Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Uh, thank you all for joining us today. I'm Scott Schiff, hosting Atlas Society Senior Scholar Steven Hicks and Atlas Society founder David Kelly, who will both be discussing one of Rand's most crucial concepts, the sanction of the victim. So, uh, I would ask everyone to share the room and, uh, once, uh, David and Steven are done, uh, with their opening, I'd encourage you all to raise your hands if you want to join the conversation. Uh, which one of you two gentlemen would like to start?
Speaker 1 00:00:34 Well, um, I think I should start because, um, I, I've, uh, laid out the, uh, the issue here, and then Steven, with his own expert knowledge of Atlas Shrug will, uh, pitch in afterwards. Um, Steven, that's okay with you.
Speaker 2 00:00:51 Yeah, absolutely. I know you've, uh, spoken on this and thought, uh, quite deeply on it. I have a lot of notes, but I've not done anything as systematic as you have on the topic, so, uh, I'm happy to listen to you for as long as you want, and then I'll, I'll jump in with my points. <laugh>.
Speaker 1 00:01:08 Okay. I will try to keep this, Scott, go ahead.
Speaker 0 00:01:14 No, go ahead.
Speaker 1 00:01:16 Uh, so I, this is, um, this session. My remarks at, to open it up, uh, are based on a, on a talk that I gave, um, in 2014 at, at what you used to be called our summer seminar. And, uh, we'll share the URL for that, uh, uh, in due course. But, um, we thought it was appropriate, um, that lecture, by the way, was, um, based on and my experience as a consultant to the movie projects, not just the one that actually got made in the early 2010 through 2014, but also in, um, about two decades before that when, um, John Alow Laurel, who owned the rights, was, um, attempting to get a script made, uh, studio to produce it, and finally ended up doing his own independent production with, uh, a colleague, uh, Harmon Kalo. Uh, we thought this might be worth revisiting as a topic because there's a new mini-series of Atla Shrug, um, in the works with, um, uh, daily Wire, which has become a major producer of films.
Speaker 1 00:02:39 And, uh, Stephen and I will, if we have more news by April, we will follow up and, uh, do a clubhouse on with that news when it comes. But any, in any case, um, what I wanted to talk about is the, um, the central plot device of Atla Shrugged, what I ran called its plot theme, and that is the strike of the producers that led by John Gold. Now, it's possible to look at this device, um, from a literary standpoint or reading the novel, uh, from, from many different angles. It is the solution to a mystery, uh, which only comes, uh, on around in my battered old Bo paperback volume around page 650. It is the culmination of a love story between Dagney Tagard and John Paul. It's a sweeping saga of a society in collapse. It's a science fiction novel, uh, in many respects with inventions that don't exist, uh, did not exist in 1957 when ran albums of Wark and still did not exist. But today, I want to consider it as a strategy for resistance and social change.
Speaker 1 00:04:07 At the core of Gold Strike is the principle of the sanction of the victim. The strategy of his strike in the novel is about withdrawing that sanction. Now, in the plot of the novel, the protagonists that we meet, uh, early on, Dagney Taggart and Hank ridden are struggling toward an understanding of the sanction of the victim principle. Uh, they are being saddled with increasing levels of controls and expropriation of their productive work, and they're trying to understand why this is happening in one iconic scene. Uh, Francisco the mysterious at this point, Francisco Dan Conia is talking with Hank ridden in Bren's office. He's a steel maker, and Francisco's refers to the myth of Atlas holding up the world, and he asks, ridden, if you were Atlas holding up this giant weight, knees buckling, blood running down your chest, what would you do? Ridden doesn't have an answer. Shrug says, Francisco, which gives the essence of Rand's theme, as well as the title of the novel. But what does that mean?
Speaker 1 00:05:44 The sanction of the victim principle is an insight based on Rand's philosophical analysis of why society mistreats good people, people who are rational and productive, people who take responsibility for their lives and deal with other people by trade. Why are good people victimized is the paradox that's the sanction of the victim, uh, is intended to explain, and that the strike is intended to resolve. Why are good people with these life-affirming and life sustaining virtues expected to help people who lack these virtues? Why are pro producers subject to government controls that limit what they can achieve? It is interesting. I want to, uh, give a shout out here to, uh, the late Ron Merrill in a book called, uh, ideas of I Rand. He pointed at this, that this was a, uh, a lifelong issue for Rand. How do good people survive in an irrational and um, society that oppresses them in, uh, with a living?
Speaker 1 00:06:56 The answer is, there's no answer. Cure dies as she tries to flee Russia in Anthem. The answer is, flee the society. Get, go into the woods, get out of there and live your own life. In the fountain head, the answer was, when you're up for trial, count on the honesty and, uh, probity of 12 good jurors. But in Atlas Shrug, there's a radically new answer, and that in a new proposal, and that's what I want to talk about. Uh, so Renz, as I said, there's an insight and a, um, an action plan. The insight is that the conflict between the producers and the parrot sites is rooted in a conflict of values. What makes the producers vulnerable to exploitation is a moral code that regards the myth, selfish, materialistic, and antisocial, which they are by the standards of that code. And the parasites and the looters use those accusations to justify taking the producer's wealth and a bridging their freedom. So the underlying principle that re is getting at is that until the producers challenge the accusations and the standards they're based on, they will carry a burden of unearned guilt that prevents them from standing up for their rights and their honor with moral confidence.
Speaker 1 00:08:43 As I said before, in the novel, the producers operate under it that we see in the, uh, you know, in the story, Dagney, Tagard and Hank ridden and others operate under an increasingly onerous regime of political control. Starting in the early in the novels, series of laws and regulations are imposed on Hank ridden dag Taggart and other business producers. They're struggling to understand why they are victims of controls that make no sense to them. These measures are enacted as a result of politicians seeking power, and businessmen who seek wealth through political connections and manipulation, rather than real entrepreneurs who gain wealth through production. These, uh, businessmen who are collaborating with the powers that be, um, today, we would call them crony capitalists. And these measures, with everything else going on in the narrative, drive the economy into every steeper decline. And we will, we will see that this is an essential element in golf's strategy. And these measures also lead one producer after another to, to quit another element in this strategy. But it's essential to understand that the strike is not just about political economic oppression, it's also about the underlying morality of the producers versus the parasites and looters. The producers live by a code of reason, rational, self-interest, achievement and trade. For most of them, these premises are implicit gall seeks to recruit them by making those values explicit and showing the conflict between their effort, their ethic, and that of the, of the looters.
Speaker 1 00:10:45 Until the producers challenge the accusations and the standards they're based on, they're going to carry this burden of under guilt that prevents them from standing up their rights for their rights. As I said before, golf himself had this great insider, but the problems of the world not notice, not by thinking about political controls, but about adhering the errors of the Stoneville factory where he worked at the time as a young man, where he worked. Uh, the Stoneville heirs installed a new corporate regime of equality on the premise that each of us now belongs to the other. And that is when he stood up and said, I will stop the motive of the world. The moral issue is what the strike is really about. Gall what the producers to shrug off the burden of guilt by recognizing the values they actually live by as a moral ideal, not a guilty secret, and recognize their commitment to reason, responsibility, creative work, and joy in living as the real virtues they are. And he wants them to stop supporting their own destroyers by withdrawing so that society has to live with the consequences of its own practices and principles, and confront the fact that parasites and looters can't survive when the victims are gone.
Speaker 1 00:12:19 Now, it's that second element. Uh, he wants them to stop, uh, supporting their own destroyers by withdrawing. It's that second element that makes golf's campaign the strike directed against the society that he and producers have withdrawn from. So this is not just a withdrawal from society to create a, a private, uh, sort of high-tech Amish village. Um, no, they want to go back. They want to change the society. So gold is sending a message
Speaker 1 00:12:58 And a demand. The message is, we do not recognize the right of anyone to exp appropriate our wealth and creations and saddle us with arbitrary degrees. That's the economic political aspect. But here's the moral aspect. We reject the principle that the need of others gives them a right to our time, effort, and achievements. We reject the principle that the self, that self sacrifices, the badge of virtue, that service to society takes precedence over the pursuit of our individual lives. Happiness and creative visions. That is the message that the gall that the strike is intended to send.
Speaker 1 00:13:48 The demand is we have withdrawn our material support and moral sanction from a system mixes victims. We demand nothing from you, neither money nor power, nor status, only the freedom to live and produce in accordance to with our own values. Nothing more, but nothing less. Until you are prepared to accept that condition, we refuse to continue offering the benefits of our creative achievements. We will live apart and you will live without victims dilute. That's the message that golf conveys to the producers in order to recruit them to the strike. And it's the message that he delivers to the public in his final speech in part three, that is the essence of the strike as presented in the novel.
Speaker 1 00:14:46 Now we can analyze the strategy of boths, uh, strike in terms terms of four elements that bring out the logic of that strategy. Uh, these elements, by the way and the way they relate to each other, can also be applied to other well-known strategies for resistance and social change from labor strikes to civil disobedience and passive resistance, as in, as in Martin Luther King's struggle against segregation in the South. I don't have time here to discuss those other examples, but they're, they are in that summer seminar, lecture I mentioned. So what are the elements are, I'm going to run through these and, uh, uh, I, if you are interested, please, please go to the, uh, the video of that lecture, and we will, uh, I'll add that shortly. Okay, great. Thanks. And we can, um, you can see them diagrammatically, but they're four elements, as I said.
Speaker 1 00:15:51 First, there's a, a goal, a demand. The goal of, um, golf strike is much wider than a labor strike. A labor strike is aimed at getting, you know, increase in wages or benefits or whatever. Um, in golf strike, the goal is a fundamental change in society. It's culture, as well as its, uh, political system. It's a change from collectivism to individualism and a change from mysticism and altruism to reason and egoism. That's a pretty tall, um, order. Um, but this is fiction. What the hell? Um, so that's the goal that a man, the strategy is remove the producers who embrace reason and egoism and desire freedom.
Speaker 1 00:16:48 Why that strategy? There's a rationale. This is 0.3. The essential rationale is a principle that evil is impotent. And that, uh, and that's a reason that sanction must be withdrawn in a, in a iconic, uh, part of, in iconic state, an iconic statement in part three of Noel Gold says, I saw that the enemy was and inverted morality, and that my sanction was his only power. I saw that evil was impotent, that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real, and that the only weapon of its triumph was a willingness of the good to serve it. This is of a piece, some of you have, you know, who have read, um, in the history of political, uh, thought, um, about the idea that it evil, evil crimes when good people do nothing. This is a version of that, only a much more sophisticated version. Um, I would say, I would argue so, the mystic alt, the point is that the mystic altruist collectivist philosophy that is widely shared among the looters and parasites is incompatible with production. And it is sustained only by the implicit sanction of producers, by those producers working within the system in, in continuing to produce. And by failing to challenge the moral premises, take away that sanction both the material support and the moral sanction, and the system will collapse of its own weight in its own incapacity.
Speaker 1 00:18:46 Um, so that brings us to 0.4. The tactics, the rationale governs both the strategy and the tactics. The tactics are first of all, convinced the producers to strike, and that is a heavy lift, um, made to seem easy in the novel. But, um, we can talk about that, uh, later on, uh, how it might have applied to real life. But first of all, convince the producers to strike and then announce the strike. When the collapse is underway. You say, this relates to the two aspects of moral sanction. One is existential with raw support, like, don't buy Chinese or Russian today. Uh, stop it. Let's just say Russia, not to get into an argument about that. And you, that's not a public statement. It's just your refusal to, um, contribute to, uh, uh, you know, uh, a, a corrupt economy. But the, there's also an expressive element.
Speaker 1 00:20:08 The, uh, announcement of the strike and false speech explaining why they're doing it and what the rationale is and what the philosophy behind it is, is has to be made explicit at some point. And he does so in his speech in part three. So, um, it, there, it's, it's a very neat, um, system when you think about it. A very coherent strategy, and I think it's beautifully embodied in the novel. So I will, um, I'll leave it there. Um, I imagine many of you have read Atlas, um, if I maybe more than once, and, uh, have lots of questions. And Steven, of course, um, is, as I said, is also an expert on this. So, uh, I will, uh, close there and let's move on. Thank you, Scott.
Speaker 0 00:21:03 Thank you. Steven, do you wanna say some things?
Speaker 2 00:21:08 Well, I've got a lot of things to say. Um, I'm wondering, procedurally if it might be best to, uh, take questions on David's material from, uh, the other participants, because what I, I do have some specific things I want to say about Atlas Shrug and the strategies, but I don't want to, uh, add more things. So, uh, what if I, uh, held back for a few minutes, see if there are any questions, we can explore David's material a little, and then I will pile on?
Speaker 0 00:21:38 Absolutely. That sounds like a great way to do it. Uh, I encourage people, if you've got questions to raise your hands. I've got a few as well. Um, David, I just wanted to go back to your formulation a little bit. You've got, uh, four elements, uh, a goal, demand, a strategy, a rationale and tactics. And, and I mean, in some ways, couldn't that be applied to even, uh, non liberty people? Like, uh, a, a roadmap for even progressives to, uh, to, to have an impact? I mean, they start out having a goal of wanting to change things, and, you know, they, they make demands and, um, I mean, they think they have a rationale and, and they have, uh, you know, they u certainly use tactics and they even kind of announced it at a certain point.
Speaker 1 00:22:34 Yeah, exactly. And, um, yeah, that is right on point, Scott, because I developed this analysis in part to compare a gold strike with other things that happened in our world. Uh, I, I mentioned, uh, passive resistance, um, don, uh, Martin Luther King's strategy, and Gandhi as well. But it would apply to, um, uh, black Lives Matter. You could take, change the values change, change the issues, and you could fit almost any, um, any effort to change society into this, uh, schematic device. Of course, it wouldn't be, uh, there would be different issues, but you're absolutely right. This is not just unique, this structure, I'm, I'm laying out. It's not just unique to Atlas Drug. That's why I, I find it interesting, um, that it has that generality.
Speaker 0 00:23:35 Good. Well, uh, I do wanna recognize, uh, Sebastian, uh, up on the States. Welcome. Uh, you have to unmute, you have to click your microphone. I, I think you're new. Um, but you do, uh, you have to click that little microphone icon in the bottom corner. You may actually have to leave and come back, hit the leave quietly, and then come back, because sometimes the mute doesn't work the first time crazy system. But, uh, I, I would just leave the room and then immediately come back. And I think that'll work. In the meantime, uh, we do have, uh, senior scholar Richard Salzman here, looking forward to his question.
Speaker 4 00:24:18 Yes, thank you for this. Thank you, Scott. Uh, thank you, David. Uh, the observation, or really the question I have is, uh, the strike the strategy, all the elements of it. The goal, very interesting to me, cuz you know, David, in social choice theory, there's this thing called the collective action problem. You know, how can self-interested people join together in a cause that, you know, has a broader purpose and yet still be self-interested? And that is so central to Objectivism, cuz the idea has to be you guys are quitting for your own self-interested reason. And yet it's clear that the goal is broader. It's not only broader, we, as you even put it, we want to change society and not just broader, uh, way beyond your own orbit, although these are important people who are critical to the whole orbit of what's being done, but also the time lag.
Speaker 4 00:25:11 It isn't, it isn't obvious from Atlas, you know, when they say we're going back now, uh, is that three weeks later? Is it three years later? Is it <laugh>? You know, it's not, yeah. Forever. And so even the projection of how long will this take? So I, I wonder what, uh, I wonder what your view is of this calculus that's made by self-interested people in who go to the goal, who some of them take longer to be convinced. That's another interesting part of the, of the story. And, and to the extent to which, you know, this broader, I'm gonna save society, it doesn't sound objective, you know, it's almost like who the hell cares? We're all in the gulch together with the people we want, not on the scale we want, we miss New York City. But that's always been interest to me, isn't interesting to me because she's trying to say it's both, that each one who quits is selfish. Uh, and yet they have this broader, um, motive. I don't know. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's, that's kind of my question, comment.
Speaker 1 00:26:18 Yeah, that's interesting, Richard. Uh, the collective action problem is, uh, a real one. Um, and I don't think Rand really addresses that in the novel. Uh, and I'm not sure if she addresses it anywhere else, but, um, one thing that, um, gal has to do in convincing the producers to strike is, first of all, show the producers the guilt of their complicity. These are honorable people who, uh, are, are, whether they say it or not out loud, um, they are in inwardly proud of their probity and their productiveness. And, you know, at some point, um, I can't remember where in the novel this is exactly, but, uh, one of the strikers, maybe it's probably Francisco <laugh>, um, says, who's the guiltiest man here? And it's not Wesley Mauch, it's ridden or dagney or something because they are being complicit. And when that's what he has to convince them of.
