-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The GOP hearts Ayn Rand. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and his father Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), all mention the works of Ayn Rand as being influential in their lives. Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas references her work as influence in his autobiography. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is an acolyte of Rand’s thinking and knew her personally.
I would like to focus on one aspect of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, and its implications for Christianity.
Rand saw the role of any philosophical system as the understanding of reality. Reality (existence) and the ability to understand reality (consciousness) are at the heart of Objectivism. Considering existence (reality) and consciousness (man’s awareness of it), Rand assigns primacy to existence, “the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness).” In other words, “wishing doesn’t make it so.”
For Rand, consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists, “consciousness is consciousness of an object.” Eric Johnson, in a review of chapter one of Leonard Peikoff’s book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, wrote:
Since the nature (identity) of consciousness is to be aware of reality, existence is prior to, necessary for, and not subject to the control of, consciousness.
Consciousness cannot be conscious only of itself because you run into the chicken-and-the-egg problem. Consciousness requires objects to be aware of in order to create consciousness. Sensory deprivation does not validate the notion of consciousness without anything to be conscious of. Consciousness of objects, and their associated memories, were already formed before any experiments with sensory deprivation.
Rand’s primary axiom of Objectivism is the Primacy of Existence. In contrast is the Primacy of Consciousness, “the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both).” Rand’s Primacy of Existence is the reason for Objectivism’s position of atheism with respect to religion, especially Christianity and its “creator God.”
The Christian concept of God as a disembodied consciousness that created everything, except itself, is antithetical to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Objectivism provides a solid philosophical foundation for rejecting the Christian worldview.
The Primacy of Existence hasn’t received the media attention that it deserves, and I doubt that Rand’s fans in the GOP/Tea Party would understand its ramifications.
H/T: AlterNet, Anton Thorn, Dawson Bethrick, Objectivism Wiki, Ayn Rand Lexicon.
Tony,
“[L]ies or endangerment or carelessness” that may not rely upon overt force are different kinds of crimes; they are the civil wrongs known as torts. And while some torts have criminal law counterparts, not all torts are criminal. For example the merely civil negligence of a contractor doing a poor but to the specs job resulting in harm contrasted with criminal negligence where a contractor knowingly cut corners resulting in harm. When torts are made criminal at law, it’s usually because there is an intent component. While endangerment or carelessness is a bit of gray area because of intent, torts where lies are used are (in every instance I can think of any way) have a criminal law counterpart because lies manifestly go to intent. And a lie is really just another tool to force compliance, isn’t it? That the forced compliance is done willingly and/or unknowingly by the victim does not change that.
@Buddha: other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will…
This goes precisely my point; I believe crimes are committed without any intimidation at all; making somebody think they have found a winning lottery ticket, or have won a trip to Vegas, does not “intimidate” them or make them fear any consequences, but it can be a crime. Not telling a sexual partner that one has AIDs doesn’t intimidate them, but I think that can be a crime (of endangerment).
I may be a little hung up on physics, but I do not think lies or endangerment or carelessness should be equated with force; they do not always appeal to fear and (in the case of endangerment) do not necessarily cause any identifiable emotion in the victim at all; it is a case of “what they don’t know may very well hurt them,” and the fact that the don’t know precludes any reaction on their part to what they don’t know.
Right?
Buddha,
For my next trick I’ll be explaining why getting peanut butter on your chocolate is no worse than getting chocolate in your peanut butter.
Also, mmmmmmm Mole.
Gyges: “Rand is using a definition of force, that while valid, is so vague as to be the equivalent of saying “bad stuff should be illegal.”
Fraus latet in generalibus. (Fraud lies hid in general expressions.)
Gyges,
Correct. That’s why the law graduates force in the specific ways that it does. What W=c may see as nitpicking or rationalization is neither in the law but rather a practical application based upon the fact that not all force is equivalent in either application or outcome, but the law does recognize that all crime is rooted in force the generalized concept.
Fraud and Breach of Contract are contradictories.
Look, diagonally!
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#square
“Obviously the proof required to sustain a cause of action on contract is entirely different from the proof necessary to sustain a cause of action based on fraud and deceit. In the one case the recovery is based upon the express liability assumed by a person in his contract, and in the other case upon the liability incurred for a violation of the duty of honesty and fair dealing which the law enjoins upon one in his transactions with another.” Lipkind v Ward, 256 AD 74 (3rd Dept., 1939)
Buddha, Tony, Woosty,
For what it’s worth, I think everybody’s more or less right. Rand is using a definition of force, that while valid, is so vague as to be the equivalent of saying “bad stuff should be illegal.”
