From: mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward)
Subject: Failure of Objectivism(response)
Summary: Response to criticisms
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:55:08 GMT

My apologies to those who feel I should have been responding to the
many criticisms of my postings.  I really wanted to get the whole
thing posted before responding, and I HATE long articles.  And I have
a very limited amount of time to devote to this silliness.
 
Anyhow, to those who sent responses along the lines of "sez who", or
"you're so dumb", I have taken these to heart, and am sorely wounded
by them.
 
Among the others, there were a few whose point I didn't really
understand, and I just sorta glazed over and let them slide into the
bit bucket, so I won't resond to them.
 
What was left pretty much amounts to an assertion that the principles
of Objectivism are first principles, and should be accepted as
obviously true; that Objectivism is firmly based on first principles
that all sane people will agree to; and that a reading of history
actually supports Objectivism.
 
To the first, I can only say that reasonable people will differ on
first principles, and bring the discussion to the level of anticipated
results.  To any who think that Objectivism is a moral imperative, and
should be followed no matter what the result, I have nothing to say.
 
As far as the second goes, I would certainly like to see these first
principles spelled out.  A reading of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead
did not make them clear to me.  And then, I would still like to see
the discussion brought to the level of anticipated results.
 
The reading of history is the real crux of this discussion, as I
believe that this discussion is really a debate over the proposition
"shall the United States adapt as national policy the precepts of
Objectivism?"  (If we are really just yakkin about the logical
goodness this philosophy without any thought to ever implementing it,
let me know, and I'll go away.)
 
It's true that there has never been a time in history when "pure"
laissez-faire capitalism has been practiced.  But then no pure
philosophy has every been put into practice, and probably never will.
Things are actually accomplished by political means, and politics has
a way of mucking up a philosophy.
 
The economic periods when the United States and England allowed
capitalists the greatest freedom invariably produced a great
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and great poverty for
many.  These being essentially democratic societies, it followed
almost inevitably that measures were taken to even out the
distribution of wealth.
 
Hong Kong presents an interesting example, in that it does seem to
support the contention that separating the economic and political
domains leads to both economic and political benefit.  But Hong Kong
is a special case in the extreme.  It has been ruled by an external
power which had something to prove.  Great Britain has held up Hong
kong as a showcase of capitalism, in stark contrast to the communism
practiced on mainland China.  There was a great deal of motivation on
the part of the British to ensure that the government of Hong Kong
remained free of corruption and that the economy of Hong Kong boomed.
I think it would be difficult to repeat that situation starting from a
free society and working from within.  A method whereby the economic
and political domains could be separated remains to be worked out.  I
suspect it would be impossible. (Besides, I doubt that any of us would
actually enjoy living in Hong Kong.)
 
Well, this is already longer than I like these things to be.  I'll
discuss both Hong Kong and historic episodes (and whatever else comes
up) in later articles.  Please don't expect daily responses - I just
don't have the time.
 
(I'm surprised nobody mentioned Singapore.)
 
Michael Ward
mward@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism