nonserviam Digest, Vol 11, Issue 5

[Emeka Nweze]

i don't think it is possible to be an egoist and a libertarian.

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:00 AM, <nonserviam-request at mailman.gramstad.no>wrote:

> Send nonserviam mailing list submissions to
>        nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mailman.gramstad.no/mailman/listinfo/nonserviam
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        nonserviam-request at mailman.gramstad.no
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        nonserviam-owner at mailman.gramstad.no
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nonserviam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Libertarian social profile (Daniel Davis)
>   2. Re: Libertarian social profile (David McDivitt)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:52 -0800 (PST)
> From: Daniel Davis <buybuydandavis at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Libertarian social profile
> To: david at subjectivist.org, nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
> Message-ID: <228654.88467.qm at web53406.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David McDivittt <david at subjectivist.org>
> >
> > It is OK to be an egoist, not that an egoist needs permission, but maybe
> > as egoists we can quit seeing a need to justify egoism.
>
> I think I'm quoting myself from years ago in saying that a justified egoism
> is
> no egoism at all. I think we agree that much.
>
> I'm not really onboard with your antirealism, but that's nothing new
> either. But
> there was one thread I thought I saw in there that I did agree with; there
> are
> authoritarian overtones to both attempts at justification, insistence on
> certain
> concepts, and definitions of words.
>
> Buy Buy -- Dan Davis
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:19:50 -0600
> From: David McDivitt <david at subjectivist.org>
> Subject: Re: Libertarian social profile
> To: Daniel Davis <buybuydandavis at yahoo.com>
> Cc: nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
> Message-ID: <sf5me6l0qbf8am7r8g1bl48sl1d460pgq3 at 4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >From: Daniel Davis <buybuydandavis at yahoo.com>
> >Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:52 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >----- Original Message ----
> >> From: David McDivittt <david at subjectivist.org>
> >>
> >> It is OK to be an egoist, not that an egoist needs permission, but maybe
> >> as egoists we can quit seeing a need to justify egoism.
> >
> >I think I'm quoting myself from years ago in saying that a justified
> egoism is
> >no egoism at all. I think we agree that much.
> >
> >I'm not really onboard with your antirealism, but that's nothing new
> either. But
> >there was one thread I thought I saw in there that I did agree with; there
> are
> >authoritarian overtones to both attempts at justification, insistence on
> certain
> >concepts, and definitions of words.
>
> Dan, the thread began on the subject of libertarianism, with a question
> what
> there might be in common between libertarians and objectivists, and also
> what people on the list might think of libertarianism.
>
> If we're going to have liberty, where are we going to have it? Shouldn't we
> have intellectual freedom as well as economic freedom and social freedom?
> The problem when discussing realism is, people refer to what they see and
> come to know through their own faculties as "real". It is not real however
> in the classical sense, but empirical. The State of Missouri, the "show me
> state" must be a state full of empiricists!
>
> When encountering new things some people try to look up a definition in a
> book. It's not just that they're wanting to take advantage of previous
> thought work on a subject. They want an authority. They don't want to think
> the wrong thoughts. Classical realism going all the way back to Plato is
> the
> idea there's a right way to consider everything, that the right way already
> exists, and what we do is discover or verbalize what that right way is.
> Strange as it may seem, when people read Carl Jung and find themselves
> reaching up into the consciousness plane for knowledge, thinking all
> knowledge is there freely for the taking, that is preexistent knowledge,
> follows the same vain as classical realism ironically, and offers no
> liberation to self at all. A liberated self does not discover. A liberated
> self makes things up. A creative person is better off "creating" rather
> than
> use the ridiculous idea of a consciousness plane.
>
> I think intellectual freedom is very important and it comes through
> challenging realism everywhere found. We must have a philosophy founded on
> liberty not authority. Ideas work when they're practical, not because they
> align with reality in some mystical fashion no one is able to verbalize.
> Ideas continue to work as we value the results of those ideas, which is
> individual and personal.
>
> As for libertarianism and objectivism, if a person went to live at Galt's
> Gulch who enjoyed giving things away, just because, for whatever reason,
> would that person be denied entrance? Why? What's wrong with having the
> freedom to do what one wants? The doctrine of Rand becomes more and more
> tyrannical over time. Whether it's right or wrong to give things away
> should
> have nothing to do with it, but what people want to do. Rand's view is
> ultimately one of morality and not self, toward her view of what society
> should be. That is not libertarianism. Objectivists steadfastly resist any
> form of a developing or dynamic state, but feel everything should be as
> it's
> supposed to be, from a position of what's right to begin with. Of course we
> have Rand, Peikoff, and others declaring for us what that right is, no
> differently than Plato did a long time ago, or any number of popes and
> bishops in between. To declare what's right, Rand even began going through
> the English language giving us the correct meaning of words, in effect
> writing her own vocabulary. If that isn't circular reasoning I don't know
> what is.
>
> Admittedly, when things aren't done properly, we end up with poor results
> and trash. This is true in science, technology, and many other things. But
> proper in this sense relates not to classical realism fulfilled, but rules
> and procedures we've worked out and we continue to value to give us what we
> want. Valuation not realism.
>
> --
> yes, I dare to be subjective!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> nonserviam mailing list
> nonserviam at mailman.gramstad.no
> http://mailman.gramstad.no/mailman/listinfo/nonserviam
>
>
> End of nonserviam Digest, Vol 11, Issue 5
> *****************************************
>