Jim,
I’m not willing enough to say that people get addicted to a philosophy, maybe to religious experience, but not to the abstract thought involved in that experience. The furthest I’m willing to go is to say that the philosophy\religion could be used to rationalize behaviors that they’re compelled to commit.
at once
“Fraud is kaleidoscopic, infinite. Fraud being infinite and taking,
on protean form at will, were courts to cramp themselves by defining it with a hard and fast definition, their jurisdiction would be cunningly circumvented at cnce by new schemes beyond the definition.” Stonemets v. Head, 154, S.W. 108
Tony,
Linguistically speaking, they are correct about the meaning of the word “force” at its most general meaning. That the law differentiates between kinds of force is more directly related to punishment. I think perhaps you are hung up on the physics definition of force. For when you say “Deception is not any form of ‘force.’ A breach of contract is not a form of force either”, I don’t think you are taking into account that the law considers coercion (the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal [as discharge from employment] or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will) as force as well. Physical force as manifested by violence goes to charge and punishment, but all crimes are rooted in force (power, violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing).
Tony C:
I believe she recognizes the difference between assault and the theft of $50 in terms of punishment.
Now back to your contention:
“The danger in equating a whole class of problems (‘crime’) to one specific member of the class (‘physical force’) is two-fold. First is the loss of details that can exist in one member of the class but do not exist in the specific representative selected, the second is mistakenly assuming that details that exist in the specific representative exist in all members of the class.”
So crime is force and she has shown why fraud is force. Cats and elephants are different but they are both animals and they are both mammals. They both have a nervous system, a circulatory system, they both have hair and give live birth. They both need oxygen for cellular metabolism and they both need water to sustain life. The differences you state are specific differences based on the type of animal. I am sure she would recognize differences in crime and levels of punishment.
I would think she would want a punishment that fit the crime, you would not execute someone who took $50 from the company and you would not put a murderer in jail for 90 days. In terms of the petty embezzeler I should think paying the $50 back and some sort of community service or work release program would suffice. The assault is more severe because physical force is used against the person of another (assuming murder to be the most sevre action one can take against another).
“A unilateral decision is not “force.”
There is more than one crime; not everything is a crime of “force.” there are crimes of neglect and irresponsibility, there are crimes of deception, there are crimes of assault. Physical rape is a crime of force, tricking an elderly woman into selling her house for a thousand dollars is not a crime of force, it is a crime of deception.” Tony Tony Tony….
————————-
someone on the blog used the word ‘nitpicking’. Rationalizing is more like it. It is all force…I’m with Roco on this one. Fraud, deceit, those things may not be as directly imposed, they are physical force once removed, and the sequelae is different….but when there is positive intent then it most definitely is force. What the ‘victim’ in ALL forms of force is willingly agreeing to is not what they are getting and they are left with untoward and unbidden and willfully imposed circumstances after the fact. That is ‘forced’ upon them….force,the results of which make change….and it should never be confused with ‘power’.
Gyges:
in regards to why humans need some sort of philosophy:
“To think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.”
A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions.”
Tony C:
“A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises.”
The keeping of the property obtained by fraud is the force.
@Woosty: Fraud doesn’t force a new set of circumstances on a victim, I don’t see that at all.
Fraudsters play on a victim’s greed or fear or deference to authority with lies. The victims aren’t forced to believe the lies, they just do. For the greed fraud, the victims are convinced they have lucked into a pot of gold.
For the fear fraud, the victims are usually desperately ill, or distraught, or find themselves in unfamiliar circumstances [not due to the fraudster], like the death of a spouse or in a natural disaster.
For the deference to authority fraud, the lie includes costumes [police, FBI, uniformed city utility workers, school workers] the fraudsters use to get people to comply with their orders without questioning their authority to give orders.
The victims aren’t forced into anything, any more than a salesman forces us to buy a new car.
If fraud and physical force are equivalent, then let’s flip it over: Show me how to define an angry punch in the face as a “fraud” by the assailant.
The danger in equating a whole class of problems (‘crime’) to one specific member of the class (‘physical force’) is two-fold. First is the loss of details that can exist in one member of the class but do not exist in the specific representative selected, the second is mistakenly assuming that details that exist in the specific representative exist in all members of the class.
