NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/2305

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-08 | 8.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!infoserv!momad!siphon
From: [e-mail] (Stimpson J. Katz)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Response to Mr. Wingate (Was Ayn Rand)
Keywords: Rand Religion Wingate
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 03:17:43 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: MoDeM MaDnEsS BBS   1-516/295-9435
Lines: 169

Here we go again.....

I wrote:

>Mr.  Wingate, I believe you have missed the point completely.  Atlas _is_ the
>progress of an earlier time.  Our era is the future of that era.  This is not
>only a matter of fact statement, but the actions taken on the part of our
>government closely parallel the actions taken by the government in Atlas
>(with similar, though less dramatic, consequences).

Mr. Wingate responded:

>_Atlas_ is a '30s book written in the '50s; the book was still written in
>its own future, and in a future that is not now.  As far as the parallels
>between the present and the "Galt Era" are concerned, I don't want to go
>into a long rebuttal here because so much of it is subjective impression.
>But two things are rather plain.  First, greed and incompetence on the part
>of corporate executives plays a large role in the mess were in.  Second, the
>trend within the computer industry at least is for the corporation to own
>all intellectual property.  I don't think either of these is adequately
>addressed-- not because Rand ignores incompetence, but because she presents
>these characters who are never incompetent or greedy.

I defy Mr. Wingate to demostrate how "greed and incompetence on the part
of corporate executives plays a large role in the [unspecified] mess
we are in". A much more defensible claim is "greed, incompetence, and
stupidiy on the part of government plays a large role in the economic mess
we are in."

While he is correct that large corporations prefer to own
the intellectual property their employees create, this does not change
the fact (and in fact only demonstrates) that intellectual property is
the most valuable kind.

I honestly do not see Mr. Wingate's point regarding incompetence. But as
for greed, Rand's characters (heroes) were always greedy. Greed, in the
sense of pursuing that which one personally values, Rand considered a
virtue and all of her heroes displayed it.

Any Objectivist will be happy to explain to you why incompetent government
officials can do much more damage than incompetent corporate officers.
Corporate officers can only damage what they own and are subject to being
thrown out if they do not do what the stockholders want. Government officials
damage anything and everything and are subject to being thrown out if they
are caught in an illegal act or lose in an election.

I wrote:

>As far as Atlas making patent law a metaphor for human existence, productive
>work by creative individuals produces ideas. This is why allowing people to
>own the products of their mind allows them to own their life.

Mr. Wingate responds:

>There is a difference between making ideas and making chairs, though: two
>different people can make the same idea, but they cannot make the same chair.

Of course. And while both physical and intellectual property rights fall
under the umbrella of "allowing people to own their life" intellectual
property is becoming more and more important in our information age. Rand
anticipated this. Thus the metaphor. Also it is often neglected by the
advocates of property rights.

I wrote:

>As far as Rand's critique of religion, it boils down to the essential point
>that religion makes no testable claims and therefore says nothing about
>reality.

Mr. Wingate responded:

>Since the assertion that the "reality" of religion does not exist (or need
>not be bothered with) is an untestable claim, this criticism is without
>merit.  And as I said, I haven't read everything she wrote-- I think I have
>made it plain that the portions I have read give me no assurances that the
>rest are worth reading.

One need not prove a negative, Mr. Wingate. It is incumbent upon those who
assert something's existence to provide evidence to support it. The more
fantastic the claim (ie: the more it conflicts with what one already knows)
the more fantastic the evidence required. I leave it as an exercise for the
reader to determine the fantasticness of the claims of religion.

I wrote:

>I submit that presenting heroes to aspire to is a major positive role of
>literature. You objection boils down to the characters being 'too good'.

Mr. Wingate responded:

>If you would like to put it that way, I won't object.  When one is talking
>about issues of morality and politics together, however, being "too good"
>represents a real (as in reality) weakness.  The current system of
>government we have exists as it does because people aren't that good; the
>constitution not only justifies the government, but limits its power, and
>for the reason that it cannot be trusted.  Limits on corporation exist for
>the same reason.

We are way off the original point here, which was that Rand portrays
characters that operate in a manner not sustainable by mere mortals. Now
this has become a debate on the merits of "limits on corporation[s]".
Let's not turn this into a political debate too.

I believe Mr. Wingate has conceded that his original objection is without
merit. If I am wrong about this, correct me. If he means that Objectivism
requires that people be "more good" than they are capable of being, I
submit that religion places far more impossible requirements on man
than Objectivism could ever hope to.

I wrote:

>If Objectivism allows its followers to concoct "quick rebuttals ..  [that]
>prove to be weak and full of flaws," I must ask you if these rebuttals have
>a common thread or are unrelated?

Wingate Observed:

>Tey have the common thread which you are about to illustrate:

I wrote:

>If they have a common thread, everyone would quickly arm themselves against
>the common flaws and weaknessess to the common thread, yet observation shows
>the same people losing the same debates for the same reasons over and over,
>despite consulting with their ideological allies for battle plans.

Wingate responded:

>This argument is wrong because its justification is simple plausibility.  The
>history (for instance) of creationism debates shows what is wrong: people--
>on both sides of the argument-- repeat the same erroneous arguments over and
>over.  It is easy to win five debates if the counterarguments in the five
>debates are the same.  Reality shows that erroneous arguments rarely go
>away-- this is a totally objective observation, regardless of which side you
>think is right!

Agreed, and this was not really intended to prove anything. But the original
point went a little deeper:

People who become Objectivists suddenly find that they can win nearly
every political/economic/religous debate that they get in with their
former debating equals and even superiors. This does not prove
that Objectivism is right, I suppose a strong but incorrect philosophy
could do the same.

It is difficult to put in words exactly what it is I am trying to say, but
anyone who has watched an Objectivist debate against an army of Liberals
would know instantly what I mean. At a minimum, Objectivists can defend
their positions rationally better than any other group of people.

I remember back when I was in college (University of Houston) a
fundamentalist group (I believe it was Assemblies of God) held a
debate (posters read, "There is no god ... or is there") and a few
Objectivists showed up. One of them was a man of ordinary intelligence
who "converted" a few months ago. He was easily able to fluster a man
from this church who was their top debater in the South. Even observers
who were members of the church found the Objectivist's points stronger,
more rational, and more consistant.

While my one example is not a proof, I hope it conveys the idea I am trying
to get across. Maybe some Objectivist out there can explain it better than
I can.

SJK

The Siphon ([e-mail])

"I swear, by my life and my love of it, never to live for the
sake of another man, nor to ask another man to live for mine."