A Rational Egoist's Rights are a Mystical Altruist's Wrongs

[TheAnonymousAnomie]

@LakeShaman

read Max Stirner's The Ego And His Own.

He was probably the archetypical Egoist, and if you ask me I'd tell you he was also an early proponent of evolutionary ethics.

[OldSmellyCrotch]

Speaking of conflicts......if the prosecutor represents the "Crown" and the Judge represents the "Crown" also, isn't this what we commonly call a "conflict of interest"??

[olvew]

I feel the argument is incomplete without dealing with David Friedman's thesis about efficient law; do you have any comments on this?

[psychiatristman00]

can i just mention a few things:

1) ayn rand was a raving queen. regardless of her philosophy, that woman was crazy.

2) those who follow rational egoism as an ethical system might not be acting wrongly, but they are depriving themselves of the virtues of true self-sacrifice and social justice. believe it or not, some form of a collective does exist simply because empiricism indicates its existence. people are profoundly influenced by their cultural and environmental settings.

[danmifune]

The best way to understand an objective world is through language- in convention we wave a shared language, but again there's no proving possible.

Check out your Wittgenstein.

[eachtem]

Reasonable opinion. If there where more like the world would be a better place

[danmifune]

Thank you, well you've certainly given me answers, although many more questions spring to mind!

I didn't expect an answer to the first question because no philosopher in history has been able to answer it!

[olvew]

Rand was able to answer it. I quote:

We, the men of the mind, are now on strike against you in the name of a single axiom, which is the root of our moral code, just as the root of yours is the wish to escape it: the axiom that existence exists.

Existence exists-and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

[olvew]

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

[olvew]

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.

[olvew]

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was-no matter what his errors-the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

[olvew]

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

[olvew]

Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.

[olvew]

Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.

[olvew]

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it?

[olvew]

His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge.

[olvew]

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in ones thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate ones mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, mans only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.

[olvew]

The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours. No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it. It is only with your own knowledge that you can deal. It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider. Your mind is your only judge of truth-and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal.

[olvew]

Nothing but a mans mind can perform that complex, delicate, crucial process of identification which is thinking. Nothing can direct the process but his own judgment. Nothing can direct his judgment but his moral integrity.

[olvew]

[...]

When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesnt choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut ones mouth, expound no theories and die.

[olvew]

An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

[olvew]

Let the caveman who does not choose to accept the axiom of identity, try to present his theory without using the concept of identity or any concept derived from it-let the anthropoid who does not choose to accept the existence of nouns, try to devise a language without nouns, adjectives or verbs-let the witch-doctor who does not choose to accept the validity of sensory perception, try to prove it without using the data he obtained by sensory perception...

[olvew]

...-let the head-hunter who does not choose to accept the validity of logic, try to prove it without using logic-let the pigmy who proclaims that a skyscraper needs no foundation after it reaches its fiftieth story, yank the base from under his building, not yours-let the cannibal who snarls that the freedom of mans mind was needed to create an industrial civilization, but is not needed to maintain it, be given an arrowhead and bearskin, not a university chair of economics.

[danmifune]

Seems to be a lot of stale truisms here.

The question should be 'is the objective world knowable?' The Rand writing that has been posted here ignores this although it does alude to the Kantian: "The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours." this is subjective!

Reason alone is not how we come by knowledge, we must rely on intuition and imaginiation. Logic and analytic reasoning severely limits our experience of the world.

[danmifune]

When I look at the world must I always try to prove it exists?

Of course reality exists the question is again, can reason 'prove' it? Do we really need to?

[olvew]

It's really much simpler. Accept it or die. It's not a threat, it's a simple statement of fact.

[terraindrain1]

It is a shame that the leader of an Ontario party is so inarticulate.

[danmifune]

Oh and if you can actually prove (with pure reason) the objective world then please could you explain to me how you do it! Reading Rand's 'objectivist' epistemology is more difficult than Kant (I've read Kant and if anything he SAVED the Authority of reason after Hume and the sceptics! The 'Critique' of pure reason isn't an attack on reason!! It's an investigation of reason and the process of rational thought.)

