An Immutable Truth

I haven't posted recently because I haven't created nor come across a new integration that I was willing and able to elaborate at length on. In the case of this entry, I just wanted to relay some news, but then that just triggered a new "jumping-off point."

First the news:
At the Objectivist Conference in Colorado this past July, there was talk of a new ideological campaign. Well, The Objective Standard has come through. The journal now has new merchandise that neatly sums up the Objectivist recognition of how mankind should consider natural resources. You can now purchase the new t-shirts, etc. at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/merchandise/

"Exploit the Earth or die" indeed!

...and on to some consequential thoughts:
Savvy readers will recognize that the binary (and true) alternative presented by such a dictum is in direct opposition to the mealy-mouthed advocates of compromise who wish that we would just operate in terms of "managed use". Managed, mitigated, restricted, etc. by whom and for whom?!? This idea of compromising on the principle of property rights is supposed to be "reasonable", but this belies the nature of man viz. an individual requires freedom to pursue his means of survival. It is a false alternative to posit that either 1) a man should be guaranteed particular comforts by government or "society" with whatever he thinks is "needed" or 2) a man (who is innocent) should be thoroughly estranged by others such that he isn't even allowed to engage with others in order to pursue a fair trade of exchange. Think that no one subscribes to either of these alternatives? Try this on for size: Some of the very people who advocate the redistribution of wealth "from the haves to the have-nots" or based on "..each according to their need..." are _also_ amongst those who wish to attack business every which way via "monopoly" laws!!!! Let's not remind these advocates that no matter what a business does, it's considered in illegal operation if engaged in setting "extortive" prices "too high" or "wiping out" competition by setting prices "too low" or "price fixing" by leaving prices as is. Never mind that government, yes government(!) has gone as far as taking it upon itself to set the prices of products which it has no legitimate interest in controlling at all in any fashion. I guess the Leftists got one thing that they hoped for... they never wanted the marketplace to be free after all, and that increasingly Statist direction is one that our governments are guided by normally these days.

Ultimately, whether these advocates know it or not, and whether they admit it or not, what they advocate is nothing more than a power grab. That is, they are simply and essentially offering re-fashioned Marxist philosophy in the idea of the redistribution of wealth even when they just want to do "nothing more than establish some minor regulations". (Any governmental limits on property will steal value from the property owners no matter what the form of control and no matter the type of value which is at stake.) I guess I could stand to mention something else since some Leftists are so callous to assume a related negative premise: The redistribution of wealth idea is not justified as they think i.e. it actually would be a proposition for legalized theft ...not unlike "taxation without representation" ...or "eminent domain" used to take a person's house. As Ayn Rand indicated, freedom of action is rooted in freedom of thought, and an attack on the results of individual human action ultimately prohibits goal achievement which must originate in thought.

Any Environmentalist argument will _always_ be vulnerable at its root. It doesn't matter who makes the argument, when the argument is made, or what the motivational angle of the argument is. The fact remains that the Environmentalist philosophy depends on an invalid conceptual inversion. As I've just elaborated, the Environmentalists wish to summarily sidestep the true Capitalist alternative which would not only serve the producers. In addition, Capitalism (if allowed) would actually allow the best chance of thriving to those who are willing to work while claiming to be poor (a relativistic term). The fact remains that products (including oranges) and services don't simply fall off trees into the marketplace. As the French economist, Jean-Baptiste Say, indicated, economic demand is consequential _not _ causal. This idea wasn't properly understood by Karl Marx and his followers. The metaphysical-epistemic inversion of putting a man-made product's existence before its morally proper formation was accepted and left by Modernists for Leftists to draw further upon.

As Objectivists know, values only exist as long as there are valuers. In other words, the entities who necessitate production are indeed the very producers (and, in turn, those who depend on the producers) who seek to improve their lives. This isn't completely lost on those who wish to put their Nihilistic hatred in Environmentalist terms. Those types of haters of mankind communicate that Capitalistic products and services are made by those who are wasteful, insensitive, myopic, and even baselessly idealistic. Of course, they have trouble making arguments against the very basis of true Capitalism because they don't really understand the nature of rational selfishness to begin with.

What Subjectivists such as Environmentalists fail to distinguish is that, unlike the metaphysically given, the man-made comes from human effort and could not possibly be otherwise. In turn, the man-made is property that in actuality is owned and controlled by individual humans. (There are no group rights.) Natural resources are potential pieces of property. (This is the _only_ moral view of natural resources!) Again, those natural resources have _no value_ until they are claimed and processed by men.

It is true that the metaphysically given comprises some of the material that man must depend on for survival, but in order for men to work amongst each other, those natural resources must be claimed and managed according to the terms of objective law which acknowledges property rights. Let's not mince words here: the laws, the industrial concerns, and everything else conceived of is for the benefit of individuals who are willing to work to earn their keep. The sub-human portion of the animal kingdom can and will continue to fend for itself, and those entities exist automatically i.e. by instinct and without (conceptually-directed) volition. Lastly, the men who wish to operate as nothing more than parasites tend to get better than what they deserve as a matter of fact.

Consequentially, a way of viewing money is in terms of work. Just as work can be turned into money e.g. payment for services rendered, resources of various types (including money) can be converted into work also via trade. For example, when you purchase an orange, you are _not_ engaged in some sort of ethereal and bucolic procedure that exists in a vacuum devoid of modern industrial action. (Even the attempts to "get outside market forces" are ultimately dependent on market forces.) That orange could _not_ have existed as you now have it were it not for human action in the form of Capitalistic production. To the degree that Capitalistic economics is allowed to proceed unrestricted, you have the results of work only by the grace of the so-called "robber barons". Those "robber barons" manage the fields where the oranges are harvested just as they manage the financial transactions that take place via stock markets where oranges can be traded for maximal value as part of a virtuous process which, in turn, allows for fruit to be afforded by even the laziest or even the very man-hating Environmentalists who hypocritically wish to hamstring the "robber barons" who make the entire process possible.

