SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Sunday, October 30 - 2:34pm

Link

Edit

[This may better belong in the Objectivism Q&A, but I'm not sure.}

In his latest article, Duncan Bayne stated "...the existence of any stable minarchist-libertarian government presumes the existence of a culture capable of individualism, self-governance and benevolent cooperation."

While that is somewhat debatable, I accept it because it uses the word "stable", meaning that the people allow the government to continue its existence, whether or not the people were originally of that nature or not (though I do believe Duncan meant that they were).

This is very interesting. I shall here assume that that kind of society would have to exist (though not everyone would be that way, or else a government would be unnecessary) before a comparable government could be established. It would be the [almost] perfect society, according to Objectivism... but how to get there?

Objectivism may be touted as "a philosophy for living on Earth", but it seems to be idealistic and realistic simultaneously, leading me to question if it is truly appropriate for a pre-(insert Bayne's description of the culture) society. Because deception, fraud, crime, etc., etc. are so powerful, can we truly adequately deal with them, within the framework of Objectivism, _before_ such a good, Objective society exists? Are the "shoulds" and "morals" of Objectivism adequate for today's society, or _must_ we play by the current rules?

But... how to achieve an Objective society if we play by the current rules? Seems impossible.

Post 1

Wednesday, November 2 - 9:14am

Link

Edit

By the way, in clarification of the above post...
I was using Oism to refer to more than just the fundamental axioms. I guess I kinda confused things, as usually, only fundamentals are considered.

Post 2

Wednesday, November 2 - 10:40am

Link

Edit

Mark, your question is like the classical Humean argument for the limitations of epistemology -- only your question is put toward limitations of ethics/politics (ie. values/force). Under Hume's notions of our epistemological limitations, the undebatable scientific progress -- since his death -- could've never occurred. Another way to say this is that our body of knowledge needed to grow exponentially -- in order for the noted progress.

Hume, writing in the 1700s, was just flat wrong about our (in-)ability to grow a real body of knowledge. There it is, scientific progress, no one can doubt it. Now, let's take this same theme and apply it to a model of moral progress ...

For most tribal societies studied in the twentieth century, murder is the leading cause of death.
[source: Jared Diamond's 1999 book--Guns, Germs, and Steel]

In thirteenth century England, the annual murder rate was recorded. For every million persons, there were more than 200 annual murders.

In twentieth century England, this annual murder rate had dropped by 97.5% -- to 5 annual murders. Now, that's indisputable moral progress right there.
[source: Bjorn Lomborg's 2001 book--The Skeptical Environmentalist]

A 97-and-a-half percent drop in per-capita murder rate is about as good a proof of social progress as could be imagined. In sum then, and regarding your inquiry, there's a tendency in man to mentally project at least persistent stagnation, and if not regression, to conditions of destitution (evolutionarily, this inherited bias probably once had survival potential).

But in man, there is always a "threat" of imminent progress, and it could spring up at any time, it could even keep springing up (as it has for the last 800 years).

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 11/02, 10:42am)

Post 3

Wednesday, November 2 - 11:43am

Link

Edit

Mark, I didn't really answer your questions directly. Rather, I rationalistically kicked over the soap-box you were standing on when asking. Here's a more direct answer to your questions ...

=============
It would be the [almost] perfect society, according to Objectivism... but how to get there?
=============

Firstly, perfection is not NEEDED for progress (toward a society of Capitalism, Individualism, Reason, and Freedom -- ie. to be on a road to "CIRF-dom"). The Founding Fathers (& their families, and friends, and neighbors, and so on) weren't perfect when they helped to take us so far down along this right road.

Now, culture has slipped a little since then (we're currently off that right road). And cultural change is needed for a political change -- ie. things like SOLOHQ, the rock-band Rush, the right kind of poetry, the right things said at town-hall meetings, Objectivism-sympathetic movies like Batman Begins, the right kind of parenting, etc. THAT is how to get there.

=============
Objectivism may be touted as "a philosophy for living on Earth", but it seems to be idealistic and realistic simultaneously, leading me to question if it is truly appropriate for a pre-(insert Bayne's description of the culture) society.
=============

It is truly appropriate to make baby-steps toward it (and giant leaps when the cultural conditions are more correct). An in our own personal lives, it is truly appropriate to -- through integrity -- earn and keep our own self-respect and esteem (ie. to be principled, and lead by example).

=============
Because deception, fraud, crime, etc., etc. are so powerful, can we truly adequately deal with them, within the framework of Objectivism, _before_ such a good, Objective society exists?
=============

Boy, does Objectivism ever "deal" with these things (even better than current political culture does!)! But if we took the stance that -- in this race -- that our first step has to get us across the finish line, then we merely doom ourselves to persistent stagnation or decay. Finding ways to interject Objectivist principles might take some cunning, but there are already people hard at work at this (just look around here, for instance!).

=============
Are the "shoulds" and "morals" of Objectivism adequate for today's society, or _must_ we play by the current rules?
=============

The shoulds and morals of Objectivism are adequate for today's individuals (those things which, when summed, "make" a society).

In the last presidential debate, Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik decided not to play by the current rules -- he crossed a police line that was keeping him out of a "non-partisan" debate. He went to jail to show the injustice of the committee on presidential debates. He put his "jail-items" (name tag, etc) up for sale on E-bay -- in order to spread the word even more! So the answer is no, we don't have to play by the current rules (not always, anyway).

=============
But... how to achieve an Objective society if we play by the current rules? Seems impossible.
=============

See above.

Ed

Society, government, and dealing with things realistically.