Speaker 1 00:27:26 So he's counting on their moral, um, honor. And also, um, he has to overcome their innocence. They can't believe anyone could be as vicious as the people controlling him. They think they're just mistaken Acne thinks constantly, if I just explain it better, what's wrong with this policy, they'll understand, but they're not trying to find the best policy they're trying to exploit. So, um, but that's hard for, um, you know, honorable people to get, you know, they, they do have a kind of innocence. Rand wrote actually about this, what in the number of places, like the American sense of life, their Americans cannot understand totalitarianism. It's just so foreign they can't even believe that it exists, or they can't believe the worst of what's revealed about it. So, yeah. And, and that's the best answer.
Speaker 4 00:28:24 And in the case of Dagney, uh, David, I think she said offline, she'll say that one of the reasons it took her longer, it, it wasn't just, you know, she's got skin in the game. It's been, she's been invested in it, that, but literally she's more benevolent. Well, the kind you were saying she can't imagine. And then the other thing is what, uh, over oh and overestimation of what you can do on your own all alone. Yeah, exactly. But that is, but that's typical of the entrepreneur. You know, I I I can do more than, uh, uh, I imagine I let one la I no wanna ho this one last question, David. The victim word itself is interesting to me. Cuz today we have a victimology culture. I'm a victim. I'm a, I'm a oppressed. I wonder if, I wonder if one of the resistance to quitting that you see in some of the characters is they just don't see themselves as victims. So, you know, I mean, they see themselves as burdened, but the victim word is very interesting because it, it, it almost like sounds like, well, I'm surrendering to a power and I guess I am a victim, so now I'll quit. But, but these are not the kind of people who see themselves as victims, right? Is that part of the reason they're reluctant to quit? I wonder.
Speaker 1 00:29:38 And whether probably Yeah, I, I haven't thought about that and I'm not sure where I would look in the novel to answer that question. But yeah, the, these people are not victims. And that's why I said that I think gold when he gives his pitch, um, to them when he walks into an entrepreneur's office and convinces him to go on strike and leave everything behind, um, he's trying to overcome their innocence, but also showing them that if they, they're not Vic, they're victims with power and the power is withdrawal. Yeah. Yeah. So it's not like, you know, victimology today, which is someone helped me pass a law, pass a student, you know, edict that, you know, I should have my own do cuz I'm transgender or whatever, you know, whatever it might be. They're not, they're not appealing to anything in public. They are simply withdrawing. And that's, that's kind of the point. They are not trying to change society except by letting society live with the principles it en it endorses. Would that Fair, fair help. Thanks David. Yeah, thank you. Good
Speaker 0 00:31:08 Question. Good comment. I do wanna go to Sebastian quickly before we, uh, let, uh, Steven, uh, discuss. Go ahead, Sebastian.
Speaker 5 00:31:18 Actually it's Michael. I'm using a friend's computer. Okay. Okay. I actually have changed my question now that I just heard the discussion. And, and it has to do with the, the victim. It seems to me that the characters were victims. They were victims of an oppressive government and an oppressive society. The difference between those victims and the victims today is the victimology we have today. They want something given to them, whereas the victims in the book just wanted to be left alone. It isn't that a, a pretty large difference?
Speaker 1 00:31:53 Yeah, I think it's huge <laugh>. I think that's, uh, you're getting at the essence, um, of it, it withdrawing is one of the, one of the, see one of the lines from Atlas Shrug, I always quote when I'm trying to talk about this or when Dagney first lands in the valley and, um, realizes what's been, what's going on, she says to gat, what have you done? And he says, I've done nothing. And that's the whole secret of my power. You know, he is not waged war, uh, you know, gorilla war against the company. I had actually, it, I've mentioned before I worked, I've worked on, um, some of the earlier movies, the ones that were not made before. John Aguilo made his independence series. And some of them wanted more action. They wanted to be, uh, they wanted a sort of a, got her, got her dumber on, um, where Francisco would be blowing up buildings and, uh, and re would be, uh, helping him do that.
Speaker 1 00:33:04 And I had to say, no, that's not what Atlas is about. They withdrawn. Um, they defend themselves as need be and do what they have to others and protect others like that. But they're not, um, trying to destroy the society directly. They're trying to, they're trying to teach it that if you have to live on your own, you're going to experience the stupidity and impotence of your own, your own beliefs. So you can't count on us anymore. So I think that is, um, that's different from the victimology today. When, you know, people want special measures or protection, they're, they're, they're acting in a passive way. And despite what I just said about golf saying, I've done nothing, there's, the strikers are not passive. They're, they're doing something. They're going and, um, yes, they're passive. They're, they've given up their activity in, in a unjust society. But they are not asking that society for help. They're saying, okay, we're going, you live, you live on your own standards. See what happens. That gets your question. Um, I know it's not Sebastian, is it Robert? Michael? It's
Speaker 5 00:34:36 Michael. It's Michael. It did One more question really quick is somebody said earlier that a lot of the characters are had a difficult time being convinced. But if my memory serves me correctly, the only character in the book once presented with the offer to leave society that turned it down was Dagney. Are there others that I'm not remembering?
Speaker 1 00:34:57 Well, it took Hank ridden a long time too. And, um,
Speaker 5 00:35:02 But he wasn't presented with the opportunity. It took him a long time to leave. But once he was presented with what was happening and with the opportunity to join the strikers, he did, right?