I feel better now, thats been coming for a while.

[danmifune]

There's me thinking that 'objectivism' was in effect anarco-capitalism. Fortunately we live in SOCIETY with many other PEOPLE that we need to get along with. We need the 'looters' as Rand called them. If you think man is an Island then try and live outside of society.

[boomer1000]

How does one need a looter? To the extent which they are a looter they are a drain on your existence. I would agree that our modern society is dependent on the division of labour amongst many people, but I would suggest you reexamine what you said. It is the division of labour amongst productive citizens that generates our material well being. So I pose the question again, how is one who only takes from society crucial to its continuation? Should their methods of 'looting' not be made illegal?

[boomer1000]

I should mention this is in response to danmifune and not to the video.

[danmifune]

I have decided to admit ignorance in the case of Rand. I produced what was a knee-jerk reaction to her views. But I ask, if I may, two questions for objectivists.

1. How do you prove the objective world?

2. If we should all follow our own selfish interests and not work for others, who would be willing to give their surplus value to capital?

3.How can you imagine a world with only capitalists and no labour?

[danmifune]

(The last question was a bonus! oops!)

[boomer1000]

2.) You assume that working for another is not in your selfish interest? What if they are willing to pay you more then you could earn on your own? The second part of the question is why do we invest. You put money into capital so that your future income is greater - to improve the value of your labour. For example a landscaper buys a new lawn mower and can now cut twice as many lawns in the same time frame. The revenue from 2x lawns is > then he cost of the capital so it is in his self interest

[boomer1000]

When you speak of surplus value you are implying that someone is being paid less then they are worth. The money a "capitalist" earns is based on their ability to plan, manage, invent aswell as a premium for their assumption of risk (it is their $ on the line). The 'labourer' wouldnt be able to produce items of such value without the capitalists aid. Imagine an assembly line worker trying to build his own cars, he needs the corporate guys to invent, invest, manage etc so he can do what he does.

[VeganTim0Deadbeat]

why should our economy be based on profit? this leads often leads to overproduction, which leads to under consumption and debt. if the economy were based on need, with a "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability" philosophy, work will be equally distributed to all and the surplus experienced in our current system will be utilized, instead of discarded.

[boomer1000]

3.) Can you find me anyone who is a pure capitalist or a pure labourer? Ever job requires some combination of both. Capital is ones means of production. A shovel and a backhoe are both capital. A venture capitalist still spends hours on end (labour) looking for investment opportunities.

Think of labour as your human output, and capital as the leverage you use to accomplish more with that labour output. You dig a hole with a backhoe instead of a shovel. Your labour is constant, cap. increases.

[boomer1000]

Anyways,I hope I could help even with the word limit. Paul McKeever has some of the best objectivist videos on the internet, but they might seem like a contradiction if you dont fully understand the ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy which they were built on. knowledge comes from the source.You are obviously intellectually curious- that is the key to being able to grasp objectivism -so I am sure you will be able to answer your own questions is short order.Sorry if the 1st seemed like a copout A

[boomer1000]

To answer your 1st q. I suggest you read some of Rands work. Atlas Shrugged is the most renown, but the fountainhead might be a good place to start. After seeing her philosophy applied to the lives of fictional characters it is easier to transition into the non-fiction works that will explicitly answer your question. They really are not that complicated or dense, you just have to start from the beginning and challenge 1st principles.

[AynRandOeuvre]

"The rectangle of light in the acres of a farm was the window of the library of Judge Narragansett. He sat at a table, and the light of his lamp fell on a copy of an ancient document. He had marked and crossed out the contradictions in its statements that once had been the cause of its destruction. He was now adding a new clause to its pages: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade..." (JN:solo\AS\AynRand)

[stratvic]

The law is so volumous now, point taken on case law, but the volume of the law enacted by elected bodies is so huge that ignorance of the law must become a legitimate defence.

The only law we can not be ignorant of is natural, whatever that is.

