From: joechip@hardy.u.washington.edu (Erich Vandenloos)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Response to Mr. Wingate (Was Ayn Rand)
Keywords: Rand Religion Wingate
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:47:02 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Earlier I offered my diagnosis of "what makes a man go objecto." You may
remember it. Now I will jump in again.

SJK writes:

>While he is correct that large corporations prefer to own
>the intellectual property their employees create, this does not change
>the fact (and in fact only demonstrates) that intellectual property is
>the most valuable kind.

Does it in fact demonstrate this? It may demonstrate that knowledge (I will
not use the term "property" for reasons which will be obvious) is valuable,
but the unspoken asumption here is that knowledge (or ideas or whatever)
are property. I'd like to see SJK establish this. I am inclined to say that
copyright and patent laws, however beneficial they are, are expressions of
a rather artificial extension of the idea of property. Wingate points out
that ideas originate in several places. I add that ideas have no physical
form and so do not seem to resemble other objects to which we attribute
"ownability." (My apologies to those who love the English language. I really
couldn't help it). I've never heard anyone say "I own my emotions! You can't
use them," although with the craze for litigation in this country It's
reasonable to expect a lawsuit along these lines soon. People feel that they
must clamor energetically for the sanctity of intellectual "property"
precisely because its status is so questionable. I say that the concept of
intellectual property is a socially beneficial fiction.

>I honestly do not see Mr. Wingate's point regarding incompetence. But as
>for greed, Rand's characters (heroes) were always greedy. Greed, in the
>sense of pursuing that which one personally values, Rand considered a
>virtue and all of her heroes displayed it.

Perhaps this is unfair, but what if I personally value the jailing and 
torture of all "Objectivists," or worse, I personally value only that
which does not belong to me. Is that heroic? "Greed" ordinarily refers to
the desire for that which is not rightly yours. It is simply objecto word-
play to use "greed" the way Rand does.

>Any Objectivist will be happy to explain to you why incompetent government
>officials can do much more damage than incompetent corporate officers.
>Corporate officers can only damage what they own and are subject to being
>thrown out if they do not do what the stockholders want. Government officials
>damage anything and everything and are subject to being thrown out if they
>are caught in an illegal act or lose in an election.

Thank goodness for those helpful "Objectivists," eh? I can explain, without
recourse to arcane objecto moral theory why incompetent government officials
can do more harm...they have more power! Easy as that! One can only ruin
that which he gets his hands on. As to this issue of "what the stockholders
want," well, SJK, I hate to be the one to tell you that the stockholders
occasionally want things which are not necessarily beneficial even for 
themselves, let alone society. Furthermore, the turnover rate for elected
officials (and many appointees) is extremely high compared to that of execs.
Look how long it took for the GM stockholders to take control of their
company. Obviously stockholders are not all-wise human-gods or anything.

>One need not prove a negative, Mr. Wingate. It is incumbent upon those who
>assert something's existence to provide evidence to support it. The more
>fantastic the claim (ie: the more it conflicts with what one already knows)
>the more fantastic the evidence required. I leave it as an exercise for the
>reader to determine the fantasticness of the claims of religion.

Here's my answer. The claims of religion do not violate anything _I_ 
already know, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool empiricist. For the claims of, say,
Protestantism to contradict what you know, SJK, you must already know that
Jesus is not the Savior, that the account of events laid out in the New
Testament is false, and (most unlikely of all) that there is no God. How
was this proven to you, SJK? I'm not saying you should believe in these
things without having them proven to you. But disbelief because of lack of
evidence is much weaker than the certainty which you exhibit. The only
things religious claims contradict are their opposites, nothing else. I
challenge you to name one thing in real (empirical) life that would have
to be different did God exist.

>If he means that Objectivism requires that people be "more good" than 
>they are capable of being, I submit that religion places far more 
>impossible requirements on man than Objectivism could ever hope to. 

Well, anyone with a cursory knowledge of Christian theology knows about
"original sin" and the _essential imperfectability_ of man. Seems to me
there's a lot of leeway for normal human behavior there.

>People who become Objectivists suddenly find that they can win nearly
>every political/economic/religous debate that they get in with their
>former debating equals and even superiors.

Here's a perfect example of why Johnny (Galt that is) can't philosophize.
Philosophy is not a sport, my friend. Remember back in my little
diagnostic tract about the "Objectivists?" There I said that "Objectivists"
believe that demolishing chosen straw men is all it takes to be a great 
thinker. Here you go:

>anyone who has watched an Objectivist debate against an army of Liberals...
>...I believe it was Assemblies of God) held a debate ...  and a few
>Objectivists showed up.

Have you ever seen an "Objectivist" debate with a Wittgensteinian, a real
empiricist, a decent theologian or even a humble Logical Positivist? I
have, and it was a tragicomedy in the grand style. All of the Randian
platitudes in the world are of no use against an LP, and talk of intel-
lectual property will make the most kindly Wittgensteinian chuckle. The
point here is not that these guys are right. All these positions have
major problems and yet their adherents can squash "Objectivists" like
bugs. The point is that demolishing liberals or hapless fundamentalists
is not grounds for receiving some sort of reward. 

Anyway, that's all for now.
Erich Vandenloos
joechip@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc