From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Ludwig von Mises again corrects Ronzone and Randroids
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:06:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.234358.21672@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
    >>>In article <1992Oct27.162347.10052@netcom.com>
    >>>phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>>
    >>>>Again, individuals ONLY exist -- society is a convenient
    >>>>fiction, misused and as relevant to discussions as Santa
    >>>>Claus, or "the will of the poletariat".
    >>>>
    >Self-avowed disciples of Ayn Rand sometimes echo this
    >assertion that "only individuals exist," but this is merely a
    >poor understanding (or deliberate misinterpretation) of
    >Mises.

1. Rand did not (much to her surprise) learn of Von Mises until after the
   Fountainhead.

2. I am not a disciple of anyone. What does this have to do with anything?

3. Why do you have such animosity towards Ayn Rand?

    >HUMAN ACTION, IX: THE ROLE OF IDEAS
    >
    >BEGIN QUOTE It is always the individual who thinks. Society
    >does not think any more than it eats or drinks. The evolution
    >of human reasoning from the naive thinking of primitive man
    >to the more subtle thinking of modern science took place
    >within society. However, thinking itself is always an
    >achievement of individuals. There is joint action, but no
    >joint thinking. There is only tradition which preserves
    >thoughts and communicates them to others as a stimulus to
    >their thinking. However, man has no means of appropriating
    >the thoughts of his precursors other than to think them all
    >over again. Then, of course, he is in a position to proceed
    >farther on the basis of his forerunners' thoughts. The
    >foremost vehicle of tradition is the *word.* Thinking is
    >linked up with language, and vice versa. Concepts are
    >embodied in terms. *Language is a tool of thinking, as it is
    >a tool of social action.*
    >
    >The history of thought and ideas is a discourse carried on
    >from generation to generation. The thinking of later ages
    >grows out of the thinking of earlier ages. Without the aid of
    >this stimulation intellectual progress would have been
    >impossible. The continuity of human evolution, sowing for the
    >offspring and harvesting on land cleared and tilled by the
    >ancestors, manifests itself also in the history of science
    >and ideas. We have inherited from our forefathers not only a
    >stock of products of various orders of goods which is the
    >source of our material wealth; we have no less inherited
    >ideas and thoughts, theories and technologies to which our
    >thinking owes its productivity.
    >
    >But thinking is always a manifestation of individuals.
    >
    >END QUOTE
    >
    >
    >Now, to say that only individuals think, is NOT to say that
    >only individuals EXIST. As Mises points out, there is a vast
    >heritage that we draw from, our culture, to which our
    >thinking owes its productivity. It exists in a sense which is
    >detached from the individual ownership of those who are alive
    >today. We are born into it. We dont choose it any more than
    >we choose our parents. To assert that society or culture
    >"does not exist" is to be in serious denial of reality.

Show me such existence then. I can prove that I am alive. If you want,
you can see me. Even perhaps touch me (but no tasting!).

We can use the term society to describe the macro effects of a large
number of other individuals upon a singular individual, BUT, as in quantum
mechanics, there is NO existence of the macro save for the aggregate
effects of individuals. There is NO existence of the macro (society)
apart from the individuals.

I.e., anytime you talk about society, you are talking about an individual
in relationship with one or more individuals.

For example, the phrases "Society needs, society demands, a crime against
society ..." are all meaningless.

    >>>>No one else, whether 1 in number of 1,000,000 in number, has
    >>>>a claim on my existence.
    >>>>
    >What about your offspring?

Not them either. If you believe they do, then you must start by acknowledging
that you are pro-life and anti-abortion.


    >>>It is a fact that your are an individual in the sense of how
    >>>far you can take that within yourself- but don't forget or
    >>>ignore that the majority of your knowledge is the results of
    >>>a historical collection of information by the whole of
    >>>humanity.
    >>>
    >>So? What has a bunch of Loathsome Oppressors a.k.a. Dead
    >>White Men have to do with it? Did Aristotle, Voltaire,
    >>Jefferson, Paine, Edison puty restrictions on their
    >>intellectual work that we must pay homage to them? If you
    >>have such knowledge, speak up. Otherwise, don't FUCKING dare
    >>to speak for dead people that were innumerabily far better
    >>than you, you blood sucking worm (my apologies to all worms).

No, i didn';t put that strongly enough. It is NOT a historical collection
... by the whole of humanity -- it is a collection of knowledge by a FEW
men, perhaps a couple of thousand at most, which could (if we had time
machines) could recreate just about all of it by themselves.

    >No one is asking you to pay homage to dead white men. I
    >merely want you to acknowledge that we are all a part of a
    >culture which has continuity through time, of which the dead
    >white men were also a small part, and that this culture,
    >let's call it *Western Civilization,* in fact exists, whether
    >you want to sign the social contract or not. If you filed
    >your 1040 forms last year, you signed the social contract,
    >pal.

Oh? When I pay the extortion $$$ to Vito, I legitimize the Mafia's right
to extort me? How weird.

    >Every word that you post to the net is an attempt to
    >influence others that your point of view is valid and true.
    >*That* is the only way that you can establish a society or
    >change this society per your specifications-- if there is a
    >general agreement with your ideas among many or all
    >individuals within a certain geographical locale.

Right! Others. Individuals. Note that I am NOT addressing society.

    >By your very actions of posting to the net, you are
    >implicitly admitting that you need the approval of others to
    >put your societal rules in effect. YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT
    >MIGHT (as measured by sheer numbers of agreeing individuals)
    >MAKES RIGHT (in the sense that a society has some defined
    >ethical framework), even as you vehemently deny it and call
    >people "Hitler" for even bringing it up.
    >
    >In other words, you are a hypocrite.

Truly truly truly bizarre. I do NOT need the approvals of others.

You are very upset by the idea of absolutes, aren't you?

Might does not make right.

Rights are absolutes.

You do not have to agree of course, any more than you have top accept that
the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

You can not coerce reason.

You can not coerce truth.

You can not coerce men's minds -- you can only force them to hide the
expressions of their minds.

Of course it will be easier as more people understand, but to equate
the enlightment and facilitation of rationality to might makes right
is really bizarre.



-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)