Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) Newsgroups: alt.individualism Subject: Re: What happened to the Objectivists? Message-ID: <48213678.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Date: 19 Jan 90 15:26:00 GMT Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM Distribution: usa Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA Lines: 74 lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) posts... >The problem with Objectivism is it hasn't come up with a convincing case >against ethical nihilism; for that matter, neither has Libertarianism. >Most of them just don't realize it. Making light of Henry Hazlitt's >comment in his book "The Foundations of Morality" ... "The first thing >we do is kill the ethical nihilists!" I suppose this depends on what you mean by ethical nihilism. Is an ethical nihilist one who categorically denies the existence of ethical standards or is he one (like me) who merely challenges those who claim there ARE ethical standards to show why they think so? Objectivism claims to have no problem with the latter because they claim to start off with an ethical blank slate. They claim to derive ethical standards from the objective facts >+ So, for that matter, do some Libertarians. When I made a crack >+ about there being no real-world social laboratory for libertarian >+ ideals ... > >If you want to see an example of a society where all or even many >Libertarian/Objectivist ideals are practiced, even a small society of a >few thousand, you can stop looking; it doesn't exist. However, we can >find in the real world examples of what Libertarians and Objectivists seek, >e.g., legalized , privatization of gov't services, >more just or no regulations of industry, less onerous gun control, etc. This makes Libertarians look like Republicans. In any case it's not clear how well these things have actually worked. Even liberal Democrats have favored "privatization of gov't services" on an innocous scale, like garbage collection. I haven't seen results of attempts to privatize things like police, fire, schools, etc. (there are, of course, private schools, but these are elective and so are not comparable to public schools). And deregulation has been a mixed bag. Deregulated S&L's are a mess. The airlines were deregulated and business volume went up, prices for economy seats went down, prices for 1st class went up, delays and crowding went up, safety at first improved, then declined, and profits for airlines went down (Source: OAG Frequent Flyer magazine). On the other hand, deregulating the phone industry seems like a major win. I don't know any place craeting less onerous gun control laws, the tendency seems to be MORE gun control laws everywhere. >I believe these examples provide ample evidence for the superiority of >Libertarian and Objectivist means and ends and the inferiority of statist >means and ends. I still think that a more clear-cut experiment is needed to actually test causes and effects. Libertarians propose much more sweeping changes than anything that's actually been tried up to now and we should all know the dangers of "if a little is good, more must be better". The other problem is that one could easily use the same arguments that Mr. Cipriani is using here to support statist ideals. For instance, Japan has some of the toughest gun-control laws in the world and they have an extremely low crime rate. The Scandinavian countries have extensive social welfare systems compared to the U.S. and they also have much less poverty than we do. Canada has national health insurance and they have a much lower infant mortality rate than we do. Etc, etc. Does this show a causal relationship of just coincidence? ---Peter