Should protesters respect private property?

[Caleb]

A good read from the physical - rather than philosophical - nature of humans is The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness by Antoni Damasio.

================================================================
As you read this, at some level you're aware that you're reading, thanks to a standard human feature commonly referred to as consciousness. What is it--a spiritual phenomenon, an evolutionary tool, a neurological side effect? The best scientists love to tackle big, meaningful questions like this, and neuroscientist Antonio Damasio jumps right in with The Feeling of What Happens, a poetic examination of interior life through lenses of research, medical cases, philosophical analysis, and unashamed introspection. Damasio's perspective is, fortunately, becoming increasingly common in the scientific community; despite all the protestations of old-guard behaviorists, subjective consciousness is a plain fact to most of us and the demand for new methods of inquiry is finally being met.
These new methods are not without rigor, though. Damasio and his colleagues examine patients with disruptions and interruptions in consciousness and take deep insights from these tragic lives while offering greater comfort and meaning to the sufferers. His thesis, that our sense of self arises from our need to map relations between self and others, is firmly rooted in medical and evolutionary research but stands up well to self-examination. His examples from the weird world of neurology are unsettling yet deeply humanizing--real people with serious problems spring to life in the pages, but they are never reduced to their deficits. The Feeling of What Happens captures the spirit of discovery as it plunges deeper than ever into the darkest waters yet. --Rob Lightner --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
================================================================

Interesting. I'm not familiar with D'Amasio, but as I read his bio it says that he was influenced by William James. If so it's liable to be a good read.

[dalebert]

I repeat that I'm not one to argue Rand's philosophy in much detail. I'm not an evangelical objectivist. There does, however, seem to be a lot of overlap between the values of most objectivists and my own. Here's an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_ethics that seems relevant to your point of contention.

---
In fact, Rand does not list "selfishness" among Objectivism's primary values. The primary values of Objectivism are "reason, purpose, and self-esteem," and the virtues by which these are achieved are said to be "rationality", "productiveness," and "pride." According to Rand, it is productiveness (the principled habit of working to create values that maintain and enhance one's life) that is the virtue most central to a rational human being's life, reason is its precondition, and pride is its outcome.

Rejection of altruism

Objectivism rejects as immoral any action taken for some ultimate purpose external to oneself. In particular, it rejects as immoral any variant of "altruism." By altruism Rand means any doctrine according to which one must justify his or her existence by service to others. According to Objectivism, to be ethical or moral, an action or choice can only have the acting or choosing agent as its primary intended beneficiary. Any claim that "you should/must do this" is open to the objection, "Why should I?" - and if the proposed imperative is of no benefit to oneself, then that objection is unanswerable. Objectivism especially opposes any ethical demand for sacrifice, where sacrifice is considered the giving up of a greater value for a lesser one.

An ethic of existential self-interest is espoused; that is, of choices and actions that are rationally optimized to promote one's life qua human being in reality, not of choices and actions that one merely presumes or hopes will furhter their self-interest. The Objectivist ethic can be called one of "rational self-interest" (rational egoism,) on the grounds that only by the exercise of reason can one discover what is truly of value to oneself in reality.
---

I feel like i can relate at least on an intuitive level, even if the language is a bit odd for my taste. I've often said the pleasure gets sucked out of charity when it's expected. I don't enjoy Christmas gifts for the same reason. Christmas is so quid pro quo. Gifts are the expectation. One Christmas when I was a student and quite in debt for school, I let my friends know I wasn't buying gifts because of my financial situation. Well, that was automatically interpreted as "don't get me anything"- quid pro quo. That's not what I meant, but that was fine with me. Then kind of last minute, I decided I would bake cookies for my friends. One of my friends was furious with me for having "tricked" him. He was experiencing a guilt trip because I had gotten him a gift and he hadn't gotten me anything. I didn't resent him at all for not having gotten me anything. I didn't expect anything. If he had, that would have been cool too. He was so belligerent about it that he eventually had me in tears and apologizing profusely. Anyhoo... my family has gone to a nearly giftless Christmas and we really enjoy it. Parents buy for their kids and couples buy for each other but that's about it. My siblings and my mom don't exchange anything.

