Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Wolf DeVoon

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Of course rational people discuss ideas. However, I would consider anyone who calls themselves an anarcho-Objectivist-constitutionalist to be highly irrational and moronic. I do not make this judgment merely because you disagree with the holy prophet of Rand, (that was sarcasm of course) but rather because of the many reasons that the ideas of anarchism are completely wrong.

An Objectivist is a person who agrees completely with Miss Rand's ideas. That, by definition, does not mean that all of Miss Rand's ideas are right, but rather that you do not have the right to call yourself an Objectivist if you do not agree completely.

This forum is for students of Objectivism and Objectivists to post ideas and ask questions. You on the other hand, are not an Objectivist, nor are you a student of Objectivism, hence my request for you not to post here, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, later in life Rand argued for government as a necessary and natural arbiter among otherwise free men. I'm familiar with her work. None of her fiction indicated sympathy with government as such. But really, it's silly to make sweeping judgments ("highly irrational and moronic") when you know so little about me or defacto anarchy in private life, which exists in profusion and highlights the vitality of moral values.

A forum for students? Yes, I see your point. I'll think about it.

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, later in life Rand argued for government as a necessary and natural arbiter among otherwise free men.

Are you implying that the existence of a government reduces the freedom of those men living under it?

Perhaps my judgment of "highly irrational and moronic" was a bit much. It comes from my posting for so long with another anarchist, Don Galt.

His problem was a complete lack of understanding of the concept of rights. According to his arguments, an individual has the right to do whatever they want at whim, and any other person interferring with that whim is initiating force against him. Example: an individual murders another individual who was living under government A. The murderer refuses to be punished by government A because he does not recognize the validity of government A, therefore, it is an initiation of force to punish the murderer.

The fact is that an individual does not have the right to do whatever they want at whim. An individual does have the right to do what they want at whim, just so long as they do not violate the rights of other individuals. When they violate the rights of other individuals, it is the right of an objectively defined and controlled government to use retaliatory force against the violator of individual rights. A government, acting in such a way, is not "initiating force," but rather acting on the concept of protecting individual rights.

You obviously seem to be more intelligent than Don Galt, but it seems crystal clear to me at this point why anarchism is completely wrong. I do not feel it necessary to demonstrate that here. However, if you would like to present me with arguments for why laissez-faire is wrong or impossible, or why anarchism is better, etc, I may or may not respond to them, depending on how intelligent they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RadCap

This post is for those students of Objectivism who sense something is wrong with Mr. DeVoon's posts, but may not be able to pinpoint the exact problem(s)

Main Entry: id·i·ot

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiOtEs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own -- more at SUICIDE

1 : a person affected with idiocy; especially : a feebleminded person having a mental age not exceeding three years and requiring complete custodial care

2 : a foolish or stupid person

It is obvious Mr. DeVoon does not meet the criteria of the first, technical definition of the term "idiot". However, does he meet the second? Based on his introductory post, I conclude he does. Mr. DeVoon's statements in that post are absurd - are ridiculous - which are the criteria of being a foolish person. And, indeed, in reference to the etymology of "idiot" his post indicates he is an "ignorant person" in that he lacks comprehension of Objectivism, among other things.

Now, is this a sweeping judgement? Yes. Is it a "silly" judgment to make? I do not believe so. In his first post, Mr. DeVoon did not speak of an individual, derivative topic. He attempted to identify his full philosophic foundation - that which informs and guides his every choice and action. IF that foundation is "foolish" THEN he IS a foolish person - an idiot - because that foolishness is NECCESSARILY applied to EVERY aspect of his life. He is neccessarily foolish through and through.

So IS his FOUNDATION foolish? Again, I say yes. Mr. DeVoon identifies himself as an "anarcho-Objectivist-constitutionalist". This identification contains both contradiction and redundancy.

1. Anarchy is a contradiction when combined with Objectivism.

Anarchism is the idea that there should be NO government. This is the opposite of Objectivism. Ayn Rand was QUITE clear that the philosophy of Objectivism ADVOCATED the existence of government - and a very specific form of government at that. She also QUITE clearly contrasted the Objectivist form of government with all other forms of government, as well as with no government or "competing governments" - condemning each and every one of those philosophic positions.

2. Anarchy is a contradiction when combined with constitutionalism.

Again, anarchism is the idea that there should be no government. Constitutionalism is the idea that government should be limited to and guided by basic and specific principles. If there is NO government, then the definition's object is not present and is thus not applicable to the context. If there IS a government, then anarchism is not applicable to the context.