Speaker 1 00:35:12 He did. But um, along the way he and Francisco got to be friends. And Francisco as in that scene I mentioned earlier, why not shrug if you're Atlas. Yeah. And it, that thought has not occurred to really, it's actually interesting, uh, in Rudins case to trace his growing awareness of the issue of sanction of the victim, um, in part two, where he's put on trial for making a secret deal for, with Ken Daner, um, for, uh, providing more steel than, you know, he's under this regulation that he has to treat every customer the same, same amount of steel I've ridden metal. And, uh, you know, at his trial he explains that he, he's been an honest businessman. He's not victimizing anyone if they want to steal this stuff, if they want to imprison him, go ahead. He's not gonna help. So he's almost got the principle here. Um, and it doesn't take much when his mills are finally attacked by the hoodlums in part three, that for him to, uh, get it fully.
Speaker 0 00:36:32 Yeah. Francisco half pitched the strike before the, uh, accident at the plant.
Speaker 1 00:36:39 Yes. Right. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:36:41 So that may have played a role, but, uh, I want to, uh, defer to Steven. Uh, are you, uh, do you have some, uh, is this a good point for you to get in?
Speaker 2 00:36:53 Fair enough. Let's, uh, let's jump in. I do want to come back, uh, later since we, uh, we have at least another hour to go, uh, to some of the specifics about Atlas Shrug. And I'm also very interested in the question of how we apply this in our lives now in the real world, the sanction of the victim principle. But I thought initially I would, uh, put some, uh, more general questions about there. I'm very interested in the question of Rand's theory of morality and what makes it unique in contrast to other important moral codes. Cause you know, as David is pointing out, the other questions are coming up here. It's a battle of, uh, of values and, and about battle of, of, uh, of value codes. And I'm also, uh, interested in this concept of victim and sanction of the victim because many other moral codes will use victim language, and there are quasi sanction of the victim thesis in other moral codes.
Speaker 2 00:37:55 So I'm interested in the way in which rans is unique, uh, uh, as well. So let me, uh, with that by way of preamble, jump in with a a few general, general remarks. So what we have in, uh, the, the thesis of sanction of the victim is a general analysis. Uh, you know, as David was sketching out, you start by saying, in society, we have some people who are good or bad, and we have to define what we mean by good or bad. So in Rand's case, it's going to be people who are producers who are good, uh, you know, creating value in contrast to those who are, uh, so, uh, you know, they are, they're powerful, uh, in a positive sense. The others are weak and they, uh, their weakness and leads them to be paras. Uh, so then we have, uh, an additional element that is the adversarial element.
Speaker 2 00:38:52 This is, uh, pushing on the, the para. So you take, uh, the good and the bad, or the strong and the weak, or the rich and the poor, uh, and you put them or, or have them in an adversarial relationship. And it's because of that, that you then get the victim and the victimizer. So we've got three elements, a division of society into, say, strong and weak. Uh, you take society as being, uh, characterized by these adversarial relations. And then output is the victim and the victimizer. Now, one very interesting thing about Rand's moral code is how general she thinks this analysis of society is. And what's unique, uh, that's actually not quite unique, but uh, uh, it puts rand in very small company is that many, uh, the majority of moral codes historically have said that kind of analysis is quite general. That is the human condition.
Speaker 2 00:39:55 The right way to think about ethics is that first you have to divide people into the strong group and the weak group, uh, the idea that, uh, the different groups are in adversarial relations is taken as almost, uh, uh, axiomatic that, uh, it's, it's a kind of zero sum analysis. And so there are always going to be victims and there always are gonna be victimizers. And then your conent question is whether you're going to be more on the side of the victims or more on the side of the, the victimizers. Um, so for example, if you think of, uh, say feudalism and the official rationale for feudal hierarchical societies. So they will say, you know, we have the better people, the strong, the rich, the powerful, they are the ones at the top of society. And then we have all of the weaker people, uh, who are at the, at the bottom of society.
Speaker 2 00:40:58 And so we start with this strong, weak array. And there is then a great deal of, um, effort within futile society to rationalize that array. And there is a kind of sanction of the victim principle that is offered is what is told to all of the people at the bottom of the, of, of the social hierarchy is that they should accept their lot. They should accept that they are less worthy, uh, uh, that they are properly in a position where they should be looking up to the great people in society and providing resources for them and so forth. So that then is to say there is a kind of sanction of the victim principle at work here, that those kinds of societies ask the people who are in fact the victims, the ones who are kept at the bottom of society to sanction their position to accept that, that it's appropriate.
Speaker 2 00:41:57 And so then continue to be a party to their victimization, uh, and and supporting the people who are, in this case living parasitically off them. So that's a kind of sanction of the victim principle. It's not the language that's used there, but obviously it's quite different from rans because it's nested in a, in a, in a different society. I think, uh, as I was thinking about this, it's also interesting, uh, that I think one of the things that gives Marxism, for example, it's moral code, a certain amount of power, is that it also gives a kind of sanction of the victim analysis that what it tells to the workers on its analysis is we're divided into the bourgeois and the proletariat, the rich and the poor, and so forth. And there are these adversarial cost conflicts between the two. And as a result of that, the victimizers, the rich capitalists are, are, are, are, you know, are victimizing the proletariat.
