone else.’ I’m not sure that that quite makes sense, but I get the jist of it. If a company buys up all the land around a man, so that he can’t leave, are they forcing him to stay in that patch of land? If you say ‘no,’ I think your definition of force needs amending. If you know that someone will die if you personally don’t help him, and you refuse to help him, are you forcing him to die? He has two paths ahead of him, and by your action or inaction, you determine the course of his life. I think that you are forcing him to die.
I don’t think that justice and force are mutually exclusive. We are all shaped by our experiences (etc.), and so we are always forced, to an extent, by something, or by someone. Justice is each of us getting what we deserve. When a man dies because of factors outside his control, injustice has been done.
I find your views of art, and how markets affect it, laughably ignorant. Markets create canons of artists. What gets to the charts these days is determined as much by image and willingness to do whatever the record company tells you to as by musical content. I have to profess that I don’t know much about this area, either, but pick up Theodor Adorno’s book The Culture Industry. He was a very important 20th century philosopher, and the book might give you some insight into how the media and capitalism affect the arts.
Incidentally, you think that art is good insofar as people like it? So how about people liking different things in different times? Does art become better and worse as tastes change? BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, I say.
You mention that Objectivism allows for luck. I’ve never heard any Objectivist mention luck. Ever.
And I agree that politics is related to morality. But morality comes first. So I’m interested in finding out what’s moral; then, and only then, will I start working out what a good political system should be.
You then go on a long, long spiel on how socialism is bad, and capitalism is great, using figures you pulled straight out of your arse. I’ll ignore that, as it really is very, very stupid. Maybe if you can give me some reason to believe these figures aren’t completely arbitrary, and that the equations aren’t childishly simple, I’ll give it some of my time (which, by the way, is taken out of essay-writing time, so you be grateful).
Maverick! On to you.
“What, oh what, did the American people do before welfare came along? Oh, yeah, now I remember. They found some other way to sustain themselves.”
Prove it. If you’re saying that no one died of starvation until welfare appeared, then I have to say, I think you’re nuts.
“Every bit of progress and new level of comfort achieved has been by the effort of private individuals working for personal profit.”
Really? Every bit? So everything good has been self-interested (by which, I mean, one’s own benefit was the main reason for acting)? What about the suffragette movement? How about the Negro rights movement? What about the environmentalist movement? What about the Naxos Music Library (a site that has 200,000 tracks of music, which we can get for 25 quid a year, but which is probably worth fifty times that)? What about volunteers? What about that bloke (what’s his name?) who saved a billion lives through his altruistic work in third world countries?
I know Derick’s going to come back to this and say that they were self-interested in doing what they did, but to me, that sounds like psychological egoism. When you define every good act as self-interested, the phrase loses its meaning, and everyone is good by Objectivist standards except druggies. No: these actions were done because they were good, and for no feeling of personal beneficence. They were altruistic, and profit was not a motive. Maybe they did profit from them, but they would say that that is irrelevant.
“Free school? Used to be that kids went to school up to the eighth grade. They then got a job.”
And would you have that society return? And did they get a job? Didn’t some of them have unhappy lives, and die young of curable diseases?
“If people were allowed to hunt all year up here in New York State, no one here would EVER go hungry. Ever.”
Come off of it. You must be stark raving mad. Give me some sources.
“Free health care?”
My mother’s been a doctor all her life. I think she’s in a position to say something about these things, and it IS still a calling (13 years of training before they get a full-time job). And the Catholic Church won’t subsidise healthcare, because the Catholic Church will disappear into a minority of madmen, say Objectivists. Again, give me some evidence that healthcare will be better completely privatised.
You then mention lawsuits, high healthcare costs, and how hard it is to get a decent job without a college education. Why is this relevant? I also like the bit about the 500 billion dollar budget hole. There’s a bloke, Robert Newman, who uses the exact same evidence to crusade against capitalism. Again, what are you talking about? Why is any of this relevant?
"A man is perfectly capable of surviving on his own."
Which man? Me? You? That vegetable over there? That child with autism, who is being taunted by his classmates, and who will grow up introverted and mentally unwell? That genius who will change the world, if only he wasn’t so committed to his idea that he’ll starve to death rather than sell himself short – and unlike Mr Roark, doesn’t get discovered just in the nick of time. BULLSHIT.
I will concede that some people live off welfare unjustly. It’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Maverick, this is a philosophy community, not a forum for rhetoric. If you’re going to give all these strong statements, you’re going to have to back them up.
Love,
James
Derick, you make a few false analogies. You make it sound like the first thing one knows about tax is when one receives a letter in the mail asking one for it. That’s just not so. We have to have a full-time job before we pay income tax, and though, yes, we have to pay tax on goods we buy before that, we also receive free education, healthcare, etc., and our parents probably pay for a lot of what we buy, and, well, maybe I can concede (assuming your definition of force is correct, and assuming that the instigation of force, so defined, is wrong (I’ll get to this later)) that people under 18 should not be taxed in any way. Will you still contend that anyone over 18 who is taxed is taxed forcefully? If you are, your analogies are false. We enter into a job knowing full well we have the choice to move to another country instead of taking the job, with its tax. When we accept the job (if we do), we sign a contract saying, ‘yes, I grant the government the right to tax me.’
You’re absolutely right to say that the government can’t suddenly appear on your land and demand you to pay them tax, or to leave. And so, no one who was around when the law dictating that we should pay tax should be forced to pay tax. But that time is long gone. The government was here before you and me.