3. Constitutionalism is a redundancy when combined with Objectivism.

Once more, constitutionalism is the idea that government should be limited to and guided by basic and specific principles. Objectivism not only accepts this premise, but goes on to name those limitations and principles. Therefore, constitutionalism is already included in Objectivism.

Because they are contradictions, the first two combinations are patently absurd. And all three indicate a lack of comprehension of the referenced concepts, making them ignorant utterances. This set of absurdities and ill comprehended concepts IS Mr. DeVoon's philosophic base. That philosophic base is therefore foolish, which means Mr. DeVoon is a foolish person. He IS an idiot.

Put simply, by explicit naming his philosophic base, Mr. DeVoon's first post sought to communicate a LOT about himself. I say he succeeded, despite Mr. DeVoon's later insistance that he somehow failed in this task by claiming we "know so little" about him.

--

Note: By focusing on the essental premise and principles presented in this thread, many other logical errors and/or fallacies were left untouched. Do not take this to mean they were undetected. His straw man definition of idiot; his attempt to appeal to authority and argue from initmidation by identifying himself as an "established author" - as if that somehow had a bearing on the validity of anything he or we would say; his attempt to blank out Ayn Rand's explicit philosophic writings by focusing on her fiction instead (and mischaracterizing that fiction in the process), etc etc. were all noted and discarded because they are inconsequential once his central tenet is destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, a correction: an "Objectivist" is someone who agrees with Miss Rands philosophy, not all her ideas per se. Many people confuse the distinction between subjective tastes and preferences (food, music, art styles, vocations) and objective evaluations about the nature of reality (ie their philosophy). Not saying you did this, just FYI

Also, what's a "constitutionalist" according to Mr DeVoon?

Finally, calling someone an "idiot" is not an especially effective way of accomplishing anything. Maybe Mr DeVoon is just ignorant, maybe he is questioning his current views and seeks to challenge them on this forum. Or maybe he really is delusional, evasive, and "mentally challenged" -- which his self-claimed contradictory title seems to suggest -- in that case, either ignoring him, or blocking him if he starts pestering the forum would be the best course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RadCap

" Or maybe he really is delusional, evasive, and "mentally challenged" -- which his self-claimed contradictory title seems to suggest -- in that case, either ignoring him, or blocking him if he starts pestering the forum would be the best course of action."

As you say, "his self-contradictory title seems to suggest" Mr. DeVoon is evasive, etc - ie does suggest he meets the qualifications of idiot. Since Mr. DeVoon provided a link to his own works, which provides extensive insight into his beliefs; since his site explicitly states he likes to act as a gadfly; and since other posts in other threads were devoted to extremely lengthy attacks upon objectivist politics, etc (which he subsequently removed, and replaced with just a small set of assertions), I do not believe it was inappropriate to identify his overal position and ask him to leave because of it. Since RE is not an admin, such an identification and request would be that of an individual visitor, not an official policy. As such, he would know he was still free to post here (on the very slim chance that he was indeed "questioning his current views and seek[ing] to challenge them on this forum"), but with the knowledge that his philosophic position had been identified (as subsequent posts explained in more detail).

In another thread, Mr. DeVoon's arguments were treated with respect and were addressed directly. He was then asked some very specific philosophic questions about his premises which he never answered. Given this fact, in context of the above, I would say Mr. DeVoon was indeed playing the gadfly and not questioning his beliefs. I would also say that the rational identification of his position, the explicit identification of his contradictions, and the questioning of his premises in relation to objectivist premises, made him realize this forum was not easy prey to his criticisms. I would hazard to guess that is why we have not seen him since. (I do not believe he disappeared because this forum was identified as a locale for students of objectivism. What better place to correct perceived errors before they become ingrained in those new to the philosophy?)

Thus, while your clarification to RE pertaining to Objectivist qualifications is accurate (though your question about "constitutionalist" seems moot at best), in this instance, I have to disagree with your third assertion. Calling Mr. DeVoon an "idiot" *was* an effective way of accomplishing something. It got him to leave. Since the evidence is overwhelming that he was a gadfly (read "troll"), such a departure was *quite* benefitial. And as it turns out, one neither had to ignore a stream of posts, nor engage in blocking him. By explicitly identifying his nature, and by providing a rational and reality based explanation for that identification, he departed both quickly and voluntarily. As such, I would say RE did us a service, and does not require "correction" of his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RadCap
RadCap, if you ever register, I promise to make you a moderator, so you can dispose of trolls the civilized way -- by kicking them from the forum.

I might just have to register then. :rolleyes:

I assume email addresses are required for registrtion. Are they used for any other purposes or passed along to anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume email addresses are required for registrtion.  Are they used for any other purposes or passed along to anyone else?

Well, normally I sell them to SpammersRus.net for big bucks, but I'll make an exception in your case :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You guys have some odd habits, that's for sure. I thunk about it, decided yep, this was a forum for students and therefore self-absconded. What did you do? Proceded to analyze an absentee. Shame on you.

I never declared myself to be a gadfly. That was WebSurfer Digest's comment, and I believe it was meant as a compliment. Indirectly, I suppose I've been complimented by the 100 hits to my personal page that originated guess where? Here.

Miss Rand made mistakes. Her fiction was her apogee, long before The Collective milked her fame at NBI and related enterprises. Rand did no work, zero, on the philosophy of law. That's where my work commenced 25 years ago.

It's fine if the tenor of this joint is to sneer. Sophomores sneer. I know, I was one, about 30 years ago. But it niggles that this thread was indexed by Google and had so little of me. So, I'm back. If there are no further questions, no further sneers, that's swell and we can wish each other good premises.

Wolf DeVoon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Devoon, my comment was based on your original post which said, I'm an anarcho-Objectivist-constitutionalist, which means: Miss Rand made mistakes. Shocking, huh?"

Anarchism is incompatible with Objectivism. Anarchism is the theory that states that there should be no government. Objectivism states that human beings need a government, and this government should have a specific identity (and therefore purpose as well, which is, to protect the rights of its citizens).

Thus, referring to yourself as both an anarchist and an Objectivist is a contradiction, and a blatant one at that.

In response to this blatant contradiction, I referred to you as an idiot. This claim was based on the evidence presented to me (in this context, that you held this blatant contradiction). It was not a "sophomoric" attempt to ridicule you, but rather, it was an objective evaluation of the facts which you presented to me.

I still believe this to be true, and so, I stand by my statement.

I welcome you to attempt to alter my evaluation by presenting evidence which would give me cause to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, fair enough. The point about anarchy is that there is much in life which is beyond the purview and practical control of government. I have made the comment repeatedly that we live in defacto anarchy, because government (in the current state) is so profoundly inept and dysfunctional. The invasion of Iraq was justified with outrageous lies to cover Halliburton's covetousness, for example.

Objectivism is and always was primarily a speculative philosophy. Rand's interpretation of Aristotle is a valuable integration. But surely folks rightly think of her as a novelist, a dramatist. There are sharp limits and some errors that froze Rand's achievement. This is why irksome critics (which I am neither) often wail that Objectivism is a cult. I never gave those claims any credence or support. I have proudly written of Miss Rand's achievements perhaps a hundred times and feel no embarrassment when I reference her works.

The bit about constitutionalism is not so transparent as you seem to suggest. We got a glimpse of Judge Narragansett rewriting a failed document by inserting a prohibition. This is not a solution, and it is beyond the scope of this discussion to explain why. What needs to be emphasized rather is that first principles matter, regardless of subject and particularly in the case of legal reasoning.

In any case, I appreciate the awkwardness of introductions. No doubt Chris Sciabarra would have had an equally difficult passage attempting to explain his theory of "dialectical Objectivism" and Ayn Rand's alleged debt to Hegel (which I have ruthlessly reamed him for on numerous occasions).

I'm undecided what to do next, having been stuffed with straw and declared unfit for present company.

Wolf DeVoon

bestof.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
First, a correction: an "Objectivist" is someone who agrees with Miss Rands philosophy, not all her ideas per se.  Many people confuse the distinction between subjective tastes and preferences (food, music, art styles, vocations) and objective evaluations about the nature of reality (ie their philosophy).  Not saying you did this, just FYI

Also, what's a "constitutionalist" according to Mr DeVoon?

Finally, calling someone an "idiot" is not an especially effective way of accomplishing anything.  Maybe Mr DeVoon is just ignorant, maybe he is questioning his current views and seeks to challenge them on this forum.  Or maybe he really is delusional, evasive, and "mentally challenged" -- which his self-claimed contradictory title seems to suggest -- in that case, either ignoring him, or blocking him if he starts pestering the forum would be the best course of action.

Gee, or maybe Devroon is RIGHT!

Jesus, you chided the other guy for calling him an idiot and then assumed he must be stupid, delusional or evil?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...