Speaker 2 00:42:58 And so what the Marxists are telling the proletariat is you are being victims of this society, and the capitalists are asking you to be a party to your own victimization, to sanction the system. And that what we are suggesting to you as Marxist activist is to recognize that you are in fact the victim. But that's wrong. You should not be a party to your victim. So what you should do is, in this case, not just withdraw from society, but actively rise up and overthrow society and so on. So again, there's a kind of sanction of the victim analysis that's going on there that feeds into, uh, into a strategy as well. So, uh, that, that, uh, the point is then partly historical. There's lots of variations on aristocratic moralities and, uh, and, and rising up against aristocratic mor moralities as well out there, all of which have proto quai, uh, AEs as well. So that's first I put case we've some others to
Speaker 1 00:44:17 Could, if I could just jump in briefly. Uh, I, Steven's analysis is I think brilliant and true, and one of the thi but I think it goes back to, um, you know, know the origins of Christianity. Uh, you know, the, think of the attitudes, the blessed of the poor, but they shall inherit the, uh, they shall inherit the earth. And Marx was just a secularized version of that, in my view, uh, at a, you know, a secular version without the, uh, reference to heaven. And, um, yeah. But this is, um, these things are all class-based, um, where your membership in a class is not chosen. Whereas in Atlas, I think the, the people ch, I mean, there's an issue of talent. Miranda is interested in Atlas with the greatest producers, the most creative people, but makes it, she makes it clear elsewhere that her, her ethic applies to everybody at whatever level of skill and ability. And it's non-coercive. That is the ideal, is non-coercive, which, which both feudalism and I think Marxism, um, and it going back to, uh, Christianity, you know, give under a Caesar what his Caesar is give, give under God, what is god's, you know, that it's the idea that we're all under this oppressive political rule. So anyway, I'll leave it there. Um, but I think that, you know, let's, let's mo uh, I wanna open it up to other people who are commenting on, I think Steven's Point is great. Thanks.
Speaker 0 00:46:10 Yeah. Steven, I think you had other points. Uh, uh, you know, I was just gonna say quickly that, um, you know, how to, to the extent like James Lindsay talks about, uh, woke being a kind of race Marxism, I mean, how much is, is virtue signaling and, and trying to, you know, a a type of sanction of the victim today?
Speaker 2 00:46:34 Yeah, that's, uh, one of the specific points I wanna do, uh, to cycle back to it, um, you know, we were talking a little bit earlier about, uh, people who are not really victims, uh, but they are kind of playing a victim card in order to get certain kinds of, uh, material benefits in some cases, and in some cases to get, uh, social benefits like a pat on the, pat on the head for being a good person by demonstrating your, your, your victimness. So yeah, there's a lot of, uh, pathologies and on all of those, I think are, you know, different kinds of param. One is a, a materialistic parasitism using a victim central moral code to try to guilt other people into giving you stuff. And then the other is a, uh, a psychological variant on that, uh, uh, you know, asking people to give you approval and sanction and likes on your, on your Facebook page for, uh, for, for portraying yourself, uh, in a flattering light, given that victimizing moral codes present, uh, prevalence rather in a culture.
Speaker 0 00:47:58 Great. Uh, I mean, so it, you know, David talked in earlier about, you know, how they, they tried to say selfish is bad. Is that now just, are they using privilege and its place?
Speaker 2 00:48:15 Yeah, the, yeah, the language changes every generation, um, who the more general is, you know, good, bad, and then you get into what do you mean by good? And what do you mean by bad? Sometimes you're focusing on power, sometimes on wealth, sometimes on, uh, social status and, and, and so on. And so privilege is just the latest iteration on, on, on that. Lemme throw out another, um, um, more general point contrasting rand's, but I think of as a, as a unique, uh, presentation of segment of the victim issue. Um, uh, so if you take this idea of, of victims and sanctions of the victims, you know, so we can say, you know, feudalism, uh, and it's ethic and Marxism, they, uh, they organize society into strong and weak, and they will accept or reject, uh, uh, the idea that people can be victimized and differ over who should be victimized and who should, uh, should be the, uh, the victimizers.
Speaker 2 00:49:28 But it's interesting that in almost all AEs of, uh, this, this type, and I think of this as the, the ordinary type, uh, the problem they are addressing themselves to almost exclusively is the problem of the more powerful people oppressing the weaker. So, uh, the assumption always is the rich can take advantage of the poor, the, uh, the intelligent take advantage of the unintelligent, the property owners take advantage of those who don't have property. People have social standing take power, uh, take advantage of the people who have less social standing and so on. So, uh, uh, the sanction of the victim in this case, uh, is going to be trying to get the people who are in the weaker position to accept their, or to recognize that they are being oppressed and to reject that. So feudalism kinda affirms it and, and Marxism rejects it.
Speaker 2 00:50:31 But what's interesting about Rand is that the kinda victim she's worried about is the unusual victim. That it's the people who are in fact, the richer people or the productive people, or the better people who are being oppressed or victimized by the people who apparently seem not to have any power in society. Uh, uh, and so the question then is how is this possible? And here, I think, uh, and, and, and brand's relationship to Nietzsche's ideas and, uh, and her addition to N'S ideas is, is interesting. Uh, and we do know historically that's question. For example, uh, NCHE also divided society into strong versus weak. And sometimes it was physically strong versus physically weak. Sometimes it's weak, does organiz terms and its victim and victimizer. And nonetheless, he's on the side of those who should have the power, uh, taking advantage of those who are weaker and using the weaker, uh, order to advance the projects of the powerful N's.
Speaker 2 00:52:06 Question then was when he was surveying, uh, the 19th century culture, how what seemed to him to be the, the, the morality of people who were in fact healthy and strong and had the potential for nobility, how they seemed to be on the defensive and seems to be losing. And that what seemed to be happening was that the people who normally you would think of as weak people who are kinda pathetic and whiny, uh, uh, talking about their meekness and, and, and just wanting to get along with other neighbors and don't really have, you know, anything admirable about them. Nonetheless, those seem to be the people who have a kinda power in society. And that somehow the, uh, the people who should be rich and powerful and noble seem to be disarmed, uh, in, in, in contemporary society. So this was arresting in the 19th century, cause it's a kinda victim analysis, but in this case, it's not the weak being victimized from N'S perspective, it's the strong who are being victimized.
