General

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Superfluous — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 02:42:44 GMT

Road to Serfdom by Hayek

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Tim in Ohio — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 02:02:18 GMT

Though it wasn't what made me a libertarian, 1984 certainly reinforced it.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Jain Daugh — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:24:05 GMT

histhasthai wrote:

That's not entirely wrong, but don't confuse objectivist principles with Ayn Rand's dogma. She did, to her detriment and to the detriment of the philosophy she championed. The dogma sometimes (often?) contradicts the priniciples due to her refusal to let go of the monopoly state, as her principles demanded.

I've long felt that Rand was a bit of a 'control freak' so her acceptance of monopoly of force in the form of government makes sense FOR HER. But I also feel that it was a strong contradiction to her otherwise firm stance on individiualism.

After reading her novels and most of her other books, I felt I gained a much more balanced view of Rand as a person from reading the 2 books written by the Brandens (Barbara & Nathaniel). Rand may have had a brain sharp as a tack, but she also used that intelligence as a rapier on others. And she had a BIG emotional 'hole' IMHO. More than likely she carried some dysfunctional scars from her origins - family and revolutionary Russia.

And returning to the original question re becoming libertatarian, I agree with the basic non-agression stance of libertarianism, but I shun the politics of the Libertarian party. Guess my anarchic sympathies see little or no value in trying to change government by being part of it.

Jain

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Brainpolice — Sat, 31 May 2008 22:32:21 GMT

Was just clarifying.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

histhasthai — Sat, 31 May 2008 22:27:49 GMT

Brainpolice:
The problem with aesthetic objectivism is that it essentially tries to superimpose ethics onto taste or personal preferance and becomes little more than a tool for people to impose their personal preferances onto others. [ ...] There is no way that aesthetics can sensibly or legitimately be made obligatory.

Umm.... you quoted me, but you don't seem to be arguing against me. I said the values being expressed can be analyzed objectively (in that you can say, "this piece of art expresses such and such values, and here's what those values imply", but that the subjective reaction to a piece cannot - except perhaps to say that such and such a response indicates a certain view about the values expressed. What is it about that you disagree with? Do you disagree that art expresses values? Do you think that appreciation of any work of art is entirely arbitrary? If you want to lump the kind of ice cream you like into aesthetics, fine, but there's no relevance to the philosophical subject of aesthetics, so it's pretty pointless.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Brainpolice — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:48:07 GMT

In the case of music, my position is as follows. In terms of technical ability, yes, it can be "objectively" evaluated. However, technical ability is not primarily what people value in music. They get emotional value from it irrespective of technical ablity. One cannot conclude that a certain type or piece of music is "objectively superior" because what makes music "good" or "bad" is entirely a matter of the emotional value or happiness that people get from listening to it. From the standpoint of the listener, it's subjective.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Nitroadict — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:35:05 GMT

Brainpolice:

histhasthai:

Brainpolice:
One of the problems with Objectivism, in my OP, is that it tries to apply objectivity to aesthetics, which I find to be absolutely absurd.

As you say, her use of "objective" was different than the common usage. Aesthetics is not purely subjective preference, there are values expressed in any form of art, and those values and form of expression can be objectively analyzed and evaluated. But of course you can't objectively say anything about whether someone simply likes something or not. And here, her dogma gets in the way again.

I don't see anything "objective" about what flavor of ice cream one likes. Statements of pure preferance cannot be objective in that all that's being expressed is emotive. It'd be absurd to say "no, you don't like that flavor of ice cream" or "my prefered flavor of ice cream is objectively superior to yours". When we are dealing purely with "what I like", it's totally subjective. You can't assign moral properties to such things. You can "objectively" evaluate the properties of ice cream, but you cannot conclude any imperative from that. If I like chocolate and you like vanilla, there is no way that you can "objectively" tell me that vanilla is better for me. Vanilla is only better for you.

The problem with ethical subjectivism is that it reduces ethics to the level of "I like ice cream" or "I like chocolate ice cream". The problem with aesthetic objectivism is that it essentially tries to superimpose ethics onto taste or personal preferance and becomes little more than a tool for people to impose their personal preferances onto others. What makes people happy is in some ways separate from what is right or what is imperative. So long as what makes people happy does not violate what is right or what is imperative, it seems to me that it has total free reign and is indeed subjective. There is no way that aesthetics can sensibly or legitimately be made obligatory.

I conluded as much a while ago after discovering all debates about music were more or less centered around those trying to put objective ethics on subjective preferances, and those trying to impose them onto others.

