"With respect to sanction -- yes, lending credibility to Scientology is less vicious than lending it to a conservative politician..."

%%#%#$$!!!!! Sorry, I meant the reverse. Wow. :jawdrop:

I wasn't giving a general rule (sanctioning one type of group is always better than sanctioning another, etc.), though I can see how that was suggested. I meant to imply nothing except that at any point in time there are normally people/movements/institutions that are more threatning (e.g., CAIR or some other Hamas apologist group) vs. less threatning (say, a girlscout troop that collects money to help fight global warming by campaigning against refrigerators). Assuming the energy you're giving to x and y groups is equal, sanctioning one is worse than sanctioning the other.

Also, I should have made clear that I meant the christianist type of conservative - the type that believes in a "constituency of one" (God) and is helping in one way or another to undermine the division of church and state. That was idiotically unclear of me.

Too much depends upon the particulars: What did the person do to lend credibility to Scientology? Who is the conservative politician? What did you do to lend him credibility?

In my understanding, for something to actually qualify as "sanction" already entails a specific context: you have a definite knowledge about the recipient of your sanction; there has to be a real choice involved, an alternative (i.e., if the only cars left on the market came from China, I would buy one); what you're doing actually confers benefit on an (evil) cause that stands to harm you in turn. Rather than deprive it of whatever energy you have to offer, you help keep it alive. So a great deal rests on the kind of action, and how it stands to benefit the recepient. Chatting with Rick Santorum about Newt Gingrich's book doesn't sanction him. Helping him sell his book (a piece of christian-fascist, though surprisingly sophisticated, garbage) is.

James, I would actually have to know more about the conservative, and more about the stakes, before I would agree that it's fine and dandy to campaign for him - even if the opponent is a socialist. If it's Falwell, his opponent would have to be the prophet Muhammad for me to agree with you.

It would depend on what I really stand to lose from the socialist - which depends on the kind of office he's running for, the general political landscape, the bills I expect to see voted on (and whether I expect them to be passed), etc.

Boaz,

Why would actively campaigning politically for a conservative against a socialist be wrong?? What is entailed in giving sanction?

Jim

I view Scientology as on par with the FLDS jack Mormon cult that has its leader on the FBI most wanted list. They regularly resort to fraud and almost racketeering-like tactics to recruit and retain members and silence critics.

Jim

Also, and this point is off the main thread, I should mention that I don't regard these kinds of general rules about sanction as valid: "With respect to sanction -- yes, lending credibility to Scientology is less vicious than lending it to a conservative politician..."

Too much depends upon the particulars: What did the person do to lend credibility to Scientology? Who is the conservative politician? What did you do to lend him credibility?

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Scientology is an evil cult. If you look at the Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes pictures, there is always a "minder" in the background making sure all goes according to plan. They also regularly abuse the legal system to harass opponents and use other scare tactics.

Jim

As someone who was sued by a Scientologist for criticizing his religion, I'd strongly recommend against downplaying (1) the danger that any contact therewith can pose to your life, your happiness, and your money and (2) the dishonesty required of its adherents. If I had to choose, I'd rather hug Pat Buchanan than shake hands with an ordinary Scientologist.

Of course, I don't think that Scientology poses a long-term threat to America in the way that conservatives do, but that's not all that must be considered in moral judgments.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

To elaborate on what proportionality would mean, within Thomas' formulation that one can treat all units (of immorality) the same way: we recognize that associating with any individual or group we deem immoral in some measure, will have some negative effect for us. With respect to sanction -- yes, lending credibility to Scientology is less vicious than lending it to a conservative politician: it's still important to recognize degrees. But the point is that we want to avoid the negative long-term consequences of all degrees (units) altogether, insofar as we can identify such consequences. That's a very general, but I think correct, summary.

Needless to say, what this view of judgment doesn't mean is that we go around condemning everyone and everything in sight for the slightest blemish. But that should go without saying -- as it should have all along. What it does mean is that we act in proportion to our evaluation: we want to be around the best people we can find, we encourage the best in men. Conversely, we condemn and work against what we identify as the worst, as the most dangerous to our values.

Jim said: "I'm inclined to give more benefit of the doubt to people who have read Rand, until they prove they don't deserve it."

More doubt than who? Leonard Peikoff? Where did he ever say that we should just condemn ordinary people with wrong ideas, whether they've read Ayn Rand or not? In fact, he's said just the opposite on multiple occasions. Moreover, unlike David Kelley, Dr. Peikoff makes a HUGE distinction between regular people (like your wife) and professional intellectuals (like the Marxist professor). If you're going to be a professional advocate of ideas, it's your JOB to make sure that you're not... oh, I don't know... supporting the slaughter of millions.

I suspect that you've accepted many of the standard misrepresentations of LP's views found in TOC circles. The best antitode to that is to listen to LP's major lecture courses, particularly _Understanding Objectivism_, _The Art of Thinking_, and _Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic_.

"I'm a limited advocate for sanction of libertarians."

I blog stuff from Volokh Conspiracy. I like reading Virgina Postrel. I'm friends with anarchist libertarians. My dissertation advisor is an anarchist libertarian. None of that is relevant to the question of sanctioning libertarianism.

Jim, time and time again, I've seen you completely misunderstand the philosophic disputes between David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff. In addition to the above issues, you do it with the open versus closed system issue routinely, mostly by equating the closed system view with some kind of ban upon new knowledge. That's wrong -- and the work being done by ARI scholars on induction (Dave Harriman, Leonard Peikoff), on the DIM hypothesis (Leonard Peikoff), on the philosophic foundations of calculus (Pat Corvini), on judicial interpretation (Tara Smith), and so on should be an indication of something defective in your understanding of these issues.

I really think you need to spend some time acquainting yourself with the actual ARI position on these matters. Even if you end up disagreeing with it, as least you'd be disagreeing with what's actually being advocated.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

I think Kelley was asking for proportionality in judgment. For instance, my wife is a Nichiren Buddhist. I don't shun her for her mistaken beliefs, I simply make clear my disagreement. I'm inclined to give more benefit of the doubt to people who have read Rand, until they prove they don't deserve it.

But that's not Kelley's argument. Your latter two setences are (or could be, depending on the circumstances) completely consistent with the Objectivist view.

Kelley argues that even within the category of evil (as distinct from error) we must treat the units differently based on degree of evil--this is what he means when he talks about the necessity of "reintroducing the measurements" when we apply a concept. That is quite a different proposition. Not only is it an attack on morality, it's an attack on the conceptual level as such.

Why? Because Ayn Rand's theory of concepts says we can treat units as the same when their differences pertain only to differences in measurement (within the appropriate range). For Kelley to say that we must account for differences in measurement when we deal particulars means that differences in measurement are the equivalent of differences in kind...which means that conceptualization is impossible.

Thomas,

I think Kelley was asking for proportionality in judgment. For instance, my wife is a Nichiren Buddhist. I don't shun her for her mistaken beliefs, I simply make clear my disagreement. I'm inclined to give more benefit of the doubt to people who have read Rand, until they prove they don't deserve it.

I'm still sorting out many issues with Truth and Toleration. I'm an open system advocate, but I don't like the formulation of it in T&T. I'm a limited advocate for sanction of libertarians. I don't support the LP, CATO or other major libertarian organizations. However, I find many good books put out by libertarians such as Virginia Postrel's Future and its Enemies, Eric Raymond's the Cathedral and the Bazaar, Thomas Malone's The Future of Work and Michael Schrage's Serious Play. I went to two terrific conferences led by Virginia Postrel called Dynamic Visions in 1999-2000 that featured issues in technology and liberty.

Jim

One thing I've been disappointed with in many TAS supporters is that many times they don't apply goodwill and the benefit of the doubt to ARI supporters. That's unfortunate and ironic.

But it's not. It's inherent in David Kelley's philosophy. Just as multiculturalism says all cultures are equal--and condemns Western culture as vicious, Kelley's philosophy opposes moral judgment--and condemns those who judge as vicious. Those who condemn moral judgment are necessarily led to condemn moral judges.

Thomas,

Absolutely. However, in my experience such a friendship probably would need to be broadbased in interest and not just focused on philosophy or disagreements would probably come to a head eventually.

One thing I've been disappointed with in many TAS supporters is that many times they don't apply goodwill and the benefit of the doubt to ARI supporters. That's unfortunate and ironic.

Jim

Linz,

No MBA here and no aspirations to management. Too many meetings, too much BS and not enough time to go hiking on weekends .

Jim

"There isn't even anything wrong with an ARI supporter being friends with a TAS supporter, so long as each is convinced the other is honest."

Thomas, thank you for that. I had been frightened of approaching outsiders and have been backwards in my moving forwards. Thank you, you have given me the strength I needed

Moving forward, any staff member who uses the term "moving forward" will be summarily fired & shot.

... many opportunities to engage and specifically tailor your interactions to more effectively achieve their intended result.

Didn't know you were doing an MBA, moving forward strategically.

Interactively, progressively, sensitively, inclusively, diversely yours in outreach ...

Linz

I agree with Boaz that you can be uncompromising and still engage people of opposing camps. In fact, the internet affords many opportunities to engage and specifically tailor your interactions to more effectively achieve their intended result.

But it's more than that. There isn't even anything wrong with an ARI supporter being friends with a TAS supporter, so long as each is convinced the other is honest.

I agree with Boaz that you can be uncompromising and still engage people of opposing camps. In fact, the internet affords many opportunities to engage and specifically tailor your interactions to more effectively achieve their intended result.

Jim