For a simple [purposely overblown] example, I can take a class of animals, quadrupeds; and say all quadrupeds are equivalent to cats. Well, elephants are very smart and have trunks they can use like hands; if you try to restrain an elephant with a simple latched door, like you can with a cat, they will experiment and figure out the latch and escape. You have missed a detail of elephant behavior by assuming it is just a big cat.
Likewise, my wife puts the cat food up on a shelf, so the dog won’t eat it. Cats can jump up and eat it. If I treat an elephant like a cat, and demand the elephant jump six times its standing height to eat, it will starve. The error I made is over-generalizing a specific detail of cat ability to all quadrupeds, thereby killing my elephant.
The explanation is overblown to increase the contrast and reveal the underlying principle; the point is that quadrupeds can have a great deal in common, but knowing there are commonalities should at most suggest equivalent treatments, and the details matter.
The same thing is true of crimes. Equating an embezzlement of $50 with a faked receipt on an expense account is not the same as the physical assault of a stranger, and equating them overstates the impact of the embezzlement and understates the impact of the assault. There is reason to think an assailant may need a trial and imprisonment, there is no reason to think an impulsive 25 year old needs anything more than a new job.
So we can disagree, but I have a reason to disagree, it is not out of pique. Rand is making purposeful use of the errors in the false equivalencies in order to mislead shallow thinkers into thinking she has a coherent philosophy and system, when she does not.
new key board and it is not very sensitive…
I still disagree with you. For what it’s worth…and to deceive with intention is a
force (fôrs, frs)
n.
1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.
2.
a. Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.
3.
a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
b. Moral strength.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
d. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.
4.
a. A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.
5.
a. Military strength.
b. The entire military strength, as of a nation. Often used in the plural.
c. A unit of a nation’s military personnel, especially one deployed into combat: Our forces have at last engaged the enemy.
6. Law Legal validity.
7. Physics A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application.
8. Baseball A force play.
tr.v. forced, forc·ing, forc·es
1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
2.
a. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
b. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe.
c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group.
3.
a. To put undue strain on: She forced her voice despite being hoarse.
b. To increase or accelerate (a pace, for example) to the maximum.
c. To produce with effort and against one’s will: force a laugh in spite of pain.
d. To use (language) with obvious lack of ease and naturalness.
4.
a. To move, open, or clear by force: forced our way through the crowd.
b. To break down or open by force: force a lock.
5. To rape.
6. Botany To cause to grow or mature by artificially accelerating normal processes.
7. Baseball
a. To put (a runner) out on a force play.
b. To allow (a run) to be scored by walking a batter when the bases are loaded.
8. Games To cause an opponent to play (a particular card).
Idioms:
force (someone’s) hand
To force to act or speak prematurely or unwillingly.
in force
1. In full strength; in large numbers: Demonstrators were out in force.
2. In effect; operative: a rule that is no longer in force.
——————————————————————————–
[Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin fortia, from neuter pl. of Latin fortis, strong; see bhergh-2 in Indo-European roots.]
——————————————————————————–
forcea·ble adj.
forcer n.
Synonyms: force, compel, coerce, constrain, oblige, obligate
These verbs mean to cause a person or thing to follow a prescribed or dictated course. Force, the most general, usually implies the exertion of physical power or the operation of circumstances that permit no options: Tear gas forced the fugitives out of their hiding place.
Compel applies especially to an act dictated by one in authority: Say nothing unless you’re compelled to.
Coerce invariably implies the use of strength or harsh measures in securing compliance: “The man of genius rules . . . by persuading an efficient minority to coerce an indifferent and self-indulgent majority” (James Fitzjames Stephen).
Constrain suggests that one is bound to a course of action by physical or moral means or by the operation of compelling circumstances: “I will never be by violence constrained to do anything” (Elizabeth I).
Oblige implies the operation of authority, necessity, or moral or ethical considerations: “Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do” (Mark Twain).
