From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Society and the Individual: The Sociological Gambit :-)
Keywords: libertarianism, objectivism, anthropology, sociology
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:18:33 GMT

sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>	My point is this: does this additional information on human
>nature really add anything significant enough to change
>libertarian/objectivist politics?  Is individual liberty a threat
>to some needed sociability?  Why?  Examples?  Will social engineering
>help matters any?  How?

Well: Yes, yes, because below, below, I think so, below.

One of the fundamental statements I see in Objectivism is valuing yourself
above others.  What I cannot see is why the following conclusion is, well,
impractical in Objectivism:

Axioms
a) I value myself above others
b) I am a government employee (for some "I")
----
Conclusions:
1) I am in control of some part of the police/military/courts (by b)
2) To obtain things like rulings in their favor, or "look the other way" or
   whatever, people would pay me a bit, for some "me" in the government. (by 1)
3) I would have no real reason not to occasionally accept bribes (a,2).

The "moral values" of government officials would have to be higher than that
required by the average citizen.  In some sense, they would have to morally
value others above personal gain in order to function effectively.  Strangely
enough, government can only function well when its members are totally
selfless, which contradicts selfishness.  The more selfish the people in
government, the less use it is to citizens since it becomes more dictatorial.

>	I think that there are many reasons why people "aggregate".
>I also believe that capitalism is one of them.  Capitalism brings
>people together in 'trade' relationships (what Aristotle might have
>called "advantage friendships").  There are other kinds of relationships
>of course.

Not a problem for me.
However I still have an (irrational) personal bias against anyone who can't
see the practicality of socialism in a community: that is, the community
taking in resources (voluntarily of course, you are free to not join) and
doling them out according to need (or even want).

>	I see nothing wrong with what you have said, however, it
>does not seem to pose much of a threat to libertarian/objectivist politics.
>Mark Sulkowski

How about this:
The values on which a society is based are created by the invididuals and
the society espouses them.  Hence, the morals which society does or does not
stick to are the ones people will tend to have.  The danger here is not one
of selfishness as "me first" but as "only me", which may get propagated as
individuality supercedes social "responsibility".  Then the "perfect 
Objectivism" will collapse as its people look to themselves and not their
society.  The old problem still exists: teach people to put themselves first
and the old survival gene will be so reinforced that group action which might
be in the benefit of the group becomes hard if it encompasses personal loss.

My solution?  Can't really think of any consistent one.  It seems to me that
the government has to put the people as a greater priority than itself, and
the people have to put government dictates above their own interests.  This
seems very contradictory.  But it seems the only way a non-dictatorial
government can be set up.  
By the way, this is essentially based on selflessness, which may promote
an inconsistent, complete system rather than Objectivism's alleged consistent
(and possibly incomplete?) system.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Xref: sparky alt.activism:20238 talk.environment:5394 ne.politics:3209