The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

05-10-2007, 10:42 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 A Few of Rand's Contraditions In the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand defines “axiomatic concepts” as true independent of any particular context and therefore beyond specification in terms of attributes or characteristics. Consciousness is one of those axiomatic concepts. Then, she says, “Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action…”   In Textbook of Americanism, p. 12, Rand says, “When you begin making conditions, reservations, and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights, who may violate them at his discretion.” Then, she defines the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as “man’s right to live for himself …so long as he respects the right of others.” This seems to be the conditionalizing of a right.    In the “Intellectual Ammunition Department” of The Objectivist Newsletter in July of 1962, Rand said, “There can be no compromise on moral principle.” There is always a good or bad, a black or white, answer to any question. To deny this is true is, in itself, an immoral gesture. However, she violates this principle when she says, “Under a two party system, the voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely the lesser of two evils.”   She also says that compromise is only defensible where two people are in agreement on basic moral principles. Politics is always contingent on prior philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth and value. She violates this principle when she says, “One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate’s total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials)…if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.”     bis bald,   Nick      Report

05-10-2007, 12:57 PM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 67 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions Nick wrote: "In Textbook of Americanism, p. 12, Rand says, “When you begin making conditions, reservations, and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights, who may violate them at his discretion.” Then, she defines the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness as “man’s right to live for himself …so long as he respects the right of others.” This seems to be the conditionalizing of a right" i understand how "…so long as he respects the right of others.” could be seen as a condition, but i think this is intended as a concept based on "man's right to live for himself."   “Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action…” The way it is written seems to be assigning attributes to consciousness, but i think of them more as a result of consciousness.  could you tell me what book this is from because i would like to see how consciousness is broken down into a more fundamental form.  do you think the first statement is wrong or the second statement is wrong here? Nick wrote: "In the “Intellectual Ammunition Department” of The Objectivist Newsletter in July of 1962, Rand said, “There can be no compromise on moral principle.” There is always a good or bad, a black or white, answer to any question. To deny this is true is, in itself, an immoral gesture. However, she violates this principle when she says, “Under a two party system, the voter’s choice is and has to be merely an approximation—a choice of the candidate whom he regards as closer to his own views; often, particularly in recent times, a voter chooses merely the lesser of two evils.”" This seems to me to be pointing out a flaw in our democratic government.  i remember reading this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and i think she was "dissing" democracy. She also says that compromise is only defensible where two people are in agreement on basic moral principles. Politics is always contingent on prior philosophical assumptions about the nature of truth and value. She violates this principle when she says, “One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate’s total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials)…if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.”   ewwwwww.  i don't like the way she sounds in this quote at all.  just feels all "the end justifies the means."  i think you hit something here, nick.    Report

05-10-2007, 2:00 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions i understand how "…so long as he respects the right of others.” could be seen as a condition, but i think this is intended as a concept based on "man's right to live for himself." I agree. If one means that all men have a right to live for themselves, then there is no need to include, "so long as no one violates other people's rights." If all people have the right to live for themselves, it already presupposes that nobody has a right to violate other people's rights. If they did, then it would not be the case that all men are living for themselves. I think this is just a mistake in grammar and usage rather than in thinking. She includes an unnessary condition. Kind'a like saying "honest truth". “Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man’s consciousness: content and action…” The way it is written seems to be assigning attributes to consciousness, but i think of them more as a result of consciousness.  could you tell me what book this is from because i would like to see how consciousness is broken down into a more fundamental form.  do you think the first statement is wrong or the second statement is wrong here? This is from The Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology, and I talk about it in Alice in Objectivist Land, part seven. It includes the exact quotes. This seems to me to be pointing out a flaw in our democratic government.  i remember reading this in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and i think she was "dissing" democracy. Yes, I think she was dissing the two party system. Still, it is a contradiction. ewwwwww.  i don't like the way she sounds in this quote at all.  just feels all "the end justifies the means."  i think you hit something here, nick. Yes, and Rand agrees with Kant and Sartre that we should not use people as means. We should treat them as ends. However, some Objectivists have explained that this is like "using" a taxi driver or a surgeon, like in free trade. We are not forcing anyone but giving them power, even if we don't agree with everything they say. Rand supported Goldwater for President, and we know she wouldn't have liked his religious justifications. bis bald, Nick               Report

