Why is it irrelevant that they draw different conclusions if the conclusions of one is largely life-affirming, while the conclusions of another is largely life-destroying? I don't think that's irrelevant at all when judging from the viewpoint of which one is more desirable than the other. For instance, would you sooner live in the largely, Christian West, or the Islamic Middle East?

That neither of them is perfect is irrelevant. It's moral equating of religions that I am against, Wayne. Why do people do that? I'm fucked if I know, but they do it all the time, and it really pisses me off. Ask any one of those moral equivocators where they'd sooner live, and I know what the answer would be, yet they insist that Christianity is equally as bad as Islam. What a crock.

In regard to Religion, Richard says:

"... some are more in touch with reality than others. So we find, by judging from the facts of reality, that they are not all equal in their unreality."

You mean to tell me that if we judge a Religion, such as Christianity, in terms of its fundamental metaphysics and epistemology, its more in touch with reality than, Islam. How so, Richard? Remember, no package deals. In your answer you can't rely on the rational influence of Greco-Roman civilization. Your answer has to strictly judge it as a religion qua religion.

"But judging by the doctrines of each religion themselves, it is not equally valid. Christian doctrine does not validate the Islamic view of God, and logically so, based on Christian premises. They each come to contrary conclusions based on differing doctrines. Now, it could be that each are equally mired in unreality. Or it could be that one is closer to reality than the other."

Closer to a mind-dependent reality, is what you're saying here whether you like it or not, Richard. On principle, they can't come closer to reality. Reality is mind-independent. Christians, by preaching a faith-based methodology, by logical implication, sanction a different faith-based methodology used by others. It's irrelevant that they draw different conclusions.

What about blindly accepting premises?

Faith.

If we judge them by the facts of reality they're equal in their unreality.

But if we judge them by the facts of reality we find that there are differences between religions and although all religions have mysticism at their base, some are more in touch with reality than others. So we find, by judging from the facts of reality, that they are not all equal in their unreality.

If this is true, and it is, then McKeever's point is correct.

If his point was true, then Christianity would still be as out of touch with reality as it ever was. It would have never progressed. In fact, it would have been incapable of progressing.

Each version of a divine authority is equally valid.

But judging by the doctrines of each religion themselves, it is not equally valid. Christian doctrine does not validate the Islamic view of God, and logically so, based on Christian premises. They each come to contrary conclusions based on differing doctrines. Now, it could be that each are equally mired in unreality. Or it could be that one is closer to reality than the other.

Whatever the case though, it's not Christianity that ought to be on trial here, is it? A defence of free speech is surely what matters most. I haven't seen the video, because I don't have broadband, but I'll take peoples word that it's a passionate defence for Freedom of Speech that moves people. That's all that matters. It's not a time for division on this. It's a time for solidarity in the face of a relentless enemy.

I hope everyone listens to the youtube videos of Ezra's testimony before the Kafkaesque Alberta "human rights commission." You will see a passionate defense of free speech -- the requirement of reason -- like few today are willing to display. (Especially the media, which in large part refused to show solidarity in showing the Dutch cartoons but instead showed solidarity in refusing to show them or show any backbone at all in defense of human liberty.)

"Your statement would be true only if all religions are equal. They are not."

What is your measurement? If we judge them by the facts of reality they're equal in their unreality. If this is true, and it is, then McKeever's point is correct. Each version of a divine authority is equally valid. Perhaps you ought to shave with fruit salad? Remember, Peikoff's example of rationalism?

Those who - like Ezra - implicitly take the position that obedience to allegedly divine authority is a virtue can therefrom make no logical argument that it is wrong for men to govern in accordance with the commandments of Islam's god.

Your statement would be true only if all religions are equal. They are not.

My other half has finally had a chance to see this clip and has come up with this.

Since the Iman claims that Mohamed was offended and that was the grounds for the complaint. Where is the statement from Mohamed? Otherwise, this is hearsay evidence.

Actually it can't be hearsay since Mohamed has been dead for over a thousand years. Unless the court wishes to announce with proof that this Iman is in direct communication with Mohamed, then this court must rule that the Iman is fabricating evidence and that nobody can speak for someone who has been dead for a few thousand years.

Similarly this court should rule that nobody can speak for Jesus or Moses or any prophet or apparent god.

Furthermore, if the Iman swore his evidence to be true on the quran, it shows his absolute contempt for its contents.

Can the Iman be held in contempt of court for his actions?

I am myself, I can speak for myself. It is my right to do so.

Of course this logical process depends on the fact that the Iman says he can speak for Mohamed. Would the Iman rather be shown that he can not speak for Mohamed?

Joseph Hellier springs to mind.

Some folks are apparently unhappy that I have criticized the logic and effectiveness of Ezra Levant's argument (before the Alberta Human Rights Commission in Canada) for freedom of speech.

The general thrust of some responses has been: "Look, the fact is that he's exposing the Human Rights Commission, and defending himself from a bully when others would not do so. That makes him a hero. Who cares about egghead analyses of the foundations of freedom?! Shut up!!".

And that is precisely my point. If you want freedom, the one thing you simply cannot shut up about is: a rational defence for freedom. The freedom to live a rational life cannot be achieved by whipping up a crowd into an anti-intellectual, anti-state passion. Such behaviour can only achieve the opposite: the glorification, and justification, of the anti-intellectual and the anti-rational.

None of this is an attack on Ezra. It is an attack on his arguments for freedom. If those arguments are not identified as flawed and ineffective for the purpose of achieving freedom, we will continue to rely upon them to the demise of freedom.

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde

Richard :"For Hume, reason is purely instrumental. In other words, it's about means, not ends." Reason provides only hypothetical imperatives. Reason determines matters of fact, not matters of value."

What,then, in your opinion determines matters of value? And how exactly you separate facts from values? How it could be value without any connection to facts,value of nothing in particular?

"In other words, you can judge someone's means to be irrational. You cannot judge someone's ends to be irrational."

That means that only gas-chambers which Nazis used were irrarional,but their ends and goals like genocide was perfectly rational and sound.

"I do not eschew reason. I eschew its reification and deification. I eschew Reason with a capital 'R'."

If you find yourself naked in wilderness what are you going to use in order to survive? Would you consider this end as rational or not?

"Reason is slave of passion"

And what are the source, and ends of your passion,Richard? How do you find them,by what means?

They say money can't buy happiness, but it's not happiness I want. It's money.

Author unknown

For Hume, reason is purely instrumental. In other words, it's about means, not ends.

Reason provides only hypothetical imperatives. Reason determines matters of fact, not matters of value. In other words, you can judge someone's means to be irrational. You cannot judge someone's ends to be irrational. (Except in so far as their ends are inconsistent with each other.)

Reason is motivationally inert. Motivation comes from passion, not from reason.

Reason is a faculty that judges of the truth and falsity of beliefs (including beliefs about the best means to achieve one's ends). Desires (passions) are not beliefs. Therefore, desires cannot properly be said to be conformable or contrary to reason. You cannot rationally criticise people's ends.

Surely, this is uncontroversial; it's common sense. Yet, when Hume makes the point, as he does so eloquently here, he is greeted with laughter and incredulity.

Perhaps those who scoff at Hume and reason's hypothetical imperatives fail to realise that the alternative is Kant and reason's (purported) categorical imperatives. According to Kant, reason alone can motivate, independent of any desires. According to Kant, one may criticise people's ends as irrational while ignoring the psychological facts about what people happen to be motivated to pursue. What self-respecting Objectivist would align himself with the most evil man in mankind's history?

Take VHEMT, for example. They're irrational, not because they want to die, but because they're still here.

I do not eschew reason. I eschew its reification and deification. I eschew Reason with a capital 'R'.