At least those hours spent in chat rooms weren't wasted, I suppose.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Brainpolice — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:21:26 GMT

histhasthai:

Brainpolice:
One of the problems with Objectivism, in my OP, is that it tries to apply objectivity to aesthetics, which I find to be absolutely absurd.

As you say, her use of "objective" was different than the common usage. Aesthetics is not purely subjective preference, there are values expressed in any form of art, and those values and form of expression can be objectively analyzed and evaluated. But of course you can't objectively say anything about whether someone simply likes something or not. And here, her dogma gets in the way again.

I don't see anything "objective" about what flavor of ice cream one likes. Statements of pure preferance cannot be objective in that all that's being expressed is emotive. It'd be absurd to say "no, you don't like that flavor of ice cream" or "my prefered flavor of ice cream is objectively superior to yours". When we are dealing purely with "what I like", it's totally subjective. You can't assign moral properties to such things. You can "objectively" evaluate the properties of ice cream, but you cannot conclude any imperative from that. If I like chocolate and you like vanilla, there is no way that you can "objectively" tell me that vanilla is better for me. Vanilla is only better for you.

The problem with ethical subjectivism is that it reduces ethics to the level of "I like ice cream" or "I like chocolate ice cream". The problem with aesthetic objectivism is that it essentially tries to superimpose ethics onto taste or personal preferance and becomes little more than a tool for people to impose their personal preferances onto others. What makes people happy is in some ways separate from what is right or what is imperative. So long as what makes people happy does not violate what is right or what is imperative, it seems to me that it has total free reign and is indeed subjective. There is no way that aesthetics can sensibly or legitimately be made obligatory.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

histhasthai — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:02:09 GMT

Brainpolice:
One of the problems with Objectivism, in my OP, is that it tries to apply objectivity to aesthetics, which I find to be absolutely absurd.

As you say, her use of "objective" was different than the common usage. Aesthetics is not purely subjective preference, there are values expressed in any form of art, and those values and form of expression can be objectively analyzed and evaluated. But of course you can't objectively say anything about whether someone simply likes something or not. And here, her dogma gets in the way again.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

histhasthai — Sat, 31 May 2008 20:57:23 GMT

kingmonkey:
She just sounds like a bitter b*tch to me.

kingmonkey:
And the whole theory of ethics was already summed up by Christ 2,000 years ago: "Love your neighbor as yourself"

Objectivist ethics - and Ayn Rand's dogma, they agree in this matter - say just the opposite.

As far as I know, her epistemology is original to her. But whether she is right or wrong, her whining about bieng "plagiarized" is indeed silly.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

IDigSluts_ky — Sat, 31 May 2008 20:30:38 GMT

The Law--Bastiat (minus god)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ikgwLu_qVjI

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Nitroadict — Sat, 31 May 2008 20:18:50 GMT

Jon Irenicus:

To my knowledge a synthesis between Aristotelianism and egoism is entirely original. Until I am presented with evidence otherwise, Rand maintains her claim to originality in this regard.

-Jon

http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&lr=&as_brr=0&q=Aristotle+egoism+date%3A1700-1905&btnG=Search+Books

I found a good deal of results (on Google books) for pulbications before 1905 (ayn rand's D.O.B.) concerning the words Aristotle egoism date:1700-1905, but alas, have yet to find anything to disspove this :) . Even more frustrating is the lack of access I have to JSTOR to aid in my curious search.

Imo, I have a slight feeling that someone may have been on to such before her, but perhaps not have spelled it out, so to speak. Then again, I also hold the phrase: "All great artists steal, they don't do homages" as somewhat true as well, so perhaps I'm just chasing ghosts.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:49:16 GMT

To my knowledge a synthesis between Aristotelianism and egoism is entirely original. Until I am presented with evidence otherwise, Rand maintains her claim to originality in this regard.

-Jon

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

krazy kaju — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:37:26 GMT

None really. The videos provided by the Mises website prodded me into thinking the right way.

Re: What book turned you Libertarian

Brainpolice — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:23:44 GMT

She's being childish, though, about "plagiarizing" her ideas...as if all of her ideas were completely original, and as though simply agreeing with her constitutes some kind of theft.

Yea, that is ridiculous. She most certainly did not invent rational egoism or egoism in general, or the notion of objectivity (although, to her credit, her definition of objective is a bit unique).

Her views on IP were way off base due to her intellectual elitism.