“An industrial society is not created and sustained by forceful rulers, but by the work and ingenuity of private individuals.”
And the same goes for corporations. A corporation is created and sustained by (among other things) good and ingenious workers, who are no more the corporation than they are the state. What happens if a corporation becomes as huge and powerful as the government nowadays? If it owns roads, aeroplanes, healthcare, and even creates a private and more efficient alternative to the minimalist government’s police and law forces? Now, let’s say it devises a wonderful way to effectively tax us. Say, it charges us to use anything it provides (including roads), and it provides everything. It can set up economic sanctions on employers that don’t agree to tax their workers, and give the tax to this huge corporation. What is the fundamental difference between this corporation and a government? The CEO doesn’t have a right to tax us any more than a head of state – they both got where they are by saying the right things, working hard, etc.
The state DOES have a right to tax us. We, free individuals, give it that right every time we pay tax and partake of its services.
On to your definition of force: ‘sins of commission that negate someone else.’ I’m not sure that that quite makes sense, but I get the jist of it. If a company buys up all the land around a man, so that he can’t leave, are they forcing him to stay in that patch of land? If you say ‘no,’ I think your definition of force needs amending. If you know that someone will die if you personally don’t help him, and you refuse to help him, are you forcing him to die? He has two paths ahead of him, and by your action or inaction, you determine the course of his life. I think that you are forcing him to die.
I don’t think that justice and force are mutually exclusive. We are all shaped by our experiences (etc.), and so we are always forced, to an extent, by something, or by someone. Justice is each of us getting what we deserve. When a man dies because of factors outside his control, injustice has been done.
I find your views of art, and how markets affect it, laughably ignorant. Markets create canons of artists. What gets to the charts these days is determined as much by image and willingness to do whatever the record company tells you to as by musical content. I have to profess that I don’t know much about this area, either, but pick up Theodor Adorno’s book The Culture Industry. He was a very important 20th century philosopher, and the book might give you some insight into how the media and capitalism affect the arts.
Incidentally, you think that art is good insofar as people like it? So how about people liking different things in different times? Does art become better and worse as tastes change? BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, I say.
You mention that Objectivism allows for luck. I’ve never heard any Objectivist mention luck. Ever.
And I agree that politics is related to morality. But morality comes first. So I’m interested in finding out what’s moral; then, and only then, will I start working out what a good political system should be.
You then go on a long, long spiel on how socialism is bad, and capitalism is great, using figures you pulled straight out of your arse. I’ll ignore that, as it really is very, very stupid. Maybe if you can give me some reason to believe these figures aren’t completely arbitrary, and that the equations aren’t childishly simple, I’ll give it some of my time (which, by the way, is taken out of essay-writing time, so you be grateful).
Maverick! On to you.
“What, oh what, did the American people do before welfare came along? Oh, yeah, now I remember. They found some other way to sustain themselves.”
Prove it. If you’re saying that no one died of starvation until welfare appeared, then I have to say, I think you’re nuts.
“Every bit of progress and new level of comfort achieved has been by the effort of private individuals working for personal profit.”
Really? Every bit? So everything good has been self-interested (by which, I mean, one’s own benefit was the main reason for acting)? What about the suffragette movement? How about the Negro rights movement? What about the environmentalist movement? What about the Naxos Music Library (a site that has 200,000 tracks of music, which we can get for 25 quid a year, but which is probably worth fifty times that)? What about volunteers? What about that bloke (what’s his name?) who saved a billion lives through his altruistic work in third world countries?
I know Derick’s going to come back to this and say that they were self-interested in doing what they did, but to me, that sounds like psychological egoism. When you define every good act as self-interested, the phrase loses its meaning, and everyone is good by Objectivist standards except druggies. No: these actions were done because they were good, and for no feeling of personal beneficence. They were altruistic, and profit was not a motive. Maybe they did profit from them, but they would say that that is irrelevant.
“Free school? Used to be that kids went to school up to the eighth grade. They then got a job.”
And would you have that society return? And did they get a job? Didn’t some of them have unhappy lives, and die young of curable diseases?
“If people were allowed to hunt all year up here in New York State, no one here would EVER go hungry. Ever.”
Come off of it. You must be stark raving mad. Give me some sources.
“Free health care?”
My mother’s been a doctor all her life. I think she’s in a position to say something about these things, and it IS still a calling (13 years of training before they get a full-time job). And the Catholic Church won’t subsidise healthcare, because the Catholic Church will disappear into a minority of madmen, say Objectivists. Again, give me some evidence that healthcare will be better completely privatised.
You then mention lawsuits, high healthcare costs, and how hard it is to get a decent job without a college education. Why is this relevant? I also like the bit about the 500 billion dollar budget hole. There’s a bloke, Robert Newman, who uses the exact same evidence to crusade against capitalism. Again, what are you talking about? Why is any of this relevant?
"A man is perfectly capable of surviving on his own."
Which man? Me? You? That vegetable over there? That child with autism, who is being taunted by his classmates, and who will grow up introverted and mentally unwell? That genius who will change the world, if only he wasn’t so committed to his idea that he’ll starve to death rather than sell himself short – and unlike Mr Roark, doesn’t get discovered just in the nick of time. BULLSHIT.
I will concede that some people live off welfare unjustly. It’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Maverick, this is a philosophy community, not a forum for rhetoric. If you’re going to give all these strong statements, you’re going to have to back them up.
Love,
James