I think that the most accurate assumption, in this regard, is that Rothbard (the father of libertarianism) thought the non-aggression principle - if somehow obeyed - to be something that rendered the underlying metaphysics, epistemology and ethics non-essential. I think that Rand's reaction to his mystical wife ticked him off sufficiently that he actually spent time writing papers/books alleging that those who agreed with Rand - having rejected mysticism, and having demanded that capitalism be justified only rationally - were "cultists", that Rand was a witch who didn't live up to her own philosophy, and various other smears that persist to this day (with the assistance of eager, if desperate, Humeans, Kantians, and the like). I think that libertarianism is Rothbard's legacy: a stillborn, consistently and routinely failed effort to prove Rand wrong about her assertion that freedom and capitalism could be justified only on rational and moral grounds.

Really? Schisms based on personalities again.

Well my Libertarianism is informed by my Objectivism, so don't write off Libertarians. And in the NZ context I see no point or advantage splitting all six Libertarian votes by having three go to another Freedom Party. I'm going to worry about the schisms and the isms once I get the Libs in: and that's about as pragmatic as I'll get anymore.

personallydisin wrote:

"Instead of working with people who share the same political goals, we should wait until society collapses?"

No. Instead of working with people whose irrational arguments for freedom work to ensure that freedom will never be widely regarded as legitimate, we should advocate reason so that society does not collapse (or, more precisely, in the hope that it it will become more consistently rational).

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde

Sandi wrote:

"Ezra's entire defence and speech is Howard Roark 2008!"

I don't agree but, even were it so: is Ezra's entire defence and speech John Galt 2008? I sincerely think not.

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde

Mark Hubbard wrote:

..I have always assumed that Libertarianism is informed by Objectivism as its philosophy..."

I think that the most accurate assumption, in this regard, is that Rothbard (the father of libertarianism) thought the non-aggression principle - if somehow obeyed - to be something that rendered the underlying metaphysics, epistemology and ethics non-essential. I think that Rand's reaction to his mystical wife ticked him off sufficiently that he actually spent time writing papers/books alleging that those who agreed with Rand - having rejected mysticism, and having demanded that capitalism be justified only rationally - were "cultists", that Rand was a witch who didn't live up to her own philosophy, and various other smears that persist to this day (with the assistance of eager, if desperate, Humeans, Kantians, and the like). I think that libertarianism is Rothbard's legacy: a stillborn, consistently and routinely failed effort to prove Rand wrong about her assertion that freedom and capitalism could be justified only on rational and moral grounds.

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde

Mark Hubbard wrote, in part:

"Given you are so scathing against the Libertarians, then what are the central premises of this party?"

Policies and election platforms founded upon - and defended explicitly upon - a commitment to reality, reason, and rational self interest.

"Finally, Ezra Levant's defense of free speech in the YouTube clip Sandi put up was inspirational: you'd have to go a long way to find a better advocate of free speech for your speaking engagement, who also has public exposure. So, what is your gripe with him?

I like Ezra. I think he had fun with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. I think he enhanced his notoriety with that stunt. Good for him (and I mean that). However, I don't think he has contributed, at all, to the prospects for a freer Alberta or Canada.

A condemnation of the Alberta Human Rights Commission should not treat as essential its procedures: that Canada's human rights tribunals have more inclusive policies in respect of evidence is not the essential problem with them; nor is the essential issue something relating to who one can have as legal counsel etc. Procedure is not the issue. Substantive law is the issue. If a person can be charged and convicted for believing and saying that everything is physical and nothing is supernatural, then the right to a choice of lawyers, or to protections against hearsay, or to other procedural matters is hardly the point: the problem is that a law makes the expression of such a belief illegal, and that peoples' belief in the supernatural has resulted in such laws being made.

Ezra beefs that the Complainant is Islamic, and that the Complainant is a "fascist", etc. But, like an Islamic person, every religious person (Christian, Jewish, etc) believes that obedience to the will of their god is the highest virtue, that belief in their god's alleged commandments (as set out in holy books) constitutes knowledge, that there exists a supernatural realm, etc. Ezra blames the Imam for outrage over insults concerning Mohammed (insults that, according to the imam, are not permitted by the laws of Allah), but Ezra - taking care to say that he is Jewish (impliedly in a religious sense) - takes no exception to the idea that it is right to obey allegedly divine commandments. Where does a nod to the idea that obedience is a virtue leave Ezra if the Imam's god allegedly commanded that no person allow the ridicule of Mohammed, and that man must create governments having and using the power to punish those who ridicule Mohammed?

The case against those who are putting Ezra through the ringer is rightly founded on the facts of reality, upon rationality, and upon rational self-interest. Those who - like Ezra - implicitly take the position that obedience to allegedly divine authority is a virtue can therefrom make no logical argument that it is wrong for men to govern in accordance with the commandments of Islam's god.

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde

One of us is certifiably insane. Richard wouldn't agree, but I have always assumed that Libertarianism is informed by Objectivism as its philosophy? 

Richard wrote:

"What's your gripe with libertarians? A libertarian is, by definition, a person who believes that the only action that may properly be banned in a free society is the initiation of force..."

The only thing wrong with libertarians is their libertarianism.

The essential characteristic of libertarianism is that it regards Rand's non-aggression principle to be axiomatic.

Does existence exist? "If we all just refrain from violating the non-aggression axiom, metaphysics is irrelevant to achieving freedom...metaphysical squabbles are unnecessary among libertarians, and can only divide us and undermine our effort to achieve freedom", replies libertarianism.

How does a man discover knowledge, such as knowledge of a proper code of ethics? "If we all just refrain from violating the non-aggression axiom, epistemology is irrelevant to achieving freedom...epistemological squabbles are unnecessary among libertarians, and can only divide us and undermine our effort to achieve freedom", replies libertarianism.

Is rationality a virtue or a vice? Is obedience (for example, to the alleged will of an alleged supernatural being) a virtue or a vice? Is doing what feels good a virtue, or a vice? Is it right to sacrifice of oneself? "If we all just refrain from violating the non-aggression axiom, ethics is irrelevant to achieving freedom...ethical squabbles are unnecessary among libertarians, and can only divide us and undermine our effort to achieve freedom", replies libertarianism.

Why should we all refrain from violating the non-aggression "axiom"? "That doesn't matter" answers libertarianism.

If it doesn't matter why we should all refrain from violating the non-aggression "axiom", what do I say to someone who tells me it doesn't matter why we should all violate the non-aggression "axiom"? "Ask him why he makes that claim".

What if he doesn't have an answer? "Then, clearly, lacking an answer, he's lost the debate. Tell him he's wrong" says the libertarian.

But what will I do if he doesn't agree? "Agree to disagree", comes the ultimate reply.

Well, then what? What if he and his ilk, seeing no reason not to violate peoples life, liberty and property, keep violating those things? "Well, that's when it's time to break out the guns" or "Well, that's what the ballot box is for".

Ultimately, libertarianism confronts irrational opposition to freedom not with reason, but with force. It has to: asserting that its position is axiomatic, it has denied itself a rational defence of its position. All that is left is bullets and ballots.

Should a parent pimp out his 8-year-old to a pedophile so as to have the money needed to feed the child? Should your country's government ever order a pre-emptive military strike in a country that has not yet actually attacked your country? Is land for peace a good policy? Will more publicly funded basketball courts prevent poor kids from turning into gangland murderers? Does poverty and boredom turn one into a murderer? Is anarchism ideal? Raise questions like this among libertarians and the shite will hit the fan. There will be a flurry of allegations that "that's not the libertarian view" or "you don't speak for all libertarians", or "it depends", or "you think too much", or a host of ill-fated analyses that start with things like "Well, let me see...if my freedom ends at the point of your nose, then...hmm, how does that relate to appeasement, or the age of majority, or land for peace or...well, I'm not sure, but I'm sure that libertarianism has an answer and I'm sure it was stated by one of the great libertarians like Locke, or Jefferson, or Paine, or Mill, or Bentham, or Hume, or Smith, or Rothbard, or...".

This will be followed, in the "Libertarian Party", with a decision such as "Anarchist libertarians can be members, but don't have the right to vote".

Ask a typical libertarian: What, exactly, are rights? "Well, they're things you possess." Like a screw-driver? "No, more like a deed". Where do they come from? "Well, they're self-evident, but there are good arguments that they serve the greater good, that most people want them, or that god gave them to us". Can you violate a right? "Sure, by not respecting it". Why is it bad not to respect a right? "Because they're inviolable, or inalienable, or...well, because they're absolute". Ah. So the violation of inviolable or absolute things is morally wrong? Why? "Well, would you want someone to violate your rights? Of course not. Obviously, its wrong". Ah.

Libertarianism is not a philosophy. It is a "big tent" electoral strategy to try to pull together as many people who - for whatever reason - believe that they love and want "liberty" - however they might personally conceive of it - into a political party that will advocate "freedom". Visit any libertarian function (well, don't actually do it), and you'll find an assortment of mystics and moral relativists, some of whom have even read Rand but who clearly either missed her meaning or disagreed with her. You'll also typically find, interspersed among them, other people who claim to be libertarians for various reasons: the "pro-free speech" crypto-nazi, because - he explains - the laws of his country punish him for saying that Aryans should live separately from blacks (he's usually really good at quoting Voltaire...poorly); the constitutional originalist who loves Jefferson and Paine, says that constitution was not properly changed to incorporate the power to tax income, and is sure that the constitution doesn't prohibit the government from banning abortions; the NAMBLA member who says he is defending every 8-year-old child's choice to make decisions for himself concerning his or her sex life...etc.

And, just try being an advocate of reality and reason in a group of libertarians. Freedom Party's biggest detractors? Not Liberals. Not socialists. Not Conservatives. Libertarians. Why? Because we want a single, rational legal system, common to all, designed for the sole purpose of preventing people from engaging in irrational conduct that interferes with the rational pursuit, by others, of their own happiness. Because we refuse to try using non-essential arguments to justify capitalism. Because we expressly condemn non-essential arguments for capitalism, especially and most harshly when they are presented by people who claim to be advocates of reality, reason, morality, individualism, consent or capitalism (or of "freedom" or "liberty").

Libertarianism is 'freedom' for dummies, mystics, hedonists and moral relativists. It appeals to people who don't care why freedom is good for man; to people who are okay with just agreeing with the non-aggression "axiom", for whatever reason; to people who will cherry pick quotes from a mish-mash of philosophers and economists whose philosophies or economic views are/were in many ways conflicting, and call them all "great libertarian thinkers in history"; to people who would call Jesus as "libertarian" because he was reportedly unhappy with a dude who buried his talents of gold for safe-keeping instead of investing them and getting a return on his investment; etc.

Libertarianism's utter disregard for the role of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics in achieving freedom, together with its erroneous claim to represent those who want freedom, render it a high-profiled failure, and a continuous source of evidence for the falsehood that reality, reason, rational egoism, individualism, freedom and capitalism are indefensible.

As Rand said: "...the guiltiest men are not the collectivists; the guiltiest men are those who, lacking the courage to challenge mysticism or altruism, attempt to bypass the issues of reason and morality and to defend the only rational and moral system in mankind's history - capitalism - on any grounds other than rational and moral." - from "What is Capitalism", in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal.

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde

Instead of working with people who share the same political goals, we should wait until society collapses?  I'm not sure you realize what happens when a society collapses.  Perhaps, everyone will turn to the Objectivists and cry out for your enlightening reason.  Probably, people will sacrifice all ethical values in the pursuit of personal survival. IMO, we cannot afford to lose Western civilization.  It has never existed before and there is no guarantee it will exist again once destroyed. 

Ezra's entire defence and speech is Howard Roark 2008!

And when are Objectivists going to get over their obsession with reason? Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.

Oh, speak for yourself, Richard!

Funny thing is, in my experience, those who eschew reason are passionless too. Ennui-exuding pomowankers are not so much "cool" as frigid.

I'm with Richard on this one. I'm finding your thinking in some areas very hard to follow, but really spit the dummy when I see you write:

At worst, he is a libertarian.

What?

I think of myself, politically, as being part of a 'freedom' movement, and it is Libertarian politics that I see as the best integrated expression of that movement. If you are going to try and reinvent the wheel on this aspect, then whatever movement you belong to in Canada (?) is going to have to spend how many years covering the groundwork of putting together an alternative position? From this three questions.

As Richard states, what exactly is your gripe with Libertarians? Detailed please.

I believe in another thread you said you were writing on behalf of a political party in Canada called the 'Freedom Party': is that right? Given you are so scathing against the Libertarians, then what are the central premises of this party?

Finally, Ezra Levant's defense of free speech in the YouTube clip Sandi put up was inspirational: you'd have to go a long way to find a better advocate of free speech for your speaking engagement, who also has public exposure. So, what is your gripe with him?

What's your gripe with libertarians? A libertarian is, by definition, a person who believes that the only action that may properly be banned in a free society is the initiation of force. As Matty said,

Libertarians are like virtually everyone in the sense that they want people to get their noses out of their private business. They are however very unique and rare in the sense that they're willing to take their own noses out of everyone else's. That's the part that really makes a libertarian: The willingness to leave everyone alone.

And when are Objectivists going to get over their obsession with reason? Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.

First quoting my house metaphor, G writes:

"This only makes the homeowner question why a group of roofers that are trying to be foundation workers, keep on roofing.

Should the roofers give up roofing or should they just exist to repeatedly knock on the homeowners door to point out that there’s a leak here and a shingle missing there without ever getting the homeowner to hire them??"

I take G to be implying that a politician will not get elected if he does not base his advocacy of freedom solely upon matters of political philosophy (e.g., "rights", "freedoms", capitalism, etc.), and if he does not refrain from advocating positions on metaphysics (i.e., the facts of reality), epistemology (i.e., the means of identifying facts and falsehoods) and ethics (i.e., right vs. wrong).

Debating the metaphor is fraught with possible mis-communications and the likelihood of arguments based on silly non-essentials but I introduced the metaphor, so I respond as follows:

The most popular home renovation shows feature people who, for example, are asked to come to a house to put in a walk-in closet, but who end up advising the owner that the foundation must be repaired before such a closet can be built or expected not to collapse. Nothing requires a renovator to limit himself to fixing rooves. It would be unconscionable to put in a closet that the renovator knows will collapse without first explaining that to the customer, and identifying what must be done to prevent the collapse.

Let us leave the metaphor, and deal with a sample issue in government. When someone complains that he lacks freedom to manufacture, sell or purchase an incandescent bulb, you will not help him by saying: "Well, what you need is some rights". Instead, as a politician, you need to point out that the ban on incandescents is the logical consequence of a belief in man-made global warming, and that the belief is not founded on the facts of reality but upon the popularity of the belief. You need to recommend a cure, not a band-aid: that government should not act on beliefs for which there is no rational foundation. Promising a "right to light-bulb choice", or promising "free markets" is like promising to fix haemophilia with a band-aid. The right answer, from an honest politician, is: "The belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming is false until we discover a rational foundation for that belief and, until we do, the government ought not to ban incandescent bulbs".

Such statements do not move a politician out of the realm of politics and cast him solely as a philosopher: rather, such statements disclose that the politician is knowledgeable. People do not regard a politician as not-a-politician simply because he promises never to act on irrational beliefs (such as man-made catastrophic global warming).

If the essential problem is political, the politician should say so. If it is moral, he should say so. If it is epistemological, he should say so. If it is metaphysical, he should say so. And, having identified the problem and its nature, he is in a position to justify his position on whether and how the government should respond.

If the renovator does not get hired to build the closet that will collapse, and the homeowner hires a cheat who neglects to tell the homeowner about the inevitable collapse of the closet (or who lies), the homeowner will get exactly what he bargained for, and the renovator can come back to offer his services to rebuild the house, armed with an "I told you so". Similarly, if the advocate of reason is not elected because he mentioned things that people would prefer not to know - e.g., that consensus is no means of discovering knowledge - he can come back to the unemployed, candle-bearing victims of enviro-irrationalism, armed with an "I told you so" and a promise never to make laws for which there is no rational justification.

Lie and the world lies with you.

Tell the truth, and the world lies about you.

-Oscar Wilde