Obligate applies when compliance is enforced by a legal contract or by the dictates of one’s conscience or sense of propriety: I am obligated to repay the loan. See Also Synonyms at strength.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
——————————————————————————–
force1
n
1. strength or energy; might; power the force of the blow a gale of great force
2. exertion or the use of exertion against a person or thing that resists; coercion
3. (Physics / General Physics) Physics
a. a dynamic influence that changes a body from a state of rest to one of motion or changes its rate of motion. The magnitude of the force is equal to the product of the mass of the body and its acceleration
b. a static influence that produces an elastic strain in a body or system or bears weight. Symbol F
4. (Physics / General Physics) Physics any operating influence that produces or tends to produce a change in a physical quantity electromotive force coercive force
5.
a. intellectual, social, political, or moral influence or strength the force of his argument the forces of evil
b. a person or thing with such influence he was a force in the land
6. vehemence or intensity he spoke with great force
7. (Military) a group of persons organized for military or police functions armed forces
8. (sometimes capital; preceded by the) Informal the police force
9. a group of persons organized for particular duties or tasks a workforce
10. (Law) Criminal law violence unlawfully committed or threatened
11. (Philosophy) Philosophy Logic that which an expression is normally used to achieve See speech act, illocution, perlocution
in force
a. (Law) (of a law) having legal validity or binding effect
b. in great strength or numbers
join forces to combine strengths, efforts, etc.
vb (tr)
1. to compel or cause (a person, group, etc.) to do something through effort, superior strength, etc.; coerce
2. to acquire, secure, or produce through effort, superior strength, etc. to force a confession
3. to propel or drive despite resistance to force a nail into wood
4. to break down or open (a lock, safe, door, etc.)
5. to impose or inflict he forced his views on them
6. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Agriculture) to cause (plants or farm animals) to grow or fatten artificially at an increased rate
7. to strain or exert to the utmost to force the voice
8. to rape; ravish
9. (Group Games / Card Games) Cards
a. to compel (a player) to trump in order to take a trick
b. to compel a player by the lead of a particular suit to play (a certain card)
c. (in bridge) to induce (a bid) from one’s partner by bidding in a certain way
force down to compel an aircraft to land
force a smile to make oneself smile
force the pace to adopt a high speed or rate of procedure
[from Old French, from Vulgar Latin fortia (unattested), from Latin fortis strong]
forceable adj
forceless adj
forcer n
forcingly adv
——————————————————————————–
I stilldisagree with you. For what it’s worth…and to deeive with intention isa form of violence….it ‘forces’ a new set of circumstance on the victim. It is ‘forced’ because there is a victim who did not choose.
@Woosty: I agree they are wrong, and are crimes, my argument is they are not “force.” A unilateral decision is not “force.”
There is more than one crime; not everything is a crime of “force.” there are crimes of neglect and irresponsibility, there are crimes of deception, there are crimes of assault. Physical rape is a crime of force, tricking an elderly woman into selling her house for a thousand dollars is not a crime of force, it is a crime of deception.
Rand conflates ALL crimes with crimes of force as a form of deception, not clarification.
Tony C.
1, May 6, 2011 at 6:53 pm
@Roco: Calling breach of contract and fraud “indirect use of force” removes all meaning from the word “force.” Deception is not any form of “force.” A breach of contract is not a form of force either.
————-
I totally disagree with you here Tony C. Deception and breach of contract are most definitely forms of force AND violence and perhaps intentional fraud as well. Those unilateral acts, when done independantly of mitigating circumstance, proscribe a new and diffrent set of necessary steps and behaviors that are designed towards defensivity…a position that is oppositional to the purpose for which contracts and trusts are implememted to begin with. Ask any divorcee for goodness sake….
@Roco: Calling breach of contract and fraud “indirect use of force” removes all meaning from the word “force.” Deception is not any form of “force.” A breach of contract is not a form of force either.
This is a sure sign of both flim flammery and simplistic thinking, when people try to redefine the language and cast everything as the same thing so they can apply their false equivalences.
It is akin to the “quantum crystal” scams and “vibrational life force” bullshit; it is mumbo jumbo.
I suspect the purpose of this, in Rand’s case, is so she can define any laws she wants as “a form of force” and any laws she doesn’t want as “not a form of force.” It is just her way of justifying her arbitrary choices, she decrees that some things are force and other things are not and then points to her decrees as if they are self-evident.
It reminds me of something I have seen in dozens of workplaces: “Company policy.” They say, “Sorry, we can’t do that, it is against our policy.” Well, we ask the CEO, who sets the policy? “I do.” Company policy is just another way of saying “I don’t wanna.”
Decreeing that some things are force and others aren’t are Rand’s way of saying, “I want the government to stop this, because it is a “form of force,” but not that, because that is not a “form of force.” Well, we ask Rand, who decides what is a form of force and what is not. If she were telling the truth she’d say, “Oh, I do, of course.”