text:
I disagree that (for instance) communism is "irrational"
By Puppy Dog, February 7, 2010 in Debates
Puppy Dog 0
Wait! Hear me out! It contains a kernel I think key to wider acceptance of Objectivism.
Ayn Rand argues that when people disagree with her philosophy that it is due to the refusal to use their own Mind because she considers all of the insights about personal freedom and the right to dispose of the product of one's labor as the only rational possibility. I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think it's more in psychology.
People go with whatever system they best believe (in their own 'rational' judgement, or at least as much reason as they can summon) will give them the best life they can have. Their knowledge of how the world works may be distorted, but they are still rationally judging within the model they have what they think will work. If the model of the world in your head says that stealing and violence is the only way to get ahead, because of a background of ignorance and poverty where those are the only people you ever see getting ahead, and you don't know any other way to live, it's probably a rational judgement to live like that. What i'm trying to say is that psychology, lack of education and lack of understanding is (IMHO, debate) the real reason for the disagreement or the refusal to accept certain things.
Not a refusal to use their mind, but rather their mind is locked in a cage which could have been caused by a mixture of brainwashing (socialist or otherwise), trauma, bad life examples/role models, no alternative examples to look up to in the real world of other ways they could live, etc. The reason I feel this is important (and not either inherently a refusal to use the mind, nor a refusal to think) is that it gives a completely different interpretation of the resistance many objectivists experience when trying to debate with the howling mob, possibly one that could be more effective or give new ideas of how to understand the nature of the resistance.
This is why a businessman wants laissez faire, because that is the system that is most beneficial to him. This is why the person with no skills and no abilities wants communism, because they know they cant make it in a mixed economy capitalist system and would be ground to dust in an objectivist system. This is why the tribal chief who has seen "foreign corporations" destroy the enviroment, loot the commons, wipe out the natural remedies, and then tell you you can die if you cant pay for their imported solutions becomes a hardcore resister of capitalism because of their personal experience of it. Each person goes with the beliefs that, if widely implemented, think will get them a better deal.
(Note that it's the PERCEPTION of assumed gain, rather than the actual gain itself. Look at all the Obama-supporting morons. They thought he would be different and fix all their problems (i've literally seen videos of people crying, saying they dont have to worry about losing their house anymore in foreclosure, and they'll have free health care because Obama will fix everything - total cult of personality) so they jumped behind something they assumed would give them.)
So what is my point? My point is that someone who has absolutely no skills, who is a cookie cutter unskilled "campesino class" laborer, is never going to support Objectivism. They will always play politics, support force in stealing from the producers to redistribte looted wealth to them. They have no choice - "rationally" it is their only way to survive or to make their life as easy as possible. They vote and support the candidate that promises to loot for them what they cannot provide for themself. I'm not sure that's irrational, that's self interest. It's immoral sure but that's a separate argument.
Somebody who currently may have a normal slave wage job, but actually has some hidden talent, ability or skill which in a laissez faire system they would be able to sell and benefit from and get paid far more seem to be VERY open to objectivism. They know they are being prevented by producing by having to ask the permission of someone who doesnt produce in the government and cant get through all the hassle of licenses, approval boards, legal restrictions and so forth, the millions of laws that now regulate every possible facet of human activity and how to carry out business.
I've talked with people extremely hostile to objectivism because they see that widespread globalization and innovation of all sorts is only driving their wages down lower, but then after I made them aware they had hidden talents that they could profit by in an objectivist system they've turned around 180 degrees.
My point is that for anybody who wants to just remain the same, to find one job providing one wage and to never have to think again, to just show up to work every day doing what any trained monkey to do, they will never ever support objectivism. They would have to be irrational to vote for a system that they will only lose in.
The people that are highly adaptable, that see it as a challenge that the world is constantly changing, and want to engage in the competitive battle to see who can out-adapt everyone else and come up with the cleverest insight - they are likely strong supporters of objectivism, or globalization, or other "merciless" systems of letting the market decide and having no social safety net, because they don't need it. They excel in such a society. Such men are always going to be in the minority, so it seems unlikely that objectivism will ever be accepted outside of this minority, except at the point of a gun.
Perhaps many of these problems are cultural however. The industrial age mentality in our schools where people are taught to be cookie cutter workers, because such workers were needed to function in the factories, is completely inappropriate for a modern globalized world. It's an education that handicaps you, quite possibly for life because it's drilled in from K-12 and then in college most of the time too. You're never taught how to be an entrepreneur, how to innovate, how to think for yourself.
The only way that I think more people will support objectivism and a ruthless free market is if they are offered a system that they can win in. It's irrational to support one that makes you lose, so if people were educated to take advantage of the freedom laissez faire capitalism provides, to truly think, to innovate, many would leap at the chance to run to Galt's Gulch and get out of the socialist sewer were entering into. But if objectivism continues to be sold in the manner of "youre just irrational if you dont agree with this" it will continue to be labeled 'randroids' or rejected in college (a highly socialistic institution in most places anyways) as a legitimate philosophy worthy of intense study.
softwareNerd 700
Proud Father
Other Public-visible Contact Info:[email protected]
Chat Nick:sNerd
This is why a businessman wants laissez faire, because that is the system that is most beneficial to him. This is why the person with no skills and no abilities wants communism, because they know they cant make it in a mixed economy capitalist system and would be ground to dust in an objectivist system.
PuppyDog, You really need to step out of your text books and into the real world. Do you really think the typical Chinese or Russian peasant was better off in their less free systems of a few years ago?
Danconia reacted to this
Maximus 3
Location:Terra
Real Name:Bryan
I'm beginning to suspect the boy is a bit pink on the inside, sNerd.
Every post so far espouses Marxist concepts.
Rand and the Greeks
By Boydstun
Some beginner questions about morality and human nature
By Human
Willful ignorance.
By TuringAI
Reblogged:Friday Hodgepodge
By Gus Van Horn blog
Do we have a "primitive mind"?
By Nicky
The Moral Value of Liberty
Started June 8, 2019
Facebook login is fixed
By DavidV
HTTPS?
By necrovore
The Trolley Problem
By epistemologue
Reblogged:Why a Personal Knowledge Base?