Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p
From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: What happened to the Objectivists?
Message-ID: <48178c77.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 90 17:19:00 GMT
Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 59



   Alt.individualism used to have a lot of objectivists, people
   who claimed that there was a rational way to derive ethical 
   values from an objective look at the world around us.   In the
   thread "objectivism as religion" I claimed that the ethical 
   values were *injected* into their system, not derived logically.

   Since then a lot of people have attacked this position but when
   pressed, most of them who appeared to be defending the "absolute
   value" position have denied actually being objectivists.  People
   like Phil Ronzone and Mike Ellis say that they're not really 
   objectivists but that they're trying to explain or paraphrase
   what objectivists think.

   Steve Mason, who says he is an objectivist but not an Objectivist
   was putting up a good debate but he seems to have disappeared
   before getting to the heart of the matter.   In his last posting
   he said (to Paul Torek):

>>Let me get this straight:  Nelson asserts that no one has such rights.
>>Now suppose (I'm not saying he would do this, but just suppose) he starts
>>killing people left and right.  Are you saying that you have no argument
>>that, were he to rationally listen to it, would persuade him to stop?
>
>No, I am not saying that.  The key to your question is the phrase "were
>he to rationally listen to it," after which I would add "and
>act accordingly."  If he rationally listens, then I say I do have such
>an argument.

   Perhaps so, but we haven't heard what that argument is.

   And no other objectivists or Objectivists have come to Mr. Mason's 
   aid.  The objectivists on this net give up too easily.

   So, for that matter, do some Libertarians.   When I made a crack 
   about there being no real-world social laboratory for libertarian 
   ideals June Genis said, "Aha!  Surely you've never heard of Big
   Water, Utah."   But when I cited some facts from a recent phone
   conversation with the newspaper editor there, I thought or hoped,
   that she would come back and show me where I was wrong.  But 
   instead, that was the end of that.

   Really, folks I *wish* that I knews some rational basis for absolute
   ethics.   I *wish* that a social and economic system based on true
   individual political, ethical, and economic liberty could be constructed
   that would work in the world-as-it-really-is.   I don't criticize 
   the ideals of Objectivism or Libertarianism because I'm opposed in
   principle to freedom or the idea of true merit winning out against
   a deadening sheeplike bureaucracy.   I just don't see how any of this
   can map to the Real World.  But I am trying to give believers in these
   things every opportunity to prove me wrong.  I sincerely wish they
   could.

                                                     ---Peter