05-11-2007, 8:00 AM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 67 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions guess i really just want to talk about the last paragraph.  i would beg to differ on the fact that we give an elected official power.  it seems more that we allow them to take it.  according to the constitution, the government has to make laws to protect people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  i don't see how anti-drug laws, smoking bans (on private property), anti-trans-fat laws, anti-"trust" laws, mandatory education, nationalized health care, social security, welfare, etc. etc. does anything but step on certain people's rights to make certain people happy.  although these ludicrous issues are usually voted on, it shouldn't matter because they are unconstitutional.  the constitution doesn't say that it is the government's purpose to maintain a cerain level of morality.  in fact, it's purpose is to protect the pursuit of happiness, which in most cases (sadly) is quite immoral.  i haven't supported anyone for president in my life (although i probably would have voted for regan had he ran when i was old enough to vote).  this is because as soon as anyone takes that office, they are violating my right to my own money, and giving it to worthless bastards that have no idea how to use it.  i could be wrong, but i think anyone that would use welfare for it's intended purpose, will probably never need to use it.  as for the leeches, i see a lot of them where i work.  they look like mindless zombies just looking for any place to attach themselves. wow, that got out of hand.   see if i can get off this soap box without falling.  time to get back to work hahaha. Josh    Report

05-12-2007, 6:46 PM DonQuixote99 Joined on 04-28-2007 sw Ohio Posts 75 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions according to the constitution, the government has to make laws to protect people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Actually, the mention of rights of "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.  But that's OK, I think the DOI should be regarded as of consitutional significance.  The point that people create governments, that operate for the benefit and with the consent of the governed, who thus can withhold consent and demand change at will, is the most wonderful revolutionary idea ever invoked at the founding of a state.  It means that sovereignty lies, fundementally, not with the state, but with the individual citizens.  Everything in the Consitiution, such as, for example, the Second Amendment, shuld be read with this point in mind. On of Rand's most central points, BTW, is that the pursuit of happiness, rightly understood, is NOT immoral.  Bit I suspect you have in mind people pursuing gratification without effort--leeches, as you say, mainly into 'sex, drugs, and rock n' roll--" (substitute in whatever current musical style applies).  I'm sure Rand would join you in branding such people immoral.    Report

05-12-2007, 9:31 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions Yes, I was going to mention this, that it is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, which mentions the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are principles, ideals for which we stand. I do agree with them and have spoken of them here: http://www.geocities.com/nickotani/nick6.html?200712 It is important to remember, though, that the Declaration is not a legal document. The Constitution is. The Constitution is the contract, a sort of technical manual, of how the government should go about securing our natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech and and all those legal rights in the amendments are legal rights, not natural rights. They are the man-made rights we create to protect our natural rights, which don't really come from man. The Constitution does give the government the legal right to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare. They even have the legal right to make all laws necessary and proper for bringing other laws into effect, the elastic-clause. How far that power gets streatched depends on the fighting that goes on between the two party system. There are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. And, we, as citizens, have a right to make our voices heard and our votes count. If we can educate enough people and communicate and persuade, then, in some small way, we can maybe have an impact on the government. Talking on messageboards is one way to get the word out and fight the good fight. It is better than flying airplanes into buildings or doing nothing. bis bald, Nick      Report

05-14-2007, 8:07 AM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 67 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions thank you for pointing out my error.  i kinda just got caught up in the moment. do you think any og the specific rights in the constitution and the bill of rights are the only rights we are entitled to?  or, do you think they are derived from the premise of the natural right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  or, do you think maybe we have no rights and these are a gift from the government, to be revoked at any time someone deems them "unnecessary" or "outdated." i need to read the constitution.  i don't like that part about collecting taxes for "general welfare."       Report

05-14-2007, 9:52 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions The powers of Congress are in Article 1, Section 8. In addition to the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare, Congress can borrow money and regulate trade, coin money and fix punishment for counterfeiting, establish post offices, set up federal courts, punish piracies, declare war, maintain the armed forces, and, (the elastic clause) make all laws necessary and proper for putting into effect all the other powers. So, if Congress decides it needs a draft law to maintain the armed forces, the elastic clause gives them the power to do so, even though it would seem to conflict with the 13th Amendment, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime..., shall exist in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. It is the Surpreme Courts duty to interpret these laws, and they have had different views from time to time. There are also checks and ballances on them from the President, who appoints judges, and Congress, who approves or disapproves of those appointments. This is very complicated, but it is probably better than a simple monocracy where one person makes all the rules. There would be no appeal process if such a person made a bad rule. Monarchs in the past have found their powers limited, eventually, when they pissed off the people enough, but the U.S. is trying to serve the people more directly to avoid uprisings such as happen in unstabble governments. Yes, you, as a citizen of the United States, should read the Declaration and Constitution and be familiar with how your government works. It is suppose to work for you. If you do nothing to keep it in check, then you contribute to it getting out of check, just as any boss who does not communicate his or her wishes and does not exercise his or her power. bis bald, Nick    Report

