From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Society and the Individual: The Sociological Gambit :-)
Keywords: libertarianism, objectivism, anthropology, sociology
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:37:21 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726855513@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>One of the fundamental statements I see in Objectivism is valuing yourself
>above others.  What I cannot see is why the following conclusion is, well,
>impractical in Objectivism:
>
>Axioms
>a) I value myself above others
>b) I am a government employee (for some "I")
>----
>Conclusions:
>1) I am in control of some part of the police/military/courts (by b)
>2) To obtain things like rulings in their favor, or "look the other way" or
>   whatever, people would pay me a bit, for some "me" in the government. (by 1)
>3) I would have no real reason not to occasionally accept bribes (a,2).
>
>The "moral values" of government officials would have to be higher than that
>required by the average citizen.  In some sense, they would have to morally
>value others above personal gain in order to function effectively.  Strangely
>enough, government can only function well when its members are totally
>selfless, which contradicts selfishness.  The more selfish the people in
>government, the less use it is to citizens since it becomes more dictatorial.

If you honestly expect morals of government officials to be higher than
those of the community around them, we simply live in different universes.
I realize that living in Chicago may have corrupted me, but I cannot imagine
a universe in which this holds.  Government service, by its very nature, 
creates nothing concrete, has no easy way to judge performance, and 
accretes an ever increasing amount of power and perks.  As such, it's 
virtually garaunteed to attract greedheads, power freaks, no show jobholders
and all the other bottom-feeders.  Ghod, a lot of 'em are even lawyers.
Easier for these folks to sprout wings than act selflessly.  Much simpler to 
set up the system so that its in their best interest to act as the public 
wishes.  When they screw up slightly, vote 'em out.  When they screw up 
majorly, indict 'em.  Reward the watchdogs based on how many they catch.  None
of this violates libertarianism in the slightest.

>
>Not a problem for me.
>However I still have an (irrational) personal bias against anyone who can't
>see the practicality of socialism in a community: that is, the community
>taking in resources (voluntarily of course, you are free to not join) and
>doling them out according to need (or even want).
>

By the above, the resources, unless truly voluntarily given, are going to
be routed through the government, where most of it will evaporate. Because
of this, the resources will be taken from those without political power and
routed to those with it. "Need" simply never comes into play, other than
as an excuse.  That is certainly the case in the US today, where the 
vast majority of "social spending" ends up with those who make more than
median income.
 

>
>How about this:
>The values on which a society is based are created by the invididuals and
>the society espouses them.  Hence, the morals which society does or does not
>stick to are the ones people will tend to have.  The danger here is not one
>of selfishness as "me first" but as "only me", which may get propagated as
>individuality supercedes social "responsibility".  Then the "perfect 
>Objectivism" will collapse as its people look to themselves and not their
>society.  The old problem still exists: teach people to put themselves first
>and the old survival gene will be so reinforced that group action which might
>be in the benefit of the group becomes hard if it encompasses personal loss.
>

You seem to be using the term "society" to mean "government".  The libertarians
I know view society as far too important to left the government, low men
using crude tools (force and theft).  The sort of people who are able to 
constructively guide society are precisely the sort who don't end up in  
government.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
Neophytes discuss syntax. Amateurs discuss control. Professionals discuss data.
Newsgroups: alt.activism