The desire to do acts of charity should come from within; not from any sense of guilt or expectation. What makes it meaningful is that it's something you aren't required to do. I also think it's rational to be more charitable when your cup runneth over. When you have some degree of confidence in your own security, then charity is a luxury you can enjoy to a much greater extent. If I can make a small sacrifice that will have a large benefit for someone else, it feels quite rational to do so. I enjoy helping people so it feels like a "bargain" so to speak. As with anything else in the market, the extent of the sacrifice does not necessarily ensure the creation of value. Charity can be done smarter just like any business endeavor. Also, if someone is in particularly great need, that should impact the personal risks one is willing to take to help. It's all a judgment we have to make for ourselves, of course. I know that in times of personal prosperity, I am considerably more charitable. I think the prosperity created by freedom will naturally lead to a more charitable society. Tyranny leads to considerable financial insecurity and stifles charity.

[Caleb]

I guess the question for me is, "How ought I to live?" or "How ought I to encourage others to live?"  Should I ask myself and others to live for only ourselves? Or ought we to take others into account?

If the answer is that we ought to take others into account, then I would agree. But let's let it mean precisely that. Let's not try to have our cake and eat it too by saying, "well, you should live for yourself, but you will gain pleasure/pride/happiness/etc for yourself by doing nice things for others." If that's the answer than we seem to be getting nowhere because it seems that it has become a philosophy that will define itself to be true and mold the facts to accommodate itself. And it leaves a *rational* person wondering just *why* it is that he would derive pleasure/happiness in doing good for other people if it wasn't objectively a good thing to do. And if it *is* objectively a good thing to do to help others, then why is it verboten to say that is how I ought to live my life?

And all this goes back to the main question: How should I ask myself and others to live? Should they live for themselves, as long as they are smart enough to make good decisions, decisions that align well with libertarian philosophy? What if the person isn't that smart? Then should I still ask him to act according to his "rational self interest", knowing full well that he isn't rational enough to make good choices, and that he thus is going to oppress me and others? How smart must someone be to go from being an animal to an Objectivist? And if only the few, the proud, the marines can avoid being animals when they look out only for themselves, maybe I'm not so stupid when I ask that people choose to love, and thus find their humanity?

[dalebert]

Should I ask myself and others to live for only ourselves? Or ought we to take others into account?

If there are any true blue objectivists, feel free to chime in. I don't feel qualified, or even very motivated, to speak for objectivism.

It seems to me you're trying to add a lot of loaded negative meaning to the notion of rational self interest. Of course we should take others into account. Part of that is respecting that each of us is different and we all have different desires and motivations. I'm the only one who truly knows what will make me happy. Individualism maximizes our prosperity by allowing each of us to reach our full potential. All of society benefits in turn from that prosperity because we engage in trade. A collectivist thought process is very limiting. Freedom is about allowing people to be internally motivated, respecting the notion of rational self interest for others as well, which in turn requires that we don't use coercion. On an intellectual level, that includes perpetuating the notion that people have an obligation to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. It's a kind of emotional coercion. While certainly not a violation of the NAP, that irrational thought process fosters attitudes that justify more overt forms of coercion like the state.

Example: Let's say my ideal is to be an artist. Well, in my community there is a bigger demand for doctors and a really big demand for farmers. I personally like the idea of helping people (we are social creatures) and feel that I would also enjoy being a doctor, but not as much as I'd enjoy creating art, and I have no interest in farming whatsoever. If my primary belief system was that I'm here to serve others, I'd probably become a farmer, but that would be acting against my own nature. I wouldn't enjoy it. I'd probably never be a particularly good farmer and I'd be unproductive relatively speaking. Where if I become an artist, the sheer desire to be an artist will mean I'm probably going to embrace the challenge and excel.

But what about being a doctor? The disparity between the pay of a starving artist and a doctor is significant and for good reason. Why? Because there is a bigger demand for doctors and not as many people willing to go through the incredible amount of work it takes to be a doctor. What does that demand represent? Others exercising their rational self interest. Maybe I like to travel and having more money will allow more of that. Maybe I like the idea of making more money so I can give more to charity. I have to personally weigh the benefits of each profession. Choosing to be an artist would seem selfish from a collectivist point of view. Then again, I'm probably willing to consume a lot less of my community's resources (make less money) so that I can be an artist. I'd probably also have a lot of free time if I wanted to do volunteer work.

I want to live in a society that respects our personal decisions. When each of us is following our personal passion, we will be a lot more productive. An good artist's cup overfloweth with art and a good farmer's cup overfloweth with food. The wonderful thing about modern society is that we can trade with each other and both sides are better off for it. I have a lot more to offer society if I'm doing what I'm personally motivated to do, for whatever my reasons are. There are people who get tremendous satisfaction from charity. There are people devoting their entire lives to it. What seems like a tremendous sacrifice to most people is a small price for them compared to the reward that they get from it. Those people excel at it because it comes from an internal motivation.

[srqrebel]

But the business of government is precisely to enforce laws at gunpoint. 

As I see it, this is chiefly -- perhaps entirely -- the modus operandi of the criminal gang that currently calls itself "government".

The term government means 'that which governs'.  The original meaning of govern is to 'administer' or 'supervise'. 

The Authoritarian Model of Government operates on the premise that a "higher authority" resides in the "collective".  Hence, its role is ostensibly to govern, or administer and supervise, the "affairs" of this imaginary "collective", at the expense of the sovereignty of the individual.

In the Free Market Model of Government, the only government entities would be any person or business that specializes in administering and supervising the affairs of individuals by voluntary contract, such as protecting their property, overseeing the smooth operation of their affairs, etc.  Since such true government entities operate strictly at the direction and pleasure of the individuals they serve, they enhance the sovereignty of the individual.

[srqrebel]

I agree that the scenario you describe is much preferable to what we have now.

Precisely.  A common misconception is that the Free Market is promoted as some kind of utopia, which is simply not true.  There will always be problems to be solved, and individuals 'falling through the cracks', though very rarely compared to now.

The only claims I make along those lines is that the Free Market will enhance our lives overall exponentially better than the unnatural Authoritarian Model of Government.  Problems will be solved almost before they occur by profit-motivated entrepreneurs, and prosperity will be so universal that help will be readily available for any temporary inconvenience one might encounter.  Most importantly, people will be free to act according to their pristine nature, without the corrupting effect of submission to others.  The civilization arising out of this will be truly breathtaking, in comparison to the unnatural conditions we are subjected to under the AMOG.

[srqrebel]

...I would love for all exercises of force to be funded on a voluntary basis, so that people only paid for the laws and prisons they wanted.  But even in such a world, I would still oppose the use of prisons and the enforcement of laws.

What happens when pro-life and a pro-choice free market governments meet?  Ultimately, moral questions would still be decided by violence.

People are always going to have different opinions on when defensive force is justified, how much force is justified, and the proper punishment (or restitution, if you prefer) to enforce.  People who have strong opinions would pay to have a government enforce their ideas of justice (think of what this means to the promoters of "social justice").  People who don't have strong opinions would hop on to the strongest government available for defending their interests.

The answer to this is alluded to by an observation of your own:

But even in such a world, I would still oppose the use of prisons and the enforcement of laws.

...and so would I... and so would every individual who makes the paradigm shift required to make the transition to the Free Market model.  This is because the equal rights of sovereign individuals are in fact property rights (extensions of one's sovereign self), hence easily understood.

This mass transition will only occur through a massive paradigm shift, individal by individual, from AMOG-based thinking to grasping the full implications of the natural sovereignty of the individual.  The result is that the transition will be driven -- in fact dominated -- by individuals who have an intrinsic understanding of, and desire to honor, the inherent sovereignty of the individual.

The reason I am suddenly so certain of this actually occurring, as well as how it will occur, is because I have only very recently undergone this paradigm shift myself, in spite of having had a rudimentary grasp of these concepts for most of my life.  In fact, some parts of the new paradigm are still 'jelling' for me.

This paradigm shift is so massive and the implications so far-reaching and uplifting, that I feel compelled to convey it to others as quickly and effectively as possible.  This forum is sort of my "testing ground" for conveying the new paradigm, but I am working on something far more comprehensive, as well.

[Caleb]

Part of that is respecting that each of us is different and we all have different desires and motivations. I'm the only one who truly knows what will make me happy. Individualism maximizes our prosperity by allowing each of us to reach our full potential. All of society benefits in turn from that prosperity because we engage in trade. A collectivist thought process is very limiting. Freedom is about allowing people to be internally motivated, respecting the notion of rational self interest for others as well, which in turn requires that we don't use coercion. On an intellectual level, that includes perpetuating the notion that people have an obligation to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others.

I want to live in a society that respects our personal decisions.

But that is precisely the type of society that you get when people base their decisions on the principle of love for neighbor.  It is one of the most famous passages of Scripture, but it is one of the best: Paul's definition of love.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at evil, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Love believes in others. It respects others decisions because it imputes good motives to them. ("believes all things.") When love sees a flaw, it doesn't try to control the other person or force them to do it my way, because it trusts that the person will eventually find their own way, and when they do it will be in their best interests because they will have done it because their heart motivated them to, not because they were forced to. ("hopes all things"). Love will take a ton of crap from other people without lashing out against them, because it knows that anger begets anger, ("endures all things"). Love doesn't think that a solution to every problem must be forthcoming immediately, so it isn't quick to come up with knee jerk reactions to imagined problems. ("Love is patient and kind") Love is flexible, and isn't demanding of others that they all fit the same mold. ("It does not insist on its own way.") It doesn't hope for injury to supposed "enemies", but hopes that so-called enemies come to their senses, thus, it is kind even to those who are unkind to us. ("does not rejoice at evil, but rejoices with the truth").

That's the sort of society that I want to live in. I know what kind of society results from selfishness. I don't need to imagine it because I live in it everyday. I think it's time that humanity grow up, and start learning to love.

[MaineShark]

Part of that is respecting that each of us is different and we all have different desires and motivations. I'm the only one who truly knows what will make me happy. Individualism maximizes our prosperity by allowing each of us to reach our full potential. All of society benefits in turn from that prosperity because we engage in trade. A collectivist thought process is very limiting. Freedom is about allowing people to be internally motivated, respecting the notion of rational self interest for others as well, which in turn requires that we don't use coercion. On an intellectual level, that includes perpetuating the notion that people have an obligation to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of others.

I want to live in a society that respects our personal decisions.

But that is precisely the type of society that you get when people base their decisions on the principle of love for neighbor.  It is one of the most famous passages of Scripture, but it is one of the best: Paul's definition of love.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at evil, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

Love believes in others. It respects others decisions because it imputes good motives to them. ("believes all things.") When love sees a flaw, it doesn't try to control the other person or force them to do it my way, because it trusts that the person will eventually find their own way, and when they do it will be in their best interests because they will have done it because their heart motivated them to, not because they were forced to. ("hopes all things"). Love will take a ton of crap from other people without lashing out against them, because it knows that anger begets anger, ("endures all things"). Love doesn't think that a solution to every problem must be forthcoming immediately, so it isn't quick to come up with knee jerk reactions to imagined problems. ("Love is patient and kind") Love is flexible, and isn't demanding of others that they all fit the same mold. ("It does not insist on its own way.") It doesn't hope for injury to supposed "enemies", but hopes that so-called enemies come to their senses, thus, it is kind even to those who are unkind to us. ("does not rejoice at evil, but rejoices with the truth").

That's the sort of society that I want to live in. I know what kind of society results from selfishness. I don't need to imagine it because I live in it everyday. I think it's time that humanity grow up, and start learning to love.

Unless someone's decision is to do something you dislike.  Like commit suicide.  In which case you will attack them violently.

Yeah, "love" is such a wonderful basis for morality.

Joe

[Caleb]

From my perspective, most of this stuff is silly. I am a believer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."--Albert Einstein

Jung was critical of pantheism, which he believed was destructive of the ego, and thus led to mental illness, and compromised our ability to love.

[dalebert]

That's the sort of society that I want to live in. I know what kind of society results from selfishness. I don't need to imagine it because I live in it everyday. I think it's time that humanity grow up, and start learning to love.

You seem to insist on misinterpreting the term "rational self interest" just so you can oppose it. "Selfishness is bad"? No kidding. How about we quit playing the semantics game. It's my biggest forum pet peeve. Is there something in my response that you would dispute?

[kola]

Although I am not a bible followerer nor do I know a lot of the biblical stories I do enjoy discussing and reading about "love".

BUT I am always depressed when so many people do not want to discuss it or disregard it entirely. It seems (for many) they find it easier to talk about hatred and killing.

It often deflates my hopes of someday witnessing a better world.

Kola

[Caleb]

You seem to insist on misinterpreting the term "rational self interest" just so you can oppose it. "Selfishness is bad"? No kidding. How about we quit playing the semantics game. It's my biggest forum pet peeve. Is there something in my response that you would dispute?

Let me switch directions here:  I am operating under a very specific assumption based on an observation. The observation is that our world is very violent. The assumption is that level of violence must have a cause, a motivation. My belief is that the violence is caused by the following:  Humans isolate themselves from each other, destroy their sense of community with each other, tear down every conceivable tie that binds us to each other. We don't even take the time to learn the NAMES of the people who live next door to us. We foster isolation, fear and mistrust, which leads to a lack of genuine feeling for our fellow man, which leads to an ambivalence about his well-being. In short, we don't really care whether the guy next door lives or dies, so it's hard for us to get worked up about violence toward him.  So that's my belief, straight up. I try not to pull any punches or mince words. When you believe this way, the cure becomes obvious: do the opposite of all those things. Love. Trust. Rebuild communities. Get to know your neighbors. Allow each man's sorrow and pain to become your own.

Now, as to the whole "rational self interest" thing and whether I dispute what you've said, I'm still trying to figure out what it is, specifically, that you are trying to change about your fellow man to end the violence. What's the cure? Or are you merely telling me what people do, not what they ought to do? I don't know. I've read your analysis, but nothing that you said seems inconsistent with the idea of love that I am expounding. So who knows, maybe we do see eye to eye. Although it seems that your system doesn't demand love of neighbor, which I see as essential. (But then again, it doesn't preclude it, which is a start, because as you can see by reading this thread, the concept of love has come under attack by some people.) So I guess the best question is, to help me understand:  Just how does your system differ from the one that people employ now?  If you see "rational self interest" as the cure, that would mean that you must think that people aren't using rational self interest now. The one thing you did say was you told me that I couldn't discount the "rational" part of rational self interest. Which I took to mean that you want people to be smarter. But I can't help but feel that there must be more to it than that, because I think we would both recoil if the answer to our problems is that people are just too stupid. That doesn't bode well for our future. 

So what, specifically, do you want people to do differently than they are doing now? I think the answer to that question will help me understand where you are coming from.

[Caleb]

Although I am not a bible followerer nor do I know a lot of the biblical stories I do enjoy discussing and reading about "love".

BUT I am always depressed when so many people do not want to discuss it or disregard it entirely. It seems (for many) they find it easier to talk about hatred and killing.

It often deflates my hopes of someday witnessing a better world.

Kola

It isn't their fault. That's the one thing I'm taking from Jung more than anything:  our psyches mirror the world, and the world mirrors our psyches; so they feed each other. That's why it's critical that we realize what is happening, and make a conscious effort to change our thinking, to let ourselves out of this devastating loop.

[dalebert]

It's not that people aren't smart enough. It's that healthy notions of human interaction have been corrupted and people are indoctrinated from a very early age into irrational thinking. I know your heart is in the right place, but I worry that you discount the importance of the mind and critical thinking. I believe animals feel emotions and have instincts but they don't have our minds. Emotions are natural and love is natural, but so is the mind, and we need both working together to prosper. Our minds are what make us better than animals.

Class warfare is an example of emotional violence that appeals to our emotions in an irrational way to get people to justify the violence of the state. Healthy minds have been corrupted. People are convinced something is owed to them by other people and that helps them justify violence. You yourself use conflicting terminology. You say the change has to come from within and then you use expressions like "demand love". That's a kind of emotional coercion. Love loses it's meaning when it's the expectation. Do you not have faith in human nature to love? I do. Some things do have to be taught, but I don't think love is one of them. I believe it will come naturally to a person who is truly healthy both emotionally and mentally. In fact, I think the only true love is internally motivated.

I do think we agree for the most part. We discussed this a lot in person. We've discussed before that I believe freedom will lead to the loving society we both want while you believe love is the first step. But to be internally motivated, a person must be free to choose it without emotional coercion. Do you see the contradiction?

Love shouldn't be a one way thing. When I do something nice for someone, it feels good. It's not a sacrifice. It's pleasant. If I give up some of my time or possessions to do some good, I've made a decision about the price, and what I get in return is worth more than what I gave up. It's both selfish, in that I have benefited from the decision, and loving, because it benefits someone else. Real love is beneficial to everyone involved. That's how healthy human interaction ought to be. We are social creatures. It's unfortunate that the word "socialism" has taken on the negative political meaning that it has. It's been perverted by selfish notions, by the idea that others should be forced to love us, that love can be mandated, but then it's not love. Love is dead in that world.

In my ideal world, an act of kindness evokes sincere gratitude. In a world where love is the expectation, in your ideal world, a "thank you" is out of place because acts of kindness are one's duty. You're just doing your job. In my ideal world, an act of kindness makes you feel good. In your ideal world, it makes you feel adequate. In your world, love is equated with self-sacrifice, making it seem a task or a burden. My ideal world is one where love flourishes naturally and benefits everyone. It is not demanded or expected. In fact, it must not be, or it is perverted into something else that sucks the real love out of us.