From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:03:26 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <37551@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> gmt@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Gary McTaggart) writes:
>>   changes.   And to the extent that government did play a role in 
>>   their breakdown it was by fostering modernity, e.g., the creation
>>   of the Interstate Highway Sytem, establishing a uniform technical
>>   standard for Television, etc..
>
>So all things count as progress, no matter how destructive. Great.

  I don't see how this follows.   I was merely mentioning the manner
  in which I felt the government had played the largest role in 
  the social and cultural changes that have occurred since the industrial
  revolution.


>>   The notion of a society based purely on individual choice is purely
>>   theoretical.  The deconstruction of social institutions such as
>>   family or government by such as libertarians, gay and lesbian groups, 
>>   or intellectuals, is an interesting academic exercise but is lacking
>>   somewhat in the necessary field-work to show that it has any practical
>>   applications.   Current attempts at creating a society based as much
>>   as we do in the west on individual freedom and "rights" represent a
>>   vast new kind of social engineering and it is unclear whether there
>>   are any sound theoretrical principles underlying these practices.
>>   It should also be recognized that there are many who regard this 
>>   emphasis of individual rights and freedom as peculiar western
>>   affectation.
>
>This country was founded on individual rights. 

  I disagree.  This is the standard high-school civics class model.
  But note something very important here:   There is a very inter-
  esting and subtle sort of statist propaganda intrinsic in the
  "This country was founded on individual rights" claim.  That is,
  that "this country" maps to "our political organization".   In
  other words if they can get you to map "this country" to "our
  form of government" they've won half the battle.   This is a big
  blind spot for libertarians -- they've swallowed this statist
  assumption hook, line, and sinker.  

  *I* claim that "this country", or *any* country, is a CULTURAL
  phenomenon.   If it were possible to define a nation in purely
  political terms you could draw a line around any arbitrary 
  part of a map and have a "country" by merely having a central
  government and uniform set of laws.   Tragic experience all
  over the world has shown how wrong that assumption is.

  "This country", like all countries, was founded on a set of
  shared cultural values rooted in family, religion, community,
  etc.   And these institutions are DEFINITELY not grounded in
  individual rights.  In 1790 your personal choices as an 
  individual were FAR more constrained by your family, your
  religion, and the values, customs and so forth of your community
  than they are today.   Sorry to have to break it to you, but
  in many respects we are today living in the golden age of
  individualism.


>Deconstruction of family by libertarians..? What the hell are you talking
>about?

  Sorry, I phrased this poorly.  I was referring to the tendency for
  libertarian philosophers to posit that government is the major force
  determining one's liberty.  But historically in most cultures your
  first loyalty was always to your family (of course "family" had a 
  different meaning in the past than today).   
  


>There ARE sound theoretical principles underlying these practices...but
>it is to be noted that when men are most free, they are the most productive.

  Perhaps so, but productivity is not the only metric in the universe,
  nor is it clear WHAT we should desire to be most productive in.


>The fact that there are "many" who feel they don't want freedom and 
>responsibility for their own lives means these are affectations?

  As those who make these claims; I'm only reporting them.



>>   Having read Rand's political and ethical writings, I have found 
>>   nothing of sufficient intellectual rigor to form the basis of 
>>   anything relevant to the discussion.  Her work is incredibly flawed
>>   and empty for someone who has attracted so much attention.  (Although
>>   it should be noted that the attention she attracts is among "middle-
>>   brows", sophomore philosophy students and the like; she has little
>>   following among serious philsophers or political thinkers.)
>>
>Flawed? How? Empty? I think not. I don't agree with all of her works, but
>there is a wealth of good viewpoints in Objectivism.

  Except that "good viewpoints" are irrelevant if the intention is
  to construct a rigorous intellectual model.  Constructing a 
  logical proof is like constructing a computer program -- one
  logical flaw and the whole thing crashes.  Her "proof" is full 
  of logical flaws.   I don't care whether she has "good viewpoints";
  I care whether she can make her case that absolute rights exist.
  She fails.


>Once again, this also could be defended on the fact that respecting the
>rights of individuals just works the best.

  *Of course* it could, but that's not what Rand attempts to do.  She
  hated pragmatists.   


>>>    Political principles are an objective requirement for human survival. 
>>
>>  This is demonstrably wrong, since the longest-lived, *by far*, human
>>  social organization was the hunter-gatherer group, which was the 
>>  basis of all human societies for hundreds of thousands of years,
>>  making today's political structures look like hobbies by comparison.
>
>Boy am I getting sick of hearing about how wonderful life was in the hunter-
>gatherer societies. Do you really want to go back to shitting in the woods,
>no indoor plumbing, wearing animal skins, killing animals for food, no
>vaccines for disease, shorter life span, no technology, no mass production
>of food, oh, and of course, no huge computer network to spout off this 
>nonsense?

  You really don't want to have an intelligent conversation, do you?
  I NEVER said that I wanted to back to these things.  I merely took
  issue with the claim that "Political principles are an objective
  requirement for human survival"   Hunter-gatherers survived; they
  did not have explicit political theory.  So the quoted claim is
  thus proven wrong.  Period.   Sheeesh!


---peter