From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2000 - 07:55:09 MDT
On Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:40 AM Samantha Atkins
samantha@objectent.com wrote:
> > From: Thomas Gramstad thomas@ifi.uio.no
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:42 PM
> > Subject: Announcing Aynarchism
> >
> > http://www.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/lists/aynarchism.html
> >
> > The aynarchism mailing list is a forum for those who believe or
> > would like to explore the idea that a "randarchy" (Objectivist or
> > Rand-influenced society) could or should be an anarchy - that is,
> > that Ayn Rand's philosophy and social theory implies a stateless
> > society.
>
> As a former Objectivist, I know it is very much part of her philosophy
> that there are legitimate functions for a state. I see no point in
> claiming her philosophy leads to a conclusion that the philosophy quite
> explicitly excludes.
I see a point in it, especially if one thinks the case is not so clear.
Yes, Rand and many of her seconds, explicitly state this philosophy is not
anarchist. However, just because they state that does not mean their
position is consistent or flows from their first principles and their
method. After all, a philosophical system is supposed to be _systematic_ --
not a hodge podge of positions, but a careful integration of them.
Any given system usually has some inconsistencies -- not necessary because
of Godel, but just because people are finite and falliable. E.g., someone
can hold positions A, B, C, and D are mutually consistent, yet be wrong.
Perhaps D does not fit with A, B, and C. If the person in question is able
to persuade enough, through rhetorical skill or force of personality (two
things IMO Rand possessed in spades), people that D does indeed fit with the
other positions, then the error can propogate and continue.
> In Objectivist terms it is a form of theft to
> steal Objectivist merits for a set of ideas explicitly opposed to the
> relevant parts of Objectivism.
I disagree. One has to accept the crackpot notion that only one person or
one set of persons can define what is or is not part of the system. I
reject the idea, regardless of what Rand said or wrote. I'm more interested
in working out implications of the substantive ideas rather than sheepishly
following whatever ground rules people lay out.
> How is your discussion group helped by this mis-appropriation of value?
It's not my discussion group. Thomas Gramstad thomas@ifi.uio.no owns and,
AFAIK, moderates it.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:58 MST