From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:07:51 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <Bxwxpo.MM1@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <37647@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>>In article <BxM015.B7J@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>>  When you look at social systems, which promote the lives of the
>>>>  citizens?  Fascism? Monarchy?  Socialism?  Military dictatorship?
>>>>  or Capitalist Republics?
>>>
>>>    But all you're doing is building the argument for pragmatism, and
>>>    Rand hated pragmatism.  
>>>
>>
>>I belive this shows you know less about Rand's ideas than you claim.
>>The pragmatism that Rand hated was the short-sighted "do whatever works
>>for the short run, don't think about the consequences, don't think
>>long term, just act now" type of attitude. I pointed out here on
>>the net last week (I don't know if it made it) that von Mises was
>>a fierce advocate of capitalism because he knew that it worked best.
>>However, because he held this belief, he became a very *principled* man,
>>unyielding and uncompromising in his espousal of capitalism. What von
>>Mises advocated was *long-term* pragmatism--what works best in the long run
>>for the largest amount of people.
>
>  The flaw in this is that if you can predict the long-term behavior
>  of social systems you could be the richest man in the world and
>  not have to major in computers in college as rich, or whatever you
>  do.   

Ludwig von Mises was a utilitarian, believing that the basic justification for
minimal govt was to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
I dont think he drew any absolute distinction between long and 
short term results, probably acknowledging
that short and long term results are subjective, and can only
be measured by individuals, based on their individual values. 


>  A prerequisite for "doing what's best in the long run" is being 
>  able to predict what long-term effects your actions will have.
>  I challenge you to prove that you can make such predictions
>  accurately.


That is kind of what the science of economics is for.  But as Mises would 
say, the science of economics is there not to tell 
humans what they should want, or what they
should believe, but to show them that if they seek Economic Result Z,
that they should do Actions A, B and C, or avoid D, for example.


>>The basis for deciding which ethical premise is better is its effect
>>on all individuals in the long run.

This says that the basis for ethics is long-term utility.  There is probably
nothing better to base it on, but there is no way to "prove" that this is
true.  It is a value judgment; one which I share, btw.

And as Peter says:
>  Prove this, and prove that you can predict the long run.

There is nothing absolute and objective about basing ethics on long-term
utility, or on the Ten Commandments, or the Voices of the Oracle.
Basing ethics on utility is something which has evolved
from the myriad historical value judgments of our individual thinking
and collective actions.  It's a cultural thing.

Rand's second biggest mistake (right behind her absolutist
model of the human psyche/nature from which she derived her ethics)
is in trying to erect absolute ethics.  We might agree that there is an
objective universe out there, but ethics are simply not in the same
category as the physical sciences.

Of course, Rand needed to believe in absolute ethics, or else she could
never believe that she was absolutely right, which was unacceptable to her.


--Al Date
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory