From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:36:22 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <BxM015.B7J@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>  When you look at social systems, which promote the lives of the
>>  citizens?  Fascism? Monarchy?  Socialism?  Military dictatorship?
>>  or Capitalist Republics?
>
>    But all you're doing is building the argument for pragmatism, and
>    Rand hated pragmatism.  
>

I belive this shows you know less about Rand's ideas than you claim.
The pragmatism that Rand hated was the short-sighted "do whatever works
for the short run, don't think about the consequences, don't think
long term, just act now" type of attitude. I pointed out here on
the net last week (I don't know if it made it) that von Mises was
a fierce advocate of capitalism because he knew that it worked best.
However, because he held this belief, he became a very *principled* man,
unyielding and uncompromising in his espousal of capitalism. What von
Mises advocated was *long-term* pragmatism--what works best in the long run
for the largest amount of people. While Rand probably still had problems
with this, she and the Objectivists whose works I've read still had and 
have great respect for von Mises. What the Objectivists despise is the 
*short-term* pragmatism.

>>Again I have to ask whether you are aware of the objectivist argument
>>in favor of it's ethics?  Are you making the claim that there are no
>>ethical positions any better or worse than any others?  Say, that the
>>ethical ideas of Charlie Manson are no better or worse than yours?
>
>  Again, this begs the question we're discussing here which is "on
>  what basis can we say that one set of ethical ideas is better or
>  worse than another?"    I certainly *prefer* my ideas to Manson's
>  but this is subjectivism.   I can argue that a society based on
>  Mansonic principles would not work as well as one based on my
>  ideas, but even if that's true it's just pragmatism.
>
>  So in absolute terms no I do NOT claim that my ethics are better
>  than Manson's.   However, as I've pointed out before, the lack
>  of objective ethics is a double-edged blade:  Just as I would
>  argue that the Jews and others had no absolute right to not be
>  subject to force and fraud by the NAZIs, likewise I would argue
>  that the NAZIs had no right to not be subject to force and fraud
>  by us.   Ethics-as-social-convention, where that convention is
>  sometimes enforced by force, is a simple, consistent model which
>  easily accounts for all of this without resorting to metaphysics.
>
>
>---peter

The basis for deciding which ethical premise is better is its effect
on all individuals in the long run. Which set of ethics allows the greatest
amount of opportunity for each individual to live his life as he sees fit?
Obviously, this is a society based on idividual rights--each person has the
equal guarantee that force will not be initiated against him. This society
is *objective*, in that no one person is granted more rights or priveleges
than another--each person will be equally free to pursue his own happiness,
and equally constrained from initiating force. 

The Nazis deserved to be the target of retaliatory force, as they were
engaged in wholesale binges of intiatory force.

So in absolute terms, I DO claim Manson's (or Hitler's, or any form of 
statist's) ethics are bad, and consequently worse than ethics
based on individual rights, as they grant power over the lives of some
individuals to others.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian