I recommend you read Richard’s discussion here before commenting.
Update – A critique – “this anecdote illustrates the problem with Libertarianism/Objectivism: the majority of people aren’t as intelligent as your average Libertarian/Objectivist thinks they (themselves) are. […] Many, many people are just stupid. By definition, 49% of the population is below average.”
And my response – Find the average of these three numbers; 100, 130, 150.
(See? Objectivists are smarter. )
Further comments – I’ve heard variations of this statement often (so won’t make a point of pinning it on Kathy Shaidle) that “49% of the population is below average”.
Setting aside for a moment the fun with the math earlier, statements like this suggest that IQ scores (for want of a better measure) are evenly distributed across the cognitive range. That is – that the number of people who score 100 would be roughly the same as those who score 60, 80, 120, 140. That’s quite obviously inaccurate – the vast majority of test scores are clustered in the middle range, at what is considered “average”. If they weren’t, we’d truly be in big trouble as a species.
I agree that many, many people are “just stupid”. But they aren’t the majority, and I don’t know that it does our societal systems much good to design public policy around what best serves the lowest common denominator.
The antecedent of the syllogism in your question is false, Richard, therefore its consequent is irrelevent.
bravo Yanni exactly as I feel too.
Ha… Dick Ball Said “Poopy”….
Guess where he falls in the IQ balance!
“poopy diapers”?????? How dare you Rick. They can’t use diapers anymore.Just 1 sheet of TP.Why, I am soooo angry,I think I’ll just go sit in the corner and have a temper tantrum until you come clean my butt!
On any given day Kathy is bristling, with a highly individualized and unique eloquence, and with passion and humour, against the rising tide of state collectivists who wish to alter our language and our western rules of engagement with enforced group-think stupidity. So I’m surprised she wasn’t even a bit stirred by the sentiments expressed in the clip.
49% of the population is below average. Kathy stated — and I agree with her, in large part — that “they require a great deal of shoving this way and that to make them do the right thing, in the form of laws, social stigma, and so forth.”
But what if they are the ones doing the shoving? What if their laws, their social stigmas, rule the day? Would “law” have that same nice ring to it?
What if those who wish to force collectivism on everyone see in the stupid/outraged not people who need guidance, but a political force to be harvested and put to use against recalcitrant individuals who are not stupid?
Looking at the lessons of the last century, it’s obvious that enforced, large-scale collectivism has been unparallelled, in both its desire and capacity, to run roughshod over any groups — Catholics, Buddhists, Protestants, etc — who might best provide reasonable guidance to the “stupid”.
I personally believe that enforced collectivism is an ascendent force in the dissolute West, and a grave danger, so I guess it’s not surprising that I found the courtroom clip to be stirring and eloquent. I mean, it’s not scripture, it’s just an argument to be made that state collectivism is ominous and absurd in equal measure.
BTW, Ayn Rand’s personal life is about as relevent, in the specific context of Kate’s presentation of them, to Howard Roark’s arguments as the applied schemings of a pedophilic priest might be to the tenets of Catholicism. Surely ideas can be considered without pointing out the private failures of those who posit them.
Richard’s piece is superb, and acute, and insightful. Those who make collective claims on behalf of future humanity can indeed be clearly seen, at all times, to live fulsomely in the present, for themselves. Their attempts to reassemble their dissolute selves by constructing a social machine with power over others is actually disgusting, and must be resisted at all costs.
If things were to get to the point — and it doesn’t seem all that far off, at times — where all doctors would be required to perform abortions, under penalty of charges that to do otherwise would be to violate women’s rights to their own body, or priests required by law to perform weddings ceremonies for gay couples, or siblings, say, I suspect Kathy would see more clearly the value of the ideas in Roark’s speech. Again, it’s not scripture, or counterforce to scripture, it’s just a few important core ideas that are worth discussing.
Ayn Rand is a very poor substitute for reading Friedrich Hayek.
Farmer Joe,
That’s merely your opinion. My point was that nobody’s mind is being changed here today.
I’m fine with how little I know. I wasn’t trying to convince others to think like me.
The fact is you think rational thinking has led to your conclusions when in fact, if you haven’t done the scientific methodology, it’s either hearsay or conventional wisdom.
There have been many things accepted as fact throughout the years that have later been debunked. Who knows… maybe your argument that there isnt a higher power my be debunked one day too….
WELL, AS ONE WHO HAS studied the design and application of IQ testing…
Essentially these tests were DESIGNED to set, as the average score, a score of 100. So yes, of course, the average person has an IQ of 100. This is theoretical, by the way, because in different countries, cultures, and time frames, this will not always be the case. But in Canada, it’s about right. Now, IQ test scores show up as a ‘bell curve’ when you plot them. Most people are in the middle, with only a small percentage above IQ 130, or below IQ 70.
So yes, about 1/2 the popultaion is below 100, but that half is not retarded. Most people in that half are just below avereage, that’s all.
It is clearly true that to understand complex intellectual problems, one’s intelligence has to be quite a bit above average. Only a minority of the Canadian population reads ANY books for leisure. Fewer still read non-fiction, and fewer again read complex political theory, purely out of interest.
Such people tend to seek out each others’ company, from common interest. They also tend to strongly over-estimate the prevalence of their own behavior in the population. It’s actually quite rare.
Be aware that among Canadian adults, about 25% have a serious psyhopathology. It’s not just a bunch of YOUR family members that are ‘crazy’ — everyone has some. About 1% are schizophrenic.
ALSO, don’t forget about the large % of the population which simply does not care about political philosophy. The top ten Google hits this week might include Shakira, but Ayn Rand will not appear in the top 10, ever.
Yanni:
Kudos for withstanding the personal attacks and eloquently expressing some of the principals of objectivism and libertarianism.
Johannes:
“Indeed, by definition, half the population is beneath the median, not the mean. But Kathy’s point holds for a high sample, since if we assume an even distribution about the mean, and a very large sample, the mean and the median converge, and then it’s safe to say that 49.99% of the population will have a below average IQ. So Kathy is right practically speaking, but Kate is right technically speaking.”
Wrong again. There is no proof that intelligence is evenly distributed about the mean. In fact, I would assume the opposite, that there is a larger spread above the mean, but alas I have no proof.
Regarding the original comments from Kathy Shaidle:
“Many, many people are just stupid. By definition, 49% of the population is below average.”
Oh, the irony that these two statements are joined together!
“They require a great deal of shoving this way and that to make them do the right thing, in the form of laws, social stigma and so forth.”
This particular attitude is, in my opinion, dangerous. As William F. Buckley once said, he would rather be governed by the first 200 names from the Boston phone directory than any 200 Harvard faculty picked at random.
In general, some people will always attempt to assert more control over other people, and as long as this is true, libertarianism is unachievable in any pure form. However, it is a wonderful philosophy to live by.
The problem with collectivism is avoiding the transition from giving to others freely towards enforced redistribution and coercion. Sometimes it is a fine line. And many people do not even acknowledge the difference.
Wow greek you really take the cake. You believe in God, but sending man to the moon is hearsay.
The antithesis of freedom is not association, it is authority. The collective is not the enemy of individual liberty unless participation in said collective is non-volitional. Thus we have the notion of freedom of association.
This is a fine point I’m trying to make here, and I don’t wish to denigrate anyone’s contribution to the discussion above (which I must say I have appreciated and enjoyed), but your enemy is neither the collective nor the individual, it is the authoritarian.
That said, it is reasonable to consider also that in general humans have found over time and on balance that on occasion is it advantageous to delegate certain types of authority, within limits of course, not to put too fine a point on it.
So I would have to say, when all the vectors are factored in, that it is a matter of weighing, for any approach vector to the solution of any problem, the valuables produced by the approach in comparison to the valuables consumed by it. It is reasonable to cast aside those approaches which are either not practicable or offer very low returns.
The problem with the authoritarians is that they feel they are not subject to the matter of the axiological debates pertaining to the issues of value that I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and the problem with the anarchists (a fancy word for liberty extremists) is that they feel they are not bound by the value resulting from the interplay between association and (metaphorically) Reynold’s scaling factors. (Actually, bureaucrats have problems with Reynold’s numbers too, but let’s leave that aside for now.)
Meanwhile, the rest of us try to work around those kinds of people, in various ways, such as avoidance, and war. It has always been so. And, so far, it has worked pretty well, over the millennia, improvement-wise, net net. So, if I may, I’d like to close with three quotes that I think are relevant to the competing directions in the domain of discourse we have at hand here.
A long time ago (as I mentioned, it has always been), Plato said that “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”. I agree. The public collective is always a threat to the good man, unless the collective is tamed by volition.
Now technically I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (using the old meaning of the terms), so am I left or right? And this brings us to my second, more recent quote, from Mr. Ronald Regan:
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits'”.
In conclusion, I should like to note that freedom has a value, and association has a value, and the question of their balance is not theoretical, is is completely pragmatic: what is your value function? What is your utility? Don’t look at me, I’m not you. Which brings us to my final quote from the great libertarian utilitarian, Mr. John Stuart Mill, who much to the chagrin of his father’s best friend Mr. Bentham, said, in his essay On Liberty:
“Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good.”
You can read Mr. Mill’s On Liberty here: http://www.bartleby.com/130
mbaron: Alan Greenspan was chairman of the fed, and the author of articles about the importance of the gold standard, which he conviently ignored once he was Fed chairman. Edward Greenspan is a Toronto lawyer.
Tom Wolfe’s comment about Marshall Macluhan is equally appropriate vis-a-vis Rand: “He hit some very large nails not quite squarely on the head”. She was quite right about many things, and quite wrong about others. Rape may, in fact, be exciting for specific women with specific men, but as a general way of relation between sexes, it’s a non-starter. Still, I would like to see both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged made as series for TV; both are too complex for a single movie.
Farmer Joe,
Thanks for your assesment, but like most things on the Internet, your opinion really doesn’t matter to me, or anyone else for that matter.
You obviously have little ability to consider or understand points of view that aren’t yours.
All the best…
Again you are in error Greek. Just because I reject your assertions and misrepresentation of Rands ideas (she never claimed to ‘know all’,merely that by following the right methodology knowledge is attainable) does not mean that I do not understand them. It is in fact because I do fully understand them that I reject them.
And if the things that I say or are that are on the internet don’t matter to you, and that you are not here trying to change anyone’s mind then why are you not only participating in an internet forum but responding to my posts? The question answers itself.
Nice try, Farmer Joe…
You obviously aren’t deep enough to understand Rand, if you simply can’t understand me…
Have a great day
Nice try, Farmer Joe…
You obviously aren’t deep enough to understand Rand, if you simply can’t understand me…
Have a great day
There was a study released sometime in the last few years, the name and source of which escapes me at this time. But essentially what the results referred to were these traits: those who are of average or lower intelligence will tend to think of themselves as of higher intelligent than they actually are, while those of high intelligence will tend to think of themselves as of a lower intelligence than is factual.
Based on my interactions with people throughout a long career in an *applied science* and production field, with supervision of a large number of diverse employees at times, and also based on my observations from birth to an advanced age, and into retirement, I would have to say the findings of that study were about spot on.
You can take that for what it is worth when digesting some of the assertions made in the posts preceeding this one.
As to the *average* debate you can consider this: half the drivers on the roads today are less competent than the median. And they go to great strides to prove it every day.
Greek said, “The real issue, is that philosophy is not science. In order for any philosophy to truly work, the test subjects (man) would have to be absolutely perfect, whatever that may mean.”
The issue according to Rand (and I agree) is that in far to many instances philosophy is not treated as science. Applying non rational epistemology’s to non existent metaphysics and then inexplicitly wondering why life becomes such a mess.
You seem to believe that no philosophy can work, yet every single one of us has a philosophy that we follow with varying degrees of success. You claim to be a fan of Rand’s but obviously have never read her essay ‘Philosophy who needs it’ from the book of the same name which goes into this in detail.
It is not that people have to be ‘perfect’ for a philosophy to work but for the philosophy to acknowledge that it’s purpose is for the benefit of people, not God, or the State, or the trees or whatever else one can imagine. And as such you treat people as people because as Rand has pointed out A is A. And you don’t get very far pretending that A is B.
Oh yah, and…
Have a great day.
The Greek said, “Rand’s philosophy encounters the problem ultimately encountered with every other philosophy, the concept of absolutism.”
This is true, she did encounter the problem and also found an elegant solution. And it is this, truth is highly dependant on context. In the right context something can be absolutely true in the wrong context it is absolutely false.
Let’s use the example of blood transfusions.
Can one transfer blood from one human being to another without any negative consequences? The answer is both true and false depending upon the context.
We have through the use of the scientific methodology and process through the year’s learnt that it is true when you match up all of the blood types, RH factors, and screen for blood born diseases. And that it is false when one fails to account for all of these factors.
The point being that contradictions do not exist in nature and that it is in our power to grasp and understand the world, because it is a rational one and we have the ability to think rationally. The rub is that we have to choose to do so and that it takes discipline, hard work, dedication and a ruthless devotion to the facts of reality to connect all of the dots.
Funny how a well proven methodology that can produce life saving blood transfusions, antibiotics, vaccines etc. is rejected by so many people when it comes to philosophy.
It is so much easier to just throw up ones hands and state ‘we know nothing’ like you Greek.
And discussing the matters of a deity, I won’t waste my time because it is a non-entity we are dealing with here….I don’t foist my Atheism on others,…
But, but, you just did. Why else point out your views?
I see no reason to love and care for people whom I don’t know.
Presumably you present your views here for some other reason.
Farmer Joe,
Me thinks thou dost protest too much…
Who are you trying to convince of your opinion? Yourself?
What’s the matter Greek? Worried that the arguments make too much sense, and that others are reading them? I thought you said you didn’t take any of this serious since it was on the ‘Internet’. That it just doesn’t matter.Yet you just can’t pull yourself away can you?
It’s too bad your arguments are nothing more than simplistic and fallacious personal attacks. But what can one expect from someone who doesn’t think that truth or knowledge are possible. One wonders how such people remember how to tie thier own shoelaces let alone operate a keyboard.
But by all means do keep trying. Maybe you just haven’t found the right insult yet.
Farmer Joe,
You have some serious issues. Now re-read your post and try applying what you claim to your actions.
Seek some help… please
So you have no problem dishing it out, but obviously can’t take it. Poor little Greek, did I hurt your feelings?
No, not at all… By your posts and your ranting, you are obviously a fool.
I feel pity more for you than anything…
All the best…
Coming from someone who himself admits he knows nothing that means so very little. However did you come up with a standard by which to make such a judgement? Let me guess, it must have been divine inspiration.
No, by reading your posts. It’s not unlike a temper tantrum a child would have. I disagree with you, yet you feel the need to try to convince me and other here of your point of view. Can you not just walk away and leave it at that?
But your insistence of trying to prove yourself right, while denegrating me (and by proxy, millions of other who believe in a higher power) shows that you are indeed a fool.
Now, I think even you would consider yourself not as intelligent as Albert Einstein, but here are a few of his gems…
“The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.”
“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
So arguably the world’s greatest physicist believes there is room for rational though and God, not unlike what I think.
Time to grow up Farmer… The world is not black and white as Rand claims.
BTW, I am staring at number of books on my bookshelf right now including; Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We The Living, For The New Intellectual, The Romantic Manifesto, and the Virtue of Selfishness.
I am familar with Rand’s works, and I still disagree. Philosophy is not some sort of Pablum to be fed to the unthinking masses, not unlike what you have portrayed here. What makes you any different than the looters and the moochers portrayed in AS? You have taken what Rand as written as gospel and have refused to consider any other option. Is that what she meant by using one’s mind? To blindly follow?
I also have a copy of the Bible on the same bookshelf, and I don’t believe everything that was written in that either.
But I do believe in the intent of both Christ’s words and Rand’s words.
I’m tired of playing with you. You talk a big game, but are unable to think outside the ideological box you have formed about yourself.
Thus, comes my reasoned opinion, that you are indeed a fool.
Good luck with everything in your sheltered existence…
I am ending my portion of this delightful conversation. No sense in chatting with someone who lives by the credo “my way or the highway”.
You have been bested…
You have got to be kidding?
You are the one who is obviously trying to convince themselves. You have claimed to be done with me a number of times already and just keep coming back for more.
And you are such a hypocrite to boot. I have no problem if other people want to believe in God as long as they don’t try to jam those belief’s down my throat. But you seem to have a big problem with those of us who don’t and have done more than your share of name calling and denigration. Respect is a two way street, that you have trouble driving down.
You claim to know nothing, and have a problem with absolutes yet you clearly have an absolute belief in a god of which there is no physical evidence. And you offer no proof(because there is none,it’s called it faith for a reason)you just take other peoples word for it and ‘believe’ because it makes you feel good. Your rationalizations are laughable.
Since you believe in the ‘intent’ of Christ’s words lets have a look.
How’s about those good ol Christian family values?
“For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN’S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.”
-Matthew 10:35-36
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
-Luke 14:26
“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”
-Luke 12:51-53
I just feel the love all over after reading those.
And what about that warm fuzzy peace on earth thing?
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.”
-Matthew 10:34
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
-Luke 22:36
What’s the Christian word for Jihad?
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
-Luke 19:27
Greek why don’t you do everyone a favour and follow the advice of this piece of scripture.
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hyprocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
-Matthew 6:5-6
Looks like your Lord might just be thinking of you as a hypocrite himself for coming out of the closet like this.
In the words of Stewie Griffin, “Victory is Mine!”
Have a faith filled life Greek.