[stratvic]

Common law primarily protects people by way of establishing competence to participate and honesty in dealings not in establishing equality of outcome.

[stratvic]

Altruism is an inherient component of most religions. A concept that is a component of the harm that religion does harm to people.

Just because religion therefore self subservence is popular doesn't make it right. The constitution does assist us here.

[Signofthedollar]

To save the world is the simpliest thing in the world. All one has to do is think. Objectivists have minds but unfortunately anarchists don't.

[glennyh]

FOAU wrote:

"Isn't the main problem the violation of rights with violence?"

No, the main problem with the violation of rights is that "consent" isn't given by the person violated. You can violate rights without using violence.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

So you're saying it's OK to impose government on altruists?

If common law is altruistic, does that mean decisions made by altruistic judges have to be enforced with violence?

Isn't the main problem the violation of rights with violence? Are there bigger problems?

[qtronman]

XOmniverse and other anarchists seem to hold the notion that one's political-moral-social philosophy is determined by a free market--viz., if only we had anarchism, then people would believe in everyone's inalienable rights. This patently inverted: one's deeper moral and epistemological ideas (say, concerning obedience to such-and-such) do not flow from one's political ideas; it's the other way around.

[nexalacer]

I think you've got it twisted. The basic moral tenet of market anarchists is "violence is bad" and that applies to everyone, including the government. Therefore, the government cannot exist. The political beliefs flow from this moral idea.

[qtronman]

"Violence is bad" cannot possibly hold as a universal moral maxim. Two boxers engage in violence in a consensual manner; is that necessarily bad? If I punch you in the face, and you punch me back with an equal amount of force, is your act of violence bad? I think you must mean that morally unjustified violence is bad--which means: initating force against a moral agent who does not agree to it.

[qtronman]

Rand's conception of government imposes no violence on you, me or anyone else. It simply puts violence under its legal purview.

[nexalacer]

Yes, of course, I meant the initiation of violence is bad. Self-defense or mutually consensual violence would be out of bounds. But as for Rand's government not imposing violence, how would it sustain itself?

[lordmetroid]

You want retalitory law and that is so narrow minded in my opinion ... I don't think private law would be retalitory in nature. I envision that a reputational based system would grow forth, like in the virtual markets of the internet.

[marneedear]

Hi Paul. Nicely done. Helped me clear up my own ideas, especially the discussion on common law. Love the vids.

Cheers.

[PaulMcKeever]

Thanks MD. I acknowledge this one was more about the history and state of law, and about the morality that prevails among most individuals, than about philosophy. But the evidence provided by the common law & equity was too pertinent to pass up.

[marneedear]

Yeah, but if anything it very nicely illustrates what happens in a political system not based in objective principles. Also, we can imagine how much worse it would be without a Constitution or acknowledgment of the Rule of Law.

[neutrinoide]

The judge are force on people. You dont need a court. Write the name of the guy who break a contract on a database of reputation and voila. If he keep up with this, his life will be hell. Your lack of imagination is the problem. No suprise, since we will in a none competitive society.

[AtheistAaron]

I love your vids, Paul. XOmniverse's vids, too. Indeed, it's interesting that anarchists and Objectivists would clash as much as they seem to. I suppose the more similar we are, the more violently we oppose each other (consider Catholics/Protestants or Christians/Muslims/Jews)... I myself would love to see an anarchistic society, but I do not think it is realistic at this time.

[PaulMcKeever]

Both believe they want freedom, and they both want it much more than the average bear. It is because they both care so much for freedom that they care so much that others agree with what they think is the only way it can be achieved. So long as both actually do care to be free, neither will result to violence. That said, anarchism (broadly speaking) has a spotty record in that regard.

[AtheistAaron]

Precisely why I cannot call myself an anarchist in good conscience. That is also why I have lately become much more interested in Rand.

[MisfitDoctor]

Is that to say that there is no true objective laws? because if the basis of all law is based on precedents that conflict with one another and judges who are subjectively biased; does that not mean that any law can be bent based on the 'skill' of the arbiter?

