We all have opinions, and as a respected writer once said:
“The quality and influence of an idea, Ortega saw, was not so much in the idea as in a man’s relation to it. Has he made the idea his own, or merely inherited it? … The man born into a culture confident of its knowledge is in danger of becoming a barbarian.” <follow this link to Leonard Reed>
As for our opinions on the subject of free markets vs. controlled or regulated markets, where the separation between those who rig (regulate, interfere with and otherwise influence with force or threats of force) is obscured by habit and custom, media and commentary, and other ‘cultural’ influences – how can one develop an opinion worthy of respect?
We all want our opinions (especially if we have worked hard and diligently to form them) to be respected, or, at least, respectable. Don’t we?
This causes us to discuss our opinions with others who, in similar fashion, work, read, write and think about the subjects of interest (in this context, freedom, free enterprise, lawful money, honest banking, and constitutional government). So we talk and discuss with people who study within the same framework or theories. Unfortunately, we have no recourse to people actually living under a constitutional government or a free enterprise system.
No matter how hard we work at it, our experience in these issues is purely academic and theoretical. We cannot perfect an idea except in a laboratory or simulation.
Therefor, our arguments are flawed and imperfect. If we happen to pursue a discussion with a similarly-educated person of a different persuasion (perhaps a new liberal or a new republican – I use these terms loosely), there is a high probability that neither side will be convinced of anything contrary to his/her beliefs (and that’s what it comes down to at this point, neither side having practical experience within his theoretical framework).
At some point you must argue purely from theory and a less interested or more casual (or more practical) person can easily counter your argument with the reality he/she experiences every day.
So, if your arguments are ineffective toward convincing other theorists and not convincing against the practical realities of life, where does that leave you politically?
This is where emotion usually enters the picture.
This is tempting but just as useful as arguing theory to one without the framework and context to support your argument.
The best work I can find to identify the facts which bear on life’s essential requirements is Objectivism. I think though, that the author and originator of it was not perfectly suited to exemplify and illustrate its potential, and neither were any of her (now famous) followers.
If Ayn Rand could not live a ‘perfect’ objectivist life (perhaps it is akin to expecting a religious person to be a perfect model for his faith) – then it is probably unlikely that anyone will or can. Nonetheless, her approach and the development of her philosophy followed a very understandable and REASONABLE path for a student to learn.
This is because she got the basics right. Man is individual in nature and perfect as an individual. One can survive (for some time in some places) without another. That is what nature (or if you prefer, some great force or power) created here on earth.
Before analyzing interaction between this individual and others of his kind, it is best to understand what it is and how it works – as an individual. Without that, by transformation into another space or coordinate system, you will deny the nature of it and force yourself to misunderstand it (he/she/them).
Wrapping it up for today: Remembering that we are individuals does not prevent us from enjoying and profiting from each other’s company, but it may prevent us from misunderstanding who and what we are and consequently applying force in the ‘wrong’ direction. Of course, applying force is fundamentally wrong, except in the preservation or defense of the individual, in my opinion.
Good luck to all who respect and revere man’s good work.
Rich