Speaker 2 00:53:24 And he's trying, trying to figure out what it's, that has enabled the apparently strong to become victimized. Uh, and he gives a partial answer to that, but I think even by the end of his life, he's, he's left with, uh, a little bit mystery, mysterious. So way of it puts it is to say, if you think of the Roman Empire, for example, you know, the Roman Empire was all about Marshall virtues and conquering the world and, you know, taking what you want. And it seems like all of those people should end up with the political power, with all the economic power, the social standing and so on. And, uh, uh, you know, all of the people able aren't able to stand up to that who've got very weak moral codes. They're talking about how weak theyre and forgiveness and, you know, banding together in the herd being a nice guy.
Speaker 2 00:54:14 And so those people should existence, uh, by, by the we, the time we get to the 19th century, uh, you know, it's not those Roman values that are prevailing, it's Judeo-Christian values that seem to be prevailing. And so how is this possible and so's partial idea is that the morality is a kind weapon or it's a kind tool, and that the, the Roman types or the master types or the people who have genuine potential, uh, uh, can be by this tool undermines psychologically some way. And, uh, nonetheless, the, the, the other side, the people who are advocating this, this weak morality can then get a certain amount of social currency. So what's interesting about Rand, I think, is that she's taking that and with her of the victim saying that what's going on is not mere. That the moral code of the victims, uh, uh, uh, is being accepted, uh, by the productive, but that the productive are then kinda actively, uh, giving psychological support to the people who, who haven't earned it, and they're providing material support to the people who haven't earned it.
Speaker 2 00:55:50 And that's precisely the source of the, the source of the power. So to come to Atlas Shrug in particular, um, you know, if you think of the example of so are, and there's a normal kinda family supporting that goes on there, uh, but Rand goes outta her way to say, this is support's even Phil, you know, helping out those can't make it on their own. What's going on is that Rearden is accepting as legitimate someone who is actively, uh, trying to undermine him and is providing the only things that can enable that person to continue with the act undermining. So rear both, uh, sanction his brother psychologically worthy person, a a decent human organization is a worthy organization. And that's a kinda psychological power. Uh, uh, and then in addition to that, of course he gives, uh, you know, the check for 10,000, which was, you know, a lot more money back then than its now, but that money is then actively being used, uh, against someone like Rudin. And, uh, so what's going on is that it's, and this is not quite what Nietzche saw, but Rand is adding this, that the, that the, uh, the sanction of the victim is providing the very tools that enable the victim to be victimized in the first place. That's only the, the powerful and the productive who can make those tools in the first place. And that's what needs to be recognized.
Speaker 1 00:57:50 Um, if I could jump in, Steven, I, I, yeah. Um, the scene in the, uh, in John Alos movies, uh, part one where that scene occurs, um, the expression on Hank's face when Philip asked him, um, could you make this check anonymous? Um, I, I don't want your name on it, is, is just spectacular. Um, the ACT's name, um, got it perfectly, this, this disgust written has a moment of disgust in his brother, um, although he's complying with the ethic that you outlined. So that's good. And you know, I I'll, I'll leave it. I'll, I'll, I'll shut up now and we can go to other questions. Scott. Um, I'd like to
Speaker 4 00:58:47 Hear more. Alright, Richard, looks like he's chomping up the bit to get in here. Yeah, yeah. I, Steven, I, I, I, Steven, I love your, uh, uh, connection with Rand and, uh, Nietzche and how they share this view that it's a, it's a kind of unearned guilt among these minority achievers that's, that's dooming them. But what do you think about this? What about the argument that the, the march and spread of democracy unlimited in an unlimited form, unlimited majority rule, is also central to this paradox? This paradox of why would these minorities put up with this shit? And even Tocqueville in the 1830s, as early as the 1830s is speaking of the tyranny of the majority, and, and the, and from that period onward, we know that this, the suffrage in Britain and America and elsewhere was extending further and further. So by the time Nietzche turn of the century ran mid-century, isn't it also that this god, this deified thing called the DEOs, the, the Vox populi is vox day, you know, the voice of the people is the voice of God. We have a new God. So instead of the tyrants being the minority in futile times, in monarchical times, yes, truly there was the minority oppressing the majority in those times. But in contemporary times, it's the flip, it's the opposite. It's the, it's the majority tyrannizing over the minority. So is that part of it as well? Cause we know both the founders and Rand were critics, of course, of unlimited democracy.
Speaker 2 01:00:29 Well, yeah, I, I do think that's a part of it. Um, it would be, I would say a part of it, and it would be a political application of the, of the general principle. So if you characterize democracy in that unlimited fashion that, that you just did, uh, then yes, absolutely. And so then we get into the question of power, and that's what one of the, the later general issues I wanted to, to come to. But this might be a, a good place to, to plug it in. What exactly is, uh, power and what kinda power is a moral code, uh, uh, and if we have a moral code that enshrines weakness and impotence, how can that be translated into some sort of actual power to get, to get something done? Uh, and so what you're outlining then is a kinda political mechanism that gives some people power, actual power, but it's not power that they, they actually have earned.
Speaker 2 01:01:37 And it gives them power over other kinds of power that they, they wouldn't be able to, to earn. So for example, if you, this is not quite a caricature, but something close to it. So if you say, uh, you know, a vote is a kind of power, it's a, it's a unit of political power, but you give that real power to someone who is ignorant, who has no clue, uh, uh, uh, then, uh, that person is going to use their power in a certain way. And if you give that political power, uh, uh, to include redistributing other people's wealth than what you're doing is giving to people, uh, who can't actually create wealth, uh, a way to get actual wealth, which is an actual form of power, uh, giving them political power, which is real power in order to get something that they otherwise wouldn't, wouldn't do. So, so democracy in that very debased form, certainly is gonna, uh, to take you in that direction. Now, if you ask, well, why should we give people who are, uh, you know, ignorant actual political power, or why should we give people who are not able to create wealth, power to redistribute wealth from other people, then we're back to the codes that are gonna sanction that kinda political, uh, political philosophy. So yeah, I think that's a, that's an important question. Thank you, Steven.
