How to argue with Randroids ... and WIN!

I initially wrote this as a reply to FDRocks' poll, "Who do you dislike more?" (Conservatives or Libertarians/Objectivists).

Keep in mind there are many excellent (as in "cool") libertarians out there. This is mainly for those who are right-wing jerks who fancy themselves as your intellectual superior. Such as "Randroids," the slavish followers of Ayn Rand, authoress and trademark holder of "Objectivism™".

What follows is a particular method I've used with great success to defend myself from being cyber-gang-raped by "Freemen" on the net. If you use it, let us know how it works for you!

---

The Prime Directive of Objectivism, Libertarianism and Zonpower/Neo-Tech is this:

"It is morally unacceptable to compel anyone's behavior using Force or Fraud."

First, get the ObjectArian to state that as his or her Prime Postulate. It usually takes them about five minutes to get to it without prodding. Simply ask them to explain the philosophical basis of what they believe. I have yet to meet a LibJectivist who doesn't have a worship (but no understanding) of "philosophy".

Second, ask them if this is based on academic reasoning, or if it's based on empirical reasoning. "Academic" is a deprecated word to them; "Empirical" means Hard Science and Skeptical Inquiry and Occam's Razor and other things they like. A few more minutes spent getting them to expostulate on the wonders of Scienſe Moſt Empirickal will also be worth doing.

Third, (and opionally,) if you can get them to disparage Literary Critical Theory -- a.k.a. "literary theory" and "lit-crit" -- excellent! though most of them usually only know enough to call it "deconstructionism." Either way, all you have to do is ask them about it and not give them an argument.

They hate literary theory. Once you clue them to what it is, they'll tell you. At length.

Don't argue with them at all during the stages where you draw them out. You'll be getting your jollies soon enough.

Then, ask them where the term "force or fraud" comes from.

They probably won't be able to tell you. If they do make something up, it will almost certainly be wrong.

It's an old literary term, from the Italian Teatro di Forza e Forda, which means "Theater of Force and Fraud". It is the rhyming, epigrammatic explanation of Drama and Comedy, respectively. Drama is the theater of force; Comedy is the theater of fraud.

It's 15th century literary theory.

Period.

Finally, ask them how they reconcile their philosophical adherence to the scientific method and yet base their world-view in 500-year-old literary theory.

Congratulations. You have just Kicked Ass.

And if they can get it together enough to tell you that lit-crit may have some merit to it, they may be intelligent enough to argue for their point of view without calling you names. In that case, they are likely to be very cool and should be cultivated as a pal in spite of their philosophical excesses.

--bkl
If you can read Italian, and wish to correct my (ab)use of it, please send me a note. Grazie!

Edit: Typo and link fixes.

but awfully time-consuming. Still, mayhaps there is no shorter way to do it.

Part of me - the part that likes to look at accidents and smell bad milk - wants some day to read some Rand, which I never have. Part me figures, "Why take the risk of just being pissed off?"

it is okay to compel someone via force or fraud?

I'm not sure I see what is so wrong with using scientific method and making a reference to literary theory, given that objectivism is steeped in literary theory, and, in fact, literary theory and scientific method share the same roots in that of Critical Theory created by the Greeks, and largely by Aristotle.

Also, to clear up a common misconception: Rand deplored conservatives and right-wind idealogues as much as she deplored communism. I have read Rand's novels, but not her books on objectivism, per se, but my feeling about her philosophy is that is was more akin to a secular Buddhism. That is, she basically felt that an individual's power derives from the individual and not the group. That is the true core of objectivism, despite what the Rand institute might have you believe, IMHO.

Now, given that, one of the things that bothers me about objectivism is that is really shows no concern for the qualitative ideal. Take, for example, the section of 'Atlas Shrugged', where all the objectivists have gone off to start their own secret community and left the world to crumble in chaos. She priased artists and muscians for simply being 'unique' despite their lack of quality. Also, if you critique Rand's writing, you'll find this same lack of quality. She was far more concerned with getting the message out, rather than the quality of writing that was conveying the message.
For me, this is where objectivism breaks down. For objectivists, quality is only important insofar as it meets the requistie level of understanding to convey the idea itself, rather than the medium by which the idea is shared. And by Quality, I'm referring to the Persigian idea of Quality as an (not so) abstract attribute.

Thanks for your reply -- I'll start out with a direct shot.

First: I don't think it is "OK" to use force or fraud to compel behavior, but I also don't limit my idea of unacceptable influence, either. There is no "premise" to what I wrote -- except that when someone starts hammering me with their propaganda, I hammer back.

Second: How you parse "it is okay to compel someone via force or fraud" from my argument methodology is a mystery. I think you wrote it from a sense of pique. The "force/fraud" thing is a trope that they use as a linchpin of their ideology. It's a rhetorical tool. I have never heard it used in argument as anything except a rhetorical tool; and a blunt one, at that.

The method of argument I wrote about is a rhetorical tool, too, for self-defense. It's a good idea to be able to defend oneself when an untethered ideologue tries to humiliate you in public, no matter what school of though s/he's fighting for. Philosophy, on the other hand, is something else. When I'm arguing philosophically, I assume a certain level of civility will be maintained. And, yes, that is possible with many Libertarians, but "many" ain't "most", and it ain't very many Objectivists™ at all.

As to the value of the force-fraud idea per se, yes, it is a valuable logical device for understnading power as well as literature. But once again, I was not arguing philosophically.

If you haven't read Rand's essays, you probably should. They are often much different than her fiction. I find her fiction to be much more uplifting and optimistic than her essays, which have a uniformly pessimistic view of human being.

She pays quite a lot of lip service to deploring conservatives in her novels, but, like her use of the word "freedom", she defines that as she sees fit. For example, her essay on racism starts with a ringing denunciation of "racism", but continues for several pages supporting the political tricks that allow racism to flourish. This is a common approach Rand takes to her subject matter, and many Conservatives have adopted it.

Rand also wrote extensively about art (in essays), and the gist of her arguments come down to, "modern art sucks". Her taste in literature ran toward romanticism, but it was her definition of romanticism, which was a free-enterprise reflection of Soviet Social Realism.

I was quite surprised when I realized that her critical theory arguments were so simple and ignorant. I don't judge an idea on its complexity, but Rands' were just plain dumb-ass cantankerousness dressed up in the language of deep thought. Your last paragraph cuts to one of the major faults of Objectivism™, the idea that if the philosophy is "correct", it's exposition is of minor concern. (And, from what little I know about Persig's view on quality, it is primarily metaphysical, and would tend to be rejected by an Objectivist™ on that basis alone.)

The "secular Buddhism" you speak of is absent everywhere in Rand's work except her characters, and that's only some of her characters. She made John Galt "mysterious" and "inscrutable", since Galt is the incarnation of her idea; so he would appear to have the traits we think of as "Buddhist". But Buddha's stated "ambition", if you could call it that, was to forsake breaking the cycle of rebirth until every sentient being in the universe came to Enlightenment. This stands in stark contrast to Rand's hyperegotism and anti-altruism.

And speaking of ideosyncratic definitions, Rand does not mince words -- if you are not an Objectivist™, you are a "collectivist", a "sheep", a "thug", an "altruist", and "anti-life". All of these terms, by the way, have special, neo-hermetic, Randian meanings.

I have a few friends from the libertarian movement who I can still talk to; I also have kept many of my old libertarian ideas. It's the libertarian fraud I take issue with; intellectual fraud used to justify political force.

All of the above should be read with "IMHO" foremost in mind; but the method of argument works well with libertarians and Objectivists™ who try conversion-through-bullying, and shouldn't be confused with intellectually constructive argument -- or debating with Quality!

--bkl

I haven't read any of her essays. All I know about her, I know from her ficiton. I think I would probably tend to agree with you on the content/context of her essays, if they are similar to the examples you've provided.

Just to clear something up... about your opening statement... I was not trying to say that you did, just asking a question. I parsed it as such:
Given that:
a) You state that:

The Prime Directive of Objectivism, Libertarianism and Zonpower/Neo-Tech is this:

"It is morally unacceptable to compel anyone's behavior using Force or Fraud."

and:
b)
You do not agree with objectivism

then -->

You would agree that it is NOT morally unacceptable to compel someone via force or fraud.


That's why I asked. By the by, I enjoyed reading your post, and was just responding in the spirit of debate, just because it's fun to do so, and because I have to admit that I enjoy Rand's fiction, albeit it becomes lugubrious and verbose at times.

I'll have to pick up some of her essay's sometime. It sounds as though they're very different in spirit from her fiction.

ixion

Well, I didn't think you were being nasty or anything, just that I hit a nerve. And if you ever have the need to "argue" with a LiberJectivist using the line of rhetoric I wrote about, you'll get a huge response. Sometimes, though, it means you'll be turning your inquisitor into your stalker :-)

Also, your response was quite a bit more philosophical than I had expected, and deserved a more complete response from me than a couple of one-lines strung together.

I should probably make a stronger distinction between philosophy and rhetoric, but in politics, rhetoric is usually the first point of contact, and often has to be used defensively.

So ...

Rhetorically:

LiberJectivists (libertarians and Objectivists who are acting obnoxiously) pride themselves on their scientific acumen and their rejection of "soft" disciplines, including literary theory.

They also tend to use repetitive arguments, clichés, and a number of fundamental rhetorical fallacies, such as insisting that their definitions are the only valid definitions.

One particularly effective self-defense method is to show them, decisively, that a particular facet of their deeply-held belief system (the force/fraud trope) itself runs counter to another part (science as rhetoric), especially a part that is involved in their self-concept.

Ideally, it produces cognitive dissonance, and they think about what they believe; it kicks a bully out of rhetorical puffery and into some producive philosophizing. But for the most part, it just hurts, and teaches the bully not to mess with you.

The nice thing is that the rhetorical method I described does not have to be delivered with a smug, hostile, or "high-ass" attitude. I personally prefer to deal with people as if they are not just raving idiots, having been a sometime raving idiot myself.

Philosophically:

My main disagreement with the "libertarian Prime Directive" is that it is incomplete.

I do not agree that force and fraud are acceptable means of influence. I would extend that to say that compulsion in general is unacceptable.

I also recognize the need to compel behavior in extremis; and that the definition of in extremis is so fluid that any time someone compels behavior, they should accept that a court of law may call them to account for it.

This isn't too far astray of the libertarian conception of ethical behavior, but again, I find their entire ethical system incomplete, mainly through being dominated by explicit, closed, legalistic ethics. This could form the basis of a long, scholarly study, but I would be out of my depth to attempt it, lacking the "chops" to assemble a proper philosophical or critical study, which it deserves.

But I like to argue, especially when the argument is a dialog and not a brawl.

Now, as for Ayn Rand, you're spot-on to suspect a gap between her fiction and her essays. I got my first taste of Rand at age 10 when I read Anthem, but didn't go looking for her essays until I was in high school. It was like reading two different authors.

Her fiction is optimistic, but she shares the same elitist attitude toward humanity that conservatives have traditionally held. And, with some of the ranting here at DU in the aftermath of Schwartzenegger's win in California, it's a durable idea that the "hoi polloi" are stupid, shallow "sheeple".

Nathaniel Brandon, on the other hand, is often worth reading, and is more optimistic about human nature. Leonard Peikoff is highly academic, but his work is astoundingly poor. And the very best exponent of libertarianism I've ever read is Harry Brown, especially How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World. (Yes, there's an inexpensive paperback version, too.) Even as the socialistic, collectivistic, altruistic, thuggish, mystical liberal brute I've become in the last decade, it's the book to read if you feel you need some advice. (Just don't give his economic examples too much thought.)

Thanks again --

--bkl

Her fiction is optimistic, but she shares the same elitist attitude toward humanity that conservatives have traditionally held.

Compare and contrast:

though most of them usually only know enough to call it "deconstructionism."

Poststructuralist logocentrism or posthaste egocentrism?

I wouldn't waste time with them, they're fringe. But I guess it can be fun if you're into philosophy.

The Secret Teachings of Ayn Rand
by Bob Wallace
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace27.html

Well, I don't argue philosophy with them -- unless they're civil. And they're not often civil, so sometimes I have to use rhetoric, instead of philosophy.

I could say the same thing about specific leftists, but since I tend not to have that many disagreements with them, the problem doesn't come up too often.

--bkl

...and watch them froth.
I find mostly the garden-variety "Libertarian" who are only ReTHUGlicans who thinks they should be allowed to pay their taxes on the "Ala` Carte Plan", ("I have no kids. Why should I pay for schools? I don't drive in the west part of the state, why should I pay taxes that build roads there?" etc...)and to "Put anything they want into their bodies"...

They ususally can't respond intelligently to the statement that "Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society".

They usually start sputtering at that point.

But, like I said, don't run into many "Randroids" up here....(thank Random Choice!)

I usually try to argue along the lines of the social contract. Randroids just seem to be selfish to me. As the above poster said, it does seem like taxes are dues you pay to live in a society.

You must get quite a reaction when you point out the obvious hypocrisy in thier system, though. Good argument.

And I'd kind of like to know the source of your information regarding the 'literary theory.'

Italian literary theory of the time period you suggest is Il Teatro Comico. And the theories of Comedy and Drama are and have been for several centuries "Comica e Dramma."

The line Il teatro della forza e froda is a line from Dante's Paradiso, written almost three hundred years before the date you suggest. Citizen's of Dante's paradise used it to refer, in several cantos, to those still inhabiting Earth and a coporeal existence.

I mean, - I'm all for winning arguments with posturing dumbfucks of every description, but I pretty much insist my data be correct lest I be tracked down and humiliated. ;-)