[PaulMcKeever]

I would argue that the laws where I live are not consistently rational and, for that reason, are not consistently objective. And it is true that even statutes can be corrupted by giving their words strained interpretations...but it's much much more difficult to corrupt (and more easy to access and understand) a statutory provision than it is to corrupt the common law or to access and understand it.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

On a side note... I wish anarchists and Objectivists alike would keep this discussion a little more civil/respectful. You and XOmniverse have done a decent job, but it still seems like there are a lot of condescending tones to the arguments. I wish these ideas could be discussed without such a clashing of heads.

[PaulMcKeever]

Well, let me just say that I respect XO, and like him, no matter what my manner or style might suggest to the contrary.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Would you agree that if we had a consensus about rights, a government wouldn't be needed?

[D4rkReaver13]

Not just a consensus about rights, but a consensus about justice and ethics in general. Then it would require that everyone be 100% honest and 100% virtuous all the time. Until the human capacity to be evil and/or commit error is eliminated, legislature is necessary.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

I think it would just take a majority consensus. That way those who are virtuous would naturally enforce ethical laws. There will always be people who are evil, but I think the good will always outweigh them in the long run.

[PaulMcKeever]

That doesn't resolve the matter though: you still need to have an objective evaluation of allegations that (objective laws have been violated) before retaliatory force can be imposed.  The creation of objective law concerning a given subject requires a single law-maker with respect to that subject.

[Youhavethebody]

But wouldn't this be an instance of the virtuous and good "monopolistically" violating the non-aggression principle in regards to the immoral through their enforcement of ethical laws?

I thought this was something you disagreed with?

[PaulMcKeever]

YHTB: was that comment directed to me, or to MAF?

[Youhavethebody]

To MAF.  Sorry Paul.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Everyone talks about the pragmatics of government, but I am really concerned with the ethics. I just see no ethical reason for a government. It just seems like a compromise with tribalism/collectivism. Good people have the means to protect themselves and have the volition to deal with people who agree with their own ethics. Anarchy to me is a long term goal, eventually reached by the spread of the right ideals.

[D4rkReaver13]

There is one correct code of ethics, therefore the is only one correct political system / law. The practical issues are what necessitate a government - private individuals cannot be their own arbitrator. Everyone has to be held to an objective standard. Even if everyone acted virtuously; due to non-omniscience, everyone can't put complete faith in every other individual. To be free of an objective standard is to be free from justice.

[D4rkReaver13]

Arbitration is ethical and required - even most anarchists don't deny that. The problem is that anarchism doesn't provide a final overriding law that prevents endless compromise, misinterpretation and inconsistency.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

I guess it comes down to a general trust in humanity then. I trust that eventually a majority of individuals to be rational enough to lead their own lives free of the need of a higher system of protection. There will be cases where justice goes unserved but I think it is far more of an injustice to allow other men any control over your own life.

[MiniAmericanFlag]

Government is men controlling other men by force (monopoly=no choice). That is the essence of the violation of the non-aggression principle. All you can do is control your own life. If someone tries to control you with force, you can act with force. But the need for government? Still doesn't make sense to me if you have control of your own rights.

[PaulMcKeever]

I'd qualify that: government is men using retaliatory force against those who initiate the use of coercive physical force. So long as the government restricts itself to retaliatory force, it remains a government. When it starts to initiate force, it becomes a criminal organization.

[DavoT2]

Doesn't that mean the US "government" is a criminal org, ie, it initiated force{deadly force} against Iraq?

[PaulMcKeever]

I don't share your hope. The history of humanity is the history of people trying to avoid freedom and personal responsibility...and succeeding better with each passing year.

[PaulMcKeever]

Protection is about the defensive use of force, not about the retaliatory use of force. Protecting oneself leaves unanswer the issue of creating objective laws and enforcing them objectively.

[PaulMcKeever]

A consensus wouldn't suffice: unanimity, together with consistent respect for rights, would be required. I don't hold the prospects for that to be very likely, though. So long as there are people who want (and think they deserve) something-for-nothing, government will be required.