From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: "Rational" Humans vs ?? (was Re: On Banning Private Discrimination)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:03:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.230322.23001@macc.wisc.edu>, anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul22.205623.23453@gordian.com>
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A.  Thomas) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Jul22.183932.520@macc.wisc.edu>,
> >anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> 
> >>In article <15520@star.cs.vu.nl> fjvwing@cs.vu.nl (FJ!!)
> >>writes: 
> >>>[...]  People aren't rational.

> >Which is to say that the only way people will obey is at the
> >muzzle of a gun.  How, um, misanthropic.  Pardon me as I
> >barf.
> 
> But you're making *yourself* ill by setting up a straw
> figure.  To say people aren't at base rational does not mean
> reason can't be a factor in people's lives.  

  The statement was "People aren't rational", base or otherwise.

> FJ's point
> wasn't that we're all driven solely by reptilian impulses.
> Rather, it was that any attempt to reduce the entire
> spectrum of human choices and relationships to conscious
> processes -- in effect disregarding our irrational
> components -- is unrealistically bloodless.

  Now who is setting up a strawman? Libs do not dismiss irrationality
as being non-existant, in fact the entire point of having a lib 
government is to protect peoples rights when some people choose
to irrationally (or pseudo rationally for that matter) violate 
somebody elses rights.
  Capitalism, and individual rights are based on the observation
that peoples self interest can be used to the advantage of a 
peacefully coexisting society. It does not require perfect rationality
or omniscience in any sense, but it requires people respect other
peoples rights at a base level. There is nothing utopian (in the sense 
of we would have a perfectly harmonious society) about this, it would
just be _optimal_ given the way human beings behave. Problems would
still exist, but there would be less problem when considered on whole.

> I can only speculate where you get your guns and misanthropy
> charges.  But it's no speculation that they do not figure in
> what FJ said nor in my agreement with him.

  They certainly do. The charge that people (common schlep,
or however you'd like to phrase it) are not rational implies
that they cannot think for themselves. At best this is very
elitest, at worst it shows a glowering contempt for mankind.
  When somebody tells me that the common man (or people or, or)
cannot think or is not rational, I do not think it is much
of an assumption to guess that they think that they are exempt. 
Mighty elitest in my book. Mighty contemptious as well.

> >Libs do not deny that people can be bad, but the wholesale
> >condemnation of man to be some sort of animal to be herded
> >by the state, since we are evil by nature, is a bit too much
> >to take.
> 
> You're the only one mentioning that.  If that's the only
> alternative you can see, I feel sorry for you.
> 
> It is not a "condemnation" to take our complete natures into
> account; on the contrary, it is folly not to.  That nature
> includes not only our mental (as in rational) capabilities
> but also an immense number of other things.  If anything,
> it's the libertarians who are "reducing" people by denying
> the pertinence of the fuller picture.

  Another strawman, nice try.

> >For better or worse, if we are to have a society which is
> >not a slave pen we must work off of the assumption that man
> >has the potential of being rational.
> 
> In all due respect, that's bloated nonsense.  The "potential
> of being rational" states the obvious: clearly we have a
> good more than potential, in the department of rationality.
> The absence of a completely deterministic, linear,
> closed-ended society in no way implies that a "slave pen"
> society is the only alternative.

  Another strawman. Who made any mention of a close ended,
deterministic, linear society? This is almost to ludicrous
to acknowledge. The capitalists are the one's who recognize
that societies cannot be planned. The last 70 years have
been an eloquent affirmation of that.

> >Putting self interest as the incentive is of primary concern
> >since a person will not objectify that which is not
> >perceived as good for him/her.
> 
> Look, there is a considerable fraction of everyone's life,
> goals, aspirations, hopes, activities and the whole kit that
> in no way involves "objectifying" anything.  Much is driven
> by unarticulated, inchoate impulse and nothing else.  It's
> *extremely* likely that the vast majority of things we
> identify as in our self-interest are anything but rational.

  Indeed. For better or worse. A better society is one which
allows people to make their own determinations of right and
wrong within the framework of mutually respected rights, IMHO.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: soc.motss