05-15-2007, 7:41 AM DonQuixote99 Joined on 04-28-2007 sw Ohio Posts 75 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions This is very complicated, but it is probably better than a simple monocracy where one person makes all the rules. Divided power, in my view, was the genius of the Constitution.  Lord Acton's too familar saying 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' seems to have had precious few exceptions.  The constitution-writers arranged that any persons of power in the government would find that outside of a defined scope, the power to act was held by others, who would act to protect it.  Power thus was the thing used to control power. The fundemental power of government is the instinctive adherence of people to their group--we might say 'tribe,' in evolutionary terms.  The nation-state is the tribe writ large, and merges into the empire, the tribe of tribes.  Always there is competition between individuals and the leadership of the group.  An individual wants unfettered (and untaxed!) freedom for himself, but in a general way acknowledges the legitimacy of group leadership.  Any individual who rebels will find the power of the group leadership, manifested in the loyalty of individuals to it, is sufficient to crush him.  So anyone who contemplates individual freedom faces a hard dilemma. The idea of not having group leadership at all--anarchy--founders on the fact that it takes only a small, ad-hoc group to overcome an individual.  Group power dooms the freedom of anarchy.  Group power naturally expands until it reaches limits--either physical, or that of other groups, or political, that is, intra-group competition.  So ultimately, group power cannot be destroyed--it can only be structured and controlled.  Our constitution is arguably the most sophisticated method yet tried to do this.    Report

05-15-2007, 9:10 AM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 67 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions without a doubt the U.S. is the greatest country on the planet.  it's inception was the biggest leap in the history of civilizations: the first to recognize the right of the individual.  and the first to acknowledge the initialization of force to be unacceptable by anyone.  it seems to me, though, we have gotten away from this.  i have been taken to jail and charged with a felony for being in the same car as someone who possessed marijuana.  at the time i had never tried the drug and had no interest in it.  but i was forced to sit in a very uncomfortable room in very uncomfortable clothes and appear in court even though i was not harming anyone or even bothering anyone.  i don't want to give the impression that my only concern is the legalization of marijuana, that's not the case at all.  i don't use marijuana.  but i still don't think it's right that someone can be forced into a car with their hands locked behind their back just for being in possession of it.  especially something that, when left alone will flourish in any state in the country. so i guess my question is, how does the constitution rationally reach the point where a representative of the government can force you to jail for such crimes as: possession of marijuana, possession of perifinalia, intent to distribute marijuana, maintaining a common nuissance, and the list goes on.  doesn't sound like protecting anyone's right to pursue happiness, in fact, it sounds like interfering with someone's right to pursue happiness.    Report

05-15-2007, 10:00 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions I have been arrested also, in the not too distant past. It was on a Friday, so I had to wait until the weekend was over to be arraigned. I didn't have the money and was unwilling to bail myself out, and, anyway, I couldn't get through to a bondsman who worked on weekends with the time they gave me on the telephone. All charges were dropped, eventually, but this was an experience that I can now share with many other people I've worked with and met in my life. Perhaps this is something everyone should go through, as a rite of passage, just to live a full life. There have been cases of police brutality in Spokane, where I live, and people have died while in police custidy. These cases have been investigated, and the police have been, at times, at fault. I am suspicious that they were at fault even when they were not found to be so. I do not like aggressive police who seem to enjoy pushing people around. I also agree that smoking marijuana should not be a crime. There are victimless crimes out there, and they stay on the books because too many people are hysterical. They think smoking marijuana will lead to the more scary drugs and then all the crimes that go with them, like drive-by shootings etc. There are lots of places to speak out and take a stand, to criticize our government and try to make some changes. We have a right, both natural and legal, to do so. Perhaps we will not be immediately successful. However, if we become educated and articulate and make our concerns public, we can find others who agree with us and perhaps make a difference. Perhaps not. Still, certain projects give our lives meaning. If there were no problems to overcome, boredom would be a problem. bis bald, Nick       Report

05-15-2007, 11:32 AM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 67 Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions i don't think the government will ever legalize marijuana.  in fact it seems they are going in the opposite direction and beginning to attack cigarettes.  the government is beginning to look more and more like the mafia.  running numbers (lottery) and in most states having a monopoly in gambling.  sure they say it's going to schools and homeless people, but i don't buy that. then, they create "illegal substances."  i watched an episode of cops where an officer, dressed like a stereotypical drug dealer, sold the same bag of marijuana to like 10 different people.  after they bought the marijuana, the other cops would bust em down the street, confiscate the marijuana, then give it back to the undercover cop and repeat the process.  anything found on these "criminals" (who were mostly college kids) was considered drug related and confiscated.  it's been a while since i saw the episode, but i think they even bragged about how much money they made off the scam.  this just shows that the cops are aware what they have to do to keep their job in demand.  seriously, what would the motivation to be a cop be? it just makes me so mad.  i think making drugs illegal is worse than just letting people waste their lives away.  since drugs are illegal, the supply is decreased, causing the price to be high.  this will attract "producers" to that market.  the substance is illegal, so the type of people who will be selling the product don't really care about the law.  but they are able to charge an outrageous amount, and they are able to purchase guns, pay off cops and government officials, and whatever they need to make sure they are able to continue peddling.  i'm sure these criminals will attempt to find other ways to make money if drugs were legal, but at least it wouldn't be from money stolen from the parents of ignorant kids. well, out of time.    Report

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: A Few of Rand's Contraditions

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU