democracy and objectivism

[d0rkyd00d]

Berlin appears to be arguing it's not possible. Do you disagree?

[iambiguous]

Berlin appears to be arguing it's not possible. Do you disagree?

Well, let's go back to the first point raised in the OP:

On another thread Gloominary noted this:

Unfortunately, it may not be possible to get our democracies back without civil war, or at least extra extraordinary civil unrest.

That got me to thinking about democracy and the manner in which some construe it as moral and political objectivists and others more in the context of moderation, negotiation and compromise.

So, along with...

Rights. Justice. Liberty.

...let's add Democracy.

Democracy in regard to the role of government, abortion, health care, conscription, animal rights, gun laws, sexual preferences and on and on and on.

Then in regard to a particular context in which historically, culturally and experientially there have been many different [and often conflicting] definitions and meanings and understandings given to the word/concept itself, what does Berlin mean by, say, this: "It seems no less clear that these differences are not, at least prima facie, either logical or empirical, and have usually and rightly been classified as irreducibly philosophical...."

In regard to Rights. Justice. Liberty. Democracy.

After all, "first impressions" are [to me] no less existential contraptions rooted in dasein. I merely conclude "here and now" that given the arguments I make in my signature threads it seems reasonable that "I" would be "fractured and fragmented" in regard to my own understanding of words like this. Let alone my own understanding of what it means to encompass these words given the conflicting goods embedded in the issues above.

And, I suspect, what disturbs any number of objectivists here is that I might manage to convince them of the same. Then they tumble down into the hole that "I" am in.

Indeed, I suspect further that in order to keep that possibility even further down the road, any number of them here have 'blocked" or "foed" me.

Some, in my view, because they genuinely have little or no respect for the arguments I make. And I can respect that.

Others, however, because they are chickenshit. They don't dare risk taking their own precious Self and their own precious objectivist moral and political value judgments to the discussion I'd like to have with them.

And I know this in large part because I was once one of them myself. I know what is at stake here.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

Only I am the first to admit that in the context of "all there is" I don't have a fucking clue as to how I would actually go about establishing that.

But then maybe some here do.

[iambiguous]

Democracy
From the Ayn Rand Lexicon

If we discard morality and substitute for it the Collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it’s done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong)—how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives?

Since this is the Objectivist "lexicon" all that is required here is that democracy be defined as a philosophical concept. Just as we can go to other parts of the lexicon to define and to grasp philosophically the meaning of morality and collectivist.

But what doesn't change is that in regard to actual moral contexts, you either think about them in exactly the same manner as she did or you experienced what might be construed as the mere mortal equivalent of the wrath of God.

And the "majority" in our own democracy can do only what pleases those who elected them to office in the first place. Witness the possible plight of those Republicans in the Senate who voted not to acquit Trump. The mentality of the objectivists in Trumpworld is not all that far removed from the Randroids back then. You either see the world in black and white as they do, or they come after you. Possibly even to kill you.

Who is the majority?

In what context? Given an actual issue where there is moral and political contention, take a poll and determine "by the numbers" who the majority is. And what the majority believes.

But in Rand's world all of that is moot. The only "majority" that counted were those who thought about the issue as she did. The "rugged individual" who didn't dare to challenge her.

Same here. We have our own rendition of that in those who worship and adore Trump as though only their "majority opinion" is to be taken into account at all.

In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.

Again, the sheer irony here! Rand could [and did] attempt to destroy those who dared to question her own value judgments. And meant about anything.

Short of "robbing and murdering" them, perhaps, but you get the point.

Unless of course my point is not your point.