From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:48:08 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <9211071042.03@rgm.com> root@rgm.com (Ray Mendonsa) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  The problem is that Randianism is not content to serve
>>  a middlebrow market as a middlebrow philosophy.  They
>>  *claim* to be of a rigorous calibre.  They claim to 
>>  have an exacting, logical, provable model on which to 
>>  base their conclusions.  I attack them not just because
>>  their model is wrong, but because they misrepresent
>>  themselves. 
>
>This is true, there is a certain quality about Objectivist writing and
>discussion that lends an excessive certainty to its own conclusions.
>Anyone touting any philosophy must understand that their basic metaphysical
>assumptions ARE IN DISPUTE.  No one can ever agree or approve as fact the
>basic assumptions of the philosophy.

	Some of you all may recall a posting I did a few weeks back which 
identified most non-liberal political ideologies (i.e. Marxism, National 
Socialism, feminism) with the ancient Gnostics. One of the characteristics
of Gnosticism is that it definitively prohibits questions from being asked
(which challenge its basic assumptions). Furthermore, this feature of
Gnostic thinking enables a particular ideology to be logically consistent,
but yet incapable of answering those questions it prohibits. Objectivism
clearly meets these criteria for "Gnostic" thinking. As does libertarianism,
to whit:

>
>The neat thing about 'libertarianism' and its ilk, is that it makes minimum
>assumptions or demands on the individuals within the world view.  This position
>allows people to voluntarily fulfill obligations created by their own beliefs,
>without foisting these obligations upon those who dispute them.  If you can't
>convince someone that they are obligated to help those in need, why should you
>legally require it of them?  Because a majority of citizens view the denial of
>this obligation as selfishness and define selfishness as a mortal sin, should
>those who merely have different metaphysical assumptions be coerced into
>participating in that which they oppose?  I think not.

	I would submit that laws to enforce certain types of "altruistic"
behavior exist in order to cause people to take actions which they would not
otherwise engage in. The most obvious example which comes to mind is the 
German "assistance" law on the Autobahn, which legally requires a driver
to offer assistance to a stopped vehicle. Anyone who has the least bit of
experience with Autobahn driving etiquette understands that altruism does
not arise spontaneously in that culture.

>
>I think a minimum social order can be constructed that allows citizens to
>voluntarily support their particular moral obligations without denying anyone
>of their generally agreed upon rights.  And I must assert that one's right
>shouldn't create a demand for affirmative effort upon another individual,
>merely a requirement for individuals to abstain from injurious behavior.

	I'm not sure that even died-in-the-wool libertarians would go
along with this kind of distinction. Clearly, SOME kind of affirmative 
effort is frequently necessary in order *to abstain from injurious behavior.*
If I am on the Autobahn, and fail to yield to that madman who is overtaking
me at a speed of 150 kph, it matters little whether I am standing on my
*rights* or not. In the Dodge 'Em Car game of life, it is often not enough
to say you're sorry.

>
>But of course one is certainly able to construct an argument philisophical in
>appearance that will blast my particular assertion to shreds.  Rest assured,
>it will not bend me as I don't agree with the basic principles behind any
>such argument. 8^)

	Spoken like a true Objectivist. Did I get the joke, then ?


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory