Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In 1780, John Adams succinctly defined the principle of the Rule of Law in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men”. This reflects the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The very foundation of our legal system says that the law should work for us all, not just a select few.
This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?
This idea is further bolstered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The latter addition of the 14th Amendment as well as the Preamble of the Constitution both reflect the spirit in which this country was founded as set forth in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action; what is in the best interest of greatest numbers of We the People is in the best interests of the country.
Utilitarianism is a quantitative and reductionist philosophical form. Utilitarianism, however, is not a unified philosophical view. It comes in different flavors with the two primary flavors being Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist philosophical view and rules may never be broken. Like any absolutist view does not take into account that reality occasionally presents situations where breaking a rule results in the greater good. For example, the strong reductionist rule that murder is bad is countered by the exceptional example of murder is not bad if performed in self-defense or the defense of others. This result of practical application is reflected in what John Stuart Mill called Weak Rule Utilitarianism. It becomes apparent that since not all rules are absolutely enforceable when seeking the common good and exceptional circumstances require flexibility in the law, that the Utilitarian pursuit of the Rule of Law must be in Mill’s Weak Rule formulation of Utilitarianism. But is considering the greater good and circumstantial reasons for breaking or modifying rules the best way to judge whether a law is good or bad?
If one considers Kant’s Categorical Imperative – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” – then any law not universally applicable should not be a maxim worthy of being recognized as universal. This is contrary to Utilitarianism in general as well as Weak Rule Utilitarianism specifically, but while Kant’s view takes subjectivity into account when dealing with circumstances it does not take into account that there can be objective differences in circumstances as well. It is part of the judiciaries role as a trier of fact to consider not only subjective differences but objective differences in circumstances in formulating the most equitable and just solution to a case at bar. In seeking to be universally applicable in defining maxims, Kant is an absolutist as surely as Strong Rule Utilitarians are absolutists. As a consequence of reality not being neatly binary in nature and thus not often compatible to absolutists approaches to formulating laws for practical application, what can be done to keep Weak Rule Utilitarianism from degenerating into Act Utilitarianism where actors will seek the greatest personal pleasure when presented with a choice rather than the greater good? Utilitarianism conflicting with the Categorical Imperative? Is there a unitary philosophical approach to evaluating whether a law is good or bad?
The answer seems to be no. If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.
Consider that absolutist systems as they are not applicable in reality should be confined to being considered theoretical boundaries rather than practical boundaries. This does not negate the value of considering systems like Strong Rule Utilitarianism or Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but rather puts them in the place of aspirational goals rather than practically attainable goals in every circumstance. Given that Mill’s Weak Rule Utilitarianism can degrade into Act Utilitarianism and that degeneration can be compounded by the number of exceptions there are to a rule, are there ways to minimize the defects of using only Weak Rule Utilitarianism to determine the societal value of a law? What supplements can be made to that framework?
I submit that one such supplement is found in the form of Negative Utilitarianism. Negative Utilitarianism is exactly what it sounds like; the inverse function of Utilitarianism. Whereas Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action, Negative Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm. This proposition suggests the following framework for evaluation of whether a law is good or bad.
- How many people benefit from the good consequences of a law?
- How many people benefit from the reduction of harm as consequences of a law?
- Does the benefits from promoting good consequences outweigh the costs of reduction of harm?
- Does the benefits from reducing harm outweigh the costs to the greater good in taking no action?
- Are the net consequences of a law perfectly knowable from either perspective or does the possibility of unforeseeable consequences exist? Can the unforeseeable risks be minimized either by construction of the law(s) to allow for contingencies or by regulating other risks or contributing factors?
- Do solutions from either perspective negatively impact human and/or civil rights? Do those negative impacts outweigh the positive effects to the greater human and/or civil rights of all?
This is but one way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad for society. What are other methods? Are there ways to improve this method? What do you think?
The social unit, tony c
>a political system …is not a “market” in a traditional sense, governments are formed infrequently, and for most people not even once in their lifetime.
Definition by non-essentials. Govt is force, market is trade.
> if indeed trade is voluntary, meaning both parties can walk away from it without suffering grievous physical or financial harm, then certainly morality prevents me from interfering with the outcome.
Voluntary means free to act on independent judgment, the judgment that is sacrificed in altruism. Altruism demands the destruction of trade for forced sacrifice.
>If one party cannot walk away from a trade without suffering serious harm, that party is being coerced, and the greater the harm the more that “trade” becomes extortion or coercion.>
Are you judging the trade, as I suspect, or the freedom to not trade? Ie, are you claiming the obligation to forcibly interfere with trade if it does not meet some arbitrary, altruist standard? Ie, the mystical “just” price that lies beyond the voluntary trade. Christianity is the context of mainstream “economics.” But its buried logically beneath layers of pseudo-neutral technicalities. The objective just price is that voluntarily agreed to because its the product of mind, not force. See _Objective Economics_ by MN Beuchner. Altruism demands the sacrifice of man’s volitional mind, thus the contempt for capitalism. Or, will you selfishly make an independent judgment when society demands an intellectual social contract?
> Capitalism and what I hope to promote
Pragmatic, not ideological, capitalism. Once in a while, when you feel like it, but not on principle, the principle you reject for the principle of altruism.
This is the compromised, explicitly unprincipled capitalism of conservatism. Eg, Gingrich, Romney.
> I am not a Marxist
Youre not an ideological Marxist but youre a Pragmatic Marxist.
And you apparently don’t know what the term “cherry pick” means, Grossman. Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. It means the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. In other words, confirmation bias. True facts cannot be ascertained with the confirmation bias in play. But thanks for demonstrating once again that you’d rather operate on the basis of fallacy rather than fact. After all, your operational principles are based in a lie so it should be no surprise to anyone that you don’t mind lying to yourself. Especially if it makes you feel special.
Sucker.
Gene H
>you decide what you want and then cherry pick
This is reality-directed reason. Eg, I want to live and cherry pick accordingly. You evade reality and never decide what you want, accepting whatever happens without judgment, seeking an impossible reconciliation between sacrifice and life.
@Bron: No I don’t, YOU guys argue as if economics takes place in a vacuum.
I argue as if economics takes place in the real world, where it is impossible to get all the information one needs to make a perfectly rational decision, where 90% of people are geographically tied down because they have extended families, lifelong friends and a social and business network in an area that they cannot take with them, not to mention their own home and job they cannot leave without suffering financial catastrophe.
I argue the reality of constraints and limited options, not the objectivist fantasy of limitless options. There are not limitless employers to choose from, there are not limitless suppliers to choose from. Quite often there is only one or two. That is because in reality, competition is all about reducing the number of competitors, and thus the choice of jobs.
You cannot look at the current unemployment rate and still believe there are limitless jobs; but that is exactly what objectivists do when they argue about sexual harassment, minimum wage, or workplace safety. They argue the employees can demand fair treatment or work elsewhere, as if there is always someplace else to work. In reality there isn’t, and the objectivist non-solution is a lie told to excuse coercive behavior. Either the employee can accept the abuse, slave wages, or lethal danger of working in the mine or factory, or they can become homeless, lose all their assets and possessions, and leave everyone and everything they love.
That is not a choice or a trade, that is raw coercion, and the only way you free marketers can excuse it is by ignoring the constraints of reality and pretending there are always other choices.
I don’t have a religion, Bron, unlike you and your blind devotion to Rand (a demonstrably crazy person) and von Mises (a non-scientific political hack disguised as an economist). I have a philosophy crafted from the work of many fine thinkers across both Western and Eastern traditions. I’ve also read Marx, unlike you. I also understood him and the other economists I’ve read. I’ve also read a lot of political science and understood it too, unlike you. This is evidenced by the fact that I have integrated understanding of the subject matter(s) and use the terminology properly. You really need to get another tactic besides false equivalences and making up definitions to words. It’s clear that when you do read, you read with a form of outcome determinism – you decide what you want and then cherry pick and distort the works of others to get the meaning you want instead of learning anything new. A full cup cannot be filled. Your cup is filled by selfishness, greed, materialism and the delusion that an economic game without rules brings liberty instead of economic tyranny. That’s why that’s all you can regurgitate instead of illustrating any real capacity for critical thought. Being in a wheelchair is by far not your most debilitating handicap. You are crippled in a place where a crutch won’t help. Even the crutches of Rand and von Mises. I really do feel sorry for you.
@Grossman: No, I put market in quotes because choosing a political system does involve selling the people on the merits of one system versus another, and I believe the society (or collective, if that makes you feel better) should choose their form of government, but it is not a “market” in a traditional sense, governments are formed infrequently, and for most people not even once in their lifetime. So I put it in quotes. It still holds, however, that when revolutions occur and people are given the opportunity to freely choose their form of government, we can study what they choose and why.
I am a collectivist, I have no problem with that; and I happen to believe that if indeed trade is voluntary, meaning both parties can walk away from it without suffering grievous physical or financial harm, then certainly morality prevents me from interfering with the outcome. I do not believe in humans as property, but certainly they should be free to live their lives as they please, even selfishly. I cannot mandate their emotions. I will not agree to “independently judged” without a definition of the term, but certainly voluntary, self-serving, self-gratifying trade is the essence of good Capitalism and what I hope to promote.
I will note the emphasized caveat above: If one party cannot walk away from a trade without suffering serious harm, that party is being coerced, and the greater the harm the more that “trade” becomes extortion or coercion.
For example, it is disingenuous to call it “trade” if we are in the E.R. and somebody’s life is at stake. “Voluntary” does not cover a choice between life and immediate death, because if it did, then robbery at gunpoint, rape, and slavery under threat of death would also be “voluntary,” and that robs all sense and meaning from the word. “Voluntary” must be truly voluntary, meaning people can refuse to buy, or refuse to sell, without serious consequence.
I am not a Marxist, so I stopped reading at the insult.
Gene H:
you make me laugh with your protestations about how socialism isnt communism. Yeah and a killer whale and a dolphin. arent in the same family either according to your logic or lack thereof.
I think it is you who need to read Marx and I think it is you who needs to jump through hoops to prove your religion works. Because it always fails, at least my “religion” works to provide the most material comfort to the most people.
“Marx wasnt exactly peachy and neither was Lenin. Yet you think their ideas just cracker jack.”
What’s the matter, Bron? Can’t defend yourself, your religion or Rand without misrepresenting others?
I’ve never said either Marx or Lenin were “peachy” or that their ideas were “crackerjack”. Socialism isn’t Marxism and that’s according to Marx. You’d know that if you’d ever actually read any of his works. Socialism was a step toward Communism, not an end form in itself. Communism failed for the same reason lassez-faire economics fail; they both don’t take human nature into account. Communism discounts desire for advancement and lassez-faire economics discounts that in a void of rules, the tyranny of bad actors rules. Both are extremist views and systems and neither work. Not that this fact will ever stop you from making false equivalences and misattributions. You’ll say anything to rationalize your religion of selfishness.
Gene H:
Marx wasnt exactly peachy and neither was Lenin. Yet you think their ideas just cracker jack. The one thing Rand had going for her was that she wanted people to be left alone to pursue their own interests for their own benefit.
Marx and Lenin were all about the individual supporting and being supported by society, the state. We know where those ideas lead, into that concentration camp Grossman was talking about above.
Tony C:
You argue as if economics takes place in a vacuum.
Tony C
Did you put “market” in quotes because, as collectivist, you reject the morality and even possibility of independently judged, voluntary, selfish trade? Do you, as a Marxist in good standing, think that economic power is political power, that a gun is the same thing as a dollar, that production is force?
Tony C.
@Grossman: Equality of opportunity and equality before the law in a meritocratic society is not monopolized by communism, it is in fact usually what the “market” demands, when the market for a system of government is the citizenry and the government serves the people.
One of the benefits of education, as distinct from an anti-conceptual, Progressive lobotomy, of course, is learning that a principle can be applied in many different ways and that different words can express the same fact. Collectivism can be expressed as “government serves the people,” “communism,” and “equality of opportunity.” The last example is especially Pragmatic for intellectual fraud since there is no context. Opportunity for what? Owning a yard sale or an international firm? Or the opportunity to act on one’s own judgment? Why should the owner of a yard sale have the same opportunity to compete internationally as those who have the demonstrated ability? Do random strangers have the same opportunity to use your home as you? No? You must be a fascist. Perhaps you should study Plato’s fascist/communist, _The Republic_, with an individualist perspective.
@Grossman: Equality of opportunity and equality before the law in a meritocratic society is not monopolized by communism, it is in fact usually what the “market” demands, when the market for a system of government is the citizenry and the government serves the people.
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about, and thus preach anarchy and subjugation. My sympathies on your wasted life, sucker.
Tony C
>optimal economic solution
By the standard of the market or your communist equality? The attacks on capitalism by “economists” have altruism, equality, and collectivism built-in so theyre circular arguments. Economics is a moral science since its the study of man’s choices (re production for a market). There is no morally neutral technical view, including that w/math.
No, Grossman. There has been no evasion of the defense of selfishness. The idea of selfishness as a virtue has been thoroughly exposed as rubbish on the basis of philosophy and multiple fields of science. That you disagree does not invalidate that fact. That you continue to disagree in light of such widespread refutation is simply testament to your slavish monomaniacal devotion to a precept that is devoid of any value except the effort to give bad behavior a gloss of respectability through weak rationalization and appeals to a most suspect authority – a demonstrably crazy person.
Gene H.
>Nonsensical gibberish devoid of actual content, Grossman. However, what you despise isn’t my irrationality for I have none on this issue. What you despise is that my rationality sees through the lies that are your life and Rand’s life.
You continue to evade the rational defense of selfishness and the basic similarity ,irrationality, between hedonism and sacrifice. It’s clear to honest readers that you have no rational defense of sacrifice, thus confirming the history of philosophy and the loud liberal claim that morality, ie, their sacrifice, has no rational base.
The fallacy of causal oversimplification is again shown by the Objectivist camp.
Great post, Tony.
@Bron: So are those 3 sociopaths? And how would you even know since you never knew them?
Why would you ask a question you do not think can be answered? Why should somebody answer it if you tell them in advance you won’t accept their answer?
@Bron: Was Adam Smith a sociopath?
Why would that make a difference?
What is wrong with Adam Smith was not a mental illness, it was just bad reasoning.
Specifically, the dictum you talk about is derived from this passage from The Wealth of Nations:
Smith writes: As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
The emphasis is mine. Smith’s mistakes just in this passage are three fold: First, his system only works if his assumptions are true, and his assumptions are simply false. Not every individual can be counted upon to do anything in economics.
Second, Smith conflates “rendering the annual revenue of the society as great as he can” with “the public interest.” But this is a patently false assumption, because it ignores the simple fact that the total revenue can be maximized in many different ways, including having 99% of it belong to 1% of the population. Smith doesn’t define the public interest, except implicitly by such allusions, but certainly a 99/1 split would not be in the modern American concept of the “public interest.”
In other words, Smith conflates the average weatlh, in which distribution of wealth does not matter, with general wealth, in which distribution does matter. This is not to say the only fair distribution is uniform wealth, but most free-country citizens belief in something better approximated by the median wealth, or standard of living. The idea of a fabulously wealthy few with 99% of the populace living in poverty is not in the “public interest,” even if it did turn out to be the way to maximize the annual revenue of the society. And Smith does not offer any proof that it is not.
Another problem (still with this second error) is that wealth in and of itself is not a good proxy for “the public interest.” The majority of free publics are interested in far more than simple wealth, they are interested in principles of fairness and equality and the suppression of evil and coercion FAR MORE than they are interested in wealth. For proof of that, just look at the law around the world, the first thing that a suppressed people agitate for is not better jobs, but better human rights, less corrupt police, and an end to unfair treatment. Those are principles. If they wanted wealth alone, they would agitate for that, instead they agitate for safety from predation and unfair treatment.
The third mistake Smith makes is far more pervasive; Smith makes an assumption, which he cannot prove (and therefore resorts to the hand-waving “invisible hand” assertion) that maximizing economic output can be achieved using a “greedy algorithm.” (Follow the link, this is a real thing in logical analysis). But it cannot, it does not exhibit the key feature of such problems, which is called “optimal sub-structure.”
What Optimal Substructure means is the the Optimal solution, when examined, is always composed of the optimal solutions of smaller problems. So, pragmatically, if one find the optimal solution to a small part of the overall economy, that is guaranteed to be a part of the global solution, if Optimal Substructure is truly a feature. And likewise, if one can demonstrate with two or more small parts of the whole problem that their individual optimal solutions, when combined, do not produce a globally optimum solution, then one has demonstrated that the Optimal Substructure does not exist.
Hence we come to the name, “Greedy Algorithm.” IF an Optimal Substructure indeed exists, then at any given point one takes the “greedy” choice, the optimal solution at that point, and one is guaranteed to finish with global optimality.
So then Smith’s approach would work fine: the smallest unit in the economic system is the individual transaction, so if everyone acts on their own greed, then the system would be optimized.
But Smith doesn’t prove the Optimal Substructure exists, he simply asserts it will be so. But it isn’t so. The optimal economic solution for two businesses is not of necessity the optimal economic solution for three businesses; because two businesses can collude to exclude a third from prosperity.
In fact the optimal economic solution for one business, the Greedy solution, is to use their leverage to hold a monopoly, suppress competition, and thereby maximize the price they can charge. As a monopoly they can under-price any competition that sprouts, both because their cost structure (if they are greedy) enjoys all the benefits of scale that can be achieved, and because are already better known and customers are used to them and know what they are getting, and because they can afford to sell at cost (or even underneath it) until the sprout is bankrupted and the threat of competition is eliminated. Then because they are a monopoly, they can raise prices to make up for any lost profits. Economically speaking, if anybody thinks about going into competition with the monopoly, and their research shows a long line of bankruptcies, their Greedy assessment will be that no plan is tenable: The monopoly simply has resources that cannot be beaten by a startup, so unless they have some way of making a profit by selling for significantly less than the monopoly’s cost indefinitely, they better not even start: Thus the monopoly, Greedily run, is self-perpetuating. But that is not the optimal solution for the society, they are being overcharged, that is the whole point of getting a monopoly.
We can see this, metaphorically, in the problem of the deer in the woods (related to the “commons” problem). If the woods has enough winter forage so that fifty deer would not starve, but there are a hundred deer foraging, how many deer will survive the winter? Perhaps none of them, if they all forage as much as they can, they may all get half as much as they need, and they may all starve. Perhaps a few of them, but it will not be anywhere near the optimal solution of fifty: That would demand that the other fifty deer did not consume any forage at all, and that is certainly not the Greedy solution. The deer, because each instinctively acts in its own Greedy self interest, will probably become extinct: If any survive, they will most likely be the strong males that could fight for food. The weaker does would likely all starve, thus precluding any future generations: The males, acting in their own best self-interest to survive and eventually pass on their genes, will inadvertently starve to death the females they need to pass on their genes.
We can extend that metaphor to business, with the tale of the town mechanic. We presume there is a town with enough car repair demand to support one and one half car mechanics. But they only have one, so his schedule is full and his prices are high. An equally good mechanic sees this overflow, and decides to open a second shop with the same pricing, quality and guarantees. He is immediately rewarded with the overflow business of Mechanic A, because he can offer timely service that Mechanic A cannot. In fact because his business is essentially identical, the town citizens will focus on timely service, and Mechanic B and Mechanic A end up splitting the business so that service times are roughly equal. But car repair revenue is maximized.
But recall, by our premise the town does not have enough repair work to support TWO mechanics, so if these two split the business, neither can pay their bills. If they choose to compete and lower their prices, the survival situation gets worse for both of them, even though the pricing becomes more favorable to the town citizens. In other words, having two mechanics in this town is an unstable economic system that must be resolved.
One resolution would be that BOTH mechanics go bankrupt, and lose their shops, so the town citizens are left with NO mechanics. That is certainly not the optimal solution.
A second resolution would be that ONE mechanic goes bankrupt, so the citizens are again returned to their original situation: A one mechanic town, with long waits and high prices, except some of them (maybe most of them) have had repairs done by a mechanic that is no longer in business to honor his guarantees. That is also not the optimal economic solution; they have lost something (a guarantee) they would still have if the competition had never occurred, and there is no assurance that the value of what they have gained (timely service) has the same economic value as that guarantee. Just as when the male deer greedily ate more forage than he needed, and the forage that would have kept a female alive; in economics the immediate Greedy choice can easily lead to the worst possible economic outcome in the longer run.
The same thing is true, in the real world, with education. Many students will impatiently make what at the time looks like the most beneficial economic choice, taking a job that pays several times over what they can earn as a student continuing college, or as a graduate student pursuing an advanced degree, even though the global optimum for their lifetime earnings would mean sacrificing the immediate income for a later, permanently higher average income (and on average a wider range of choices in how to earn their income, and thus greater economic security). Always taking the immediate option of the greatest income available does NOT always produce the maximum lifetime income for an individual, and the same is true for a society.
Greedy Algorithms in general, and in particular this one that Adam Smith proposed, fail to consider any consequences of individuals making their selfish choices. If the problem has Optimal Substructure that is the great strength of a Greedy Algorithm; but if it does not, then it is a fatal flaw of using one.
Adam Smith did not have to be a sociopath to be wrong. He was simply wrong. I will also note I can produce equally dismal outcomes for 100% socialism or communism. There just is no “one simple rule” solution to maximizing the public interest. The economy, and humans, are too complicated for that, there are too many feedback loops and emotions to try and reduce all of that complexity into one simple rule.
Nonsensical gibberish devoid of actual content, Grossman.
However, what you despise isn’t my irrationality for I have none on this issue.
What you despise is that my rationality sees through the lies that are your life and Rand’s life.
Gene H.
>You should really learn to not conflate religion and economics.
>Evidence?
>you should learn not to conflate a woman who was demonstrably a sociopath
psy reductionism
>but my contention that Rand is a sociopath has nothing to do with progressivism and everything to do with science.
Psy is not yet science, partly because its logically hidden basis is progressivism, ie, man without concepts and volition, society as the cause of behavior.
> the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings.
Rand later explicitly rejected his irrationalism and power over people and pseudo-individualism and, especially, his Kant-based, subjectivist, primacy of consciousness.
>Hickman…. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him
This is an evasion, whether yours or the dishonest bio, of Rand’s explicit condemnation of Hickman’s actions and her explicit statement that she deliberately took his ideas out of his context for the purpose of her rational individualism. You evade the productive heros of her novels and philosophy.
> in the early drafts her central character—a crude proxy for Rand herself—says to a Bolshevik: ‘I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods.
Then you explicitly state your knowledge that this view is not in the published novel, ie, you are an intellectual fraud.
>She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes for the audience to cheer on.
Rand was a philosophical novelist.
>All have the same core message: Anything that pleases the Superman’s ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad.
Rand rejected emotions as guide and rejected power over people as a moral ideal.
>In The Fountainhead….he blows up the housing project
He designed it under an agreement that his design was not to be altered, which it was. The agreement could not be used in court so he took back what had been stolen. And he submitted to court action. Civil disobedience.
> Atlas Shrugged (1957),… said the United States would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole
But this is the Leftist criticism of the economy 50+ yrs later.
>The abandoned masses are described variously as ‘savages,’ ‘refuse,’ ‘inanimate objects,’ and ‘imitations of living beings,’ picking through rubbish.
The economy in AS was destroyed by collectivism. Such descriptions are consistent with life in the Progressive economies of the Soviet Union and Red China.
>One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash
It was caused by govt controls which no one could escape.
>and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary.
You, of course, prefer the Christian perversity of mercy over justice.
I have no mercy for you, only justice.
>Her heroes …. spend all their time fuming that the masses don’t bow down before their manifest superiority.
Respect, not bow down, a rational evaluation for superior productivity. You demnd I bow down before the “authority” of psychology
>As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people
Rand eventually rejected them as mystics looking for a substitute for independent judgment.
>I’m not a trained mental health provider but there are two who post here who agree with me
Which two quacks?
>Why do I think she was a sociopath?
ad hom
>1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
Rand respected other rational people and despised those with your depraved selflessness.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
This is Progressive politics in the guide of science. So a Nazi society should be accepted?!
>By her own admission she care nothing for social norms, rules and obligations.
You drop her rational context, esp. independent judgment , and her advocacy of a respectable, rational, selfish culture.
>People don’t deserve love except for those who met her narrow criteria
So you know that you dont deserve love but you want it given as duty. Your soul is a sewer.
>So on the WHO ICD-10 criteria?
Its political, not psy
>her mischaracterization of altruism as evil
Which she systematically proved. The psychologists who reject this are scientific frauds and power-lusters since there is no proof of altruism.
> her entire “philosophy” is built around a lack of empathy rationalized away as “rational (i.e. enlightened) self-interest”.
Its built around the primacy of existence, ie, realism, a value that subjectivists reject. In that context, rational selfishness is a vit
>her ‘philosophy’ appeals only to the selfish
Selfishness, as Rand proved, is moral and based on the objective needs of man’s life, which selfless people reject for death.
> You’re all engaging in the religion of “me, Me, ME!
Selfishness is moral. No one should sacrifice themselves for your moral weakness.
>and fuck everyone else”.
Ie, you want mercy for the disasters caused by your sacrifices. No ,you should be given justice instead. But you hate justice because you know your values are irrational. I despise your irrationality.
Each individual has an absolute moral right to his own life. This is what your absurd personal attacks are designed to destroy .You have the soul of a Nazi death camp guard, lusting for sacrifice. Your soul is rotten, a longing for that ultimate selflessness, death.