There is so much more that can be said, and much of it has been said. See the writings of various Austrian economists such as Carl Menger, the American Founding Fathers, and Objectivist intellectuals such as Andrew Bernstein for in-depth elaborations on the mechanics and theory that make production possible. Remember on Labor Day, it is the "robber barons" for without which labor (as a formalized and integrated portion of general industry) would not even otherwise exist. It is only the producers who allow the rest of us to live as we comfortably do. They and their like-minded brethren are the ones who we should not only remember but also honor.

Now, if this were roughly 15 years ago, I could stop here, but today even those who claim great positive support for Objectivism seem to find sympathy in Christian politicians. Once again, I have to invoke the bitter irony of our circumstances. While it is true that the Leftists openly led the charge against Capitalism _in the past_, they were not and are not the main culprits against Objectivist politics now. Of course, without fail, it is the Conservatives who have developed a track record of thwarting not only "bedroom freedom" but also freedom in the corporate boardrooms. This shouldn't even be remotely surprising to Objectivists. As I've already stated before in this blog, altruism was founded by the religionists. They represent the archetype; they all but perfected the destructive paradigm which threatens America even today. That is, later generations of religionists took advantage of the mind-body dichotomy that was inherent in the Founding Fathers' basic ideas. Simply put, the Leftists could not have existed in America without the support of the political Right, and Ayn Rand herself said this throughout her life. ...so while the specific point of this post is that the Leftists should be corrected for their Environmentalist sympathies, the most fundamental political concern is to attend to the grave injustice of the Conservatives hijacking Capitalist theory while selling it out as they operate as the Great Pretenders which they are.

How is Objectivism relevant to society now?

One of the reasons I love thinking in terms of fundamentals is that when it works it can completely change the nature of action. Frankly, I suspect that Objectivists are stagnating in their approach to politics and polemics. Having internal discussions and working through the Ayn Rand Institute are certainly worthwhile, but those related activities are NOT all-encompassing. There are other important issues which _no one_ is addressing right now. (I mean absolutely no one I've come across....)

By the way, I _hope_ that this post provokes Objectivists because we seriously need to reconsider our tactics. Broadly, nothing much is changing... at all. Look at the evidence: We're starting to (once again) ask who would make good Presidential candidates. We occasionally take pride in ARI's book donation drive. Maybe we are even asking more advanced questions which reflect greater consideration and philosophical knowledge. These are good and promising symptoms of a generally static trend.

I think that it's time to push for more dynamic thought. I even run the risk of making much of my past thinking less relevant, but if it means being more realistic about the future, then it is worthwhile to cast past work aside. Very few people are even bothering to be both challenging and broad-minded. I believe that John Lewis and Leonard Peikoff are among those few Objectivists who are thinking far ahead. I am _not_ writing to simply cheerlead though. If someone wants to know what those two think, then they can find online resources for their writing.

I believe that we need to be cognizant of certain standing orders. For one thing, Objectivism has never been exclusively or primarily concerned with politics. We aren't tied to a group. We don't live in terms of what other people expect. Laws are there for everyone's protection not for obedience. That is, the law is not supposed to be a matter of socialization. For example, it's a total misstep to look to any political authority for leadership. Individuals are obligated to be self-responsible.

Andrew Bernstein has said repeatedly that Objectivists can and should do things to encourage the wider adoption of Objectivism. First, we need to practice our beliefs. Second, we need to tell people about the work of experts to put people on notice. I don't believe that we can afford to stop with only those directives. The world is substantially different than it was even 10 years ago. We now have a recent history of Presidents who formally seek United Nations approval. They also callously neglect what used to be common-sense morality. Sadly, many people do implicitly refer to politicians for moral references, so we can't completely ignore the repercussions of what major political figures do.

What I'm starting to suggest is that we need to operate in a more parallel and self-aware manner. It's wrong to look at Objectivist communications in terms of _just_ the inside/outside question. That way of thinking is quickly becoming antiquated. We can't sequester ourselves from the world. We can't continue to ping-pong discourse amongst ourselves while ignoring vital evidence of impending mega trends.

Simply put, if we are seriously interested in making practical differences in the culture, then we had better start outlining some new paradigms for dealing with the new trends. (Peter Schwartz's foreign policy white paper is a positive step.) It's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for starting to understand first-level implications of applied philosophy. Those days are over.

I'm not expecting anyone to offer specifics as assured requirements of cultural change. I'm offering a suggestion as to what is at stake. I tentatively think that Objectivists will have to engage in the following:

• Form or join committees that strive to outline broad policy. (This is just starting to happen now.)

• There is also the start of more professional publications e.g. _The Objective Standard_, but certainly this is just the tip of the iceberg.

• Do more testing. This could involve surveys, role-playing, debates, and blind tours.

To jump ahead and backtrack at the same time, I would like to see more evidence that Objectivists are even aware that what I'm discussing is at issue. Beyond this, I would like to see less rehashing of old debates. That expended energy could be targeted towards completely new considerations and developments.

For example, we don't have to settle for being strapped to a false alternative of 1) arguing how government can better handle legal matters vs. 2) arguing how to scrap government in ways that are bordering on anarchism. Instead we _could_ discuss the specifics of how to engage government representatives as a collected force. Objectivists have barely even attempted to utilize the idea of writing campaigns. Surely, we can agree on enough details to offer a cohesive and principled solution to many common social problems.

There is much, much more to brainstorm about, and there's much more substantiation to offer for these and related ideas. In the meantime, I want to simply encourage people to think in these terms on occasion.