Speaker 0 01:03:17 Great. Um, well, I do, uh, wanna thank Debbie for your patience. Debbie, uh, do you have a question?
Speaker 6 01:03:27 I do. It's been, um, both partially answered and expanded due to listening to Steven. So I don't regret the weight at all, and I wanna thank him. And especially, I was sitting here, one of the things I was, I was saying was, uh, a sort of nche connection as well. But I guess I want to put this together in a statement and be, uh, well, Stephen in particular, but anyone else's student today possible. It seems to me we're talking about, um, Stephen, you even used the word healthy, the one I was thinking, reaction to being a victim plus sort of democracy. This Vic Victimology we're talking about, um, that we see so much today. It seems to me this way you have people who are being victimized and, and the normal or the healthy reaction to being a victim, the normal desire is to not be a victim anymore, right?
Speaker 6 01:04:44 You want the a, a, a sort of power to, a power to go unobstructed and, um, build your life, be the sort of producer you are. What we're seeing, though, is when victimhood doesn't become something to overcome, but rather becomes weaponized that you can use. And so you have a sort of, um, um, instead of, uh, power to do whatever you have a sort of power over that you can gain one upsmanship. And I guess my question, like I said specifically to Steven, especially after the very nice explanation he just gave, but to any of you who respond, do you think that's accurate? That that's part of what is going on when we talk about, um, legitimate victims who overcome, um, whatever their status is to go on and achieve versus, um, what you're describing in Atlas shrugged and indeed what we see in the victimology today?
Speaker 2 01:06:05 No, I think that's beautifully said, Debbie. I very well said. Uh, I think the healthy response to being a victim is to not want to be a victim. And that's to, uh, uh, to improve your power, uh, so you can protect yourself, uh, against people who are trying to victimize you or, uh, if, if you're a victim of your own weaknesses, to overcome those weaknesses. And so there is something, uh, unhealthy. I do like that phrase, <laugh>, about, uh, the opposite reaction where you wanna wallow in your, in your weakness. And I think it's, uh, you know, there can be other psychological reasons why people get into that state, but moral codes of a certain sort can be an assist or can be a rationalization for that, or can even induce people to, to, to embrace victimhood. So, uh, you know, from long religious history, we know there are people who develop a marker clump complex. They, they, they have come to believe that as a, as a top value. And so that means you do have to be victimized by, uh, someone in, in, in, uh, in society who has more power, and there can be other variations of religious. So that's very well said.
Speaker 0 01:07:39 Thank you. I do wanna invite others to come up. Um, I, uh, you know, raise your hand. We, we'll be glad to bring you up. I wanted to ask, you know, is part of the sanction that, that business owners, they, they buy into an already mixed system and then they just, they're really defending what they know and they, they just, they can't even understand what true freedom is, and they just wanna earn a living?
Speaker 1 01:08:12 Well, I, if I could jump in, I think, uh, the, the, the people who run major corporations today come out of the same educational syndrome, uh, system that, um, people in government and, um, the major media do. And so they're, they've been induced into those values, not, not all of 'em. The older ones probably are a little better, but, um, but still, um, you know, because of the mixed economy, they have to deal with government. And so they have, you know, this, uh, these allegiance of government, uh, advisors and lobbyists and so forth who know the drill about getting, um, the attention of business, what works and what doesn't. And, you know, Hank Riddens approach would not work <laugh> in today's government, not with Biden for sure. So, um, there's that, and, you know, one of the, one of the struggles of Objectiveism has been trying to get more people in business to stand up and be counted as demanding freedom and demanding, uh, the absence of controls.
Speaker 1 01:09:38 And so far the success has been largely with smaller businesses, mom and pop shops, um, rather than the big corporations. So, um, yeah, I think Scott, you know, we have a culture, and the culture is imbued with this victimology and with, uh, a kind of collectivism that says, we're all in this together. And so, you know, we're whatever the government decides is the best thing for the society. We're, we're, we're going along with, and of course, we will benefit from that because we're, uh, in effect, and you know, Richard and Steven, correct me, they're both in business ethics, but you know, if, if you're going along with the government, you're in a good place to get government benefits, restrict competition, get subsidies that are available, et cetera. So they're, they don't see themselves as victims.
Speaker 0 01:10:46 Yeah. Uh, you know, and, and that's, there, there were some, uh, business owners that were going along with the government full swing. The, uh, Oren boils.
Speaker 1 01:11:00 Yeah,
Speaker 0 01:11:02 Go, Steven or Richard.
Speaker 2 01:11:03 Uh, I wanted to jump in. I'm just suddenly aware that we have less than 20 minutes, uh, to go. And I wanted to put another major topic out, um, and that's the application topic. So we can analyze sanction of the victim theoretically and historically and so on. But, uh, you know, as a principal, once we recognize the sanction of the victim, the, the implication is that you should not, uh, uh, participate in, in that way. So Rearden should not, you know, be supporting his brother that way. And so the lesson for us then is, uh, to the extent that we are, you know, productive, creative people getting on with our lives, and there are parasitic people out there in lots of different forms. We're trying to take advantage of us not to, uh, be party to our own victimization. And of course that makes sense.
Speaker 2 01:12:00 Uh, but then how do you apply that in the actual complexities of your individual life, you know, your, your particular relationships, and then how do we apply that in contemporary society? So, um, you know, know, sometimes they don't in big picture question, we can say, well, you know, should, uh, should, should I say society is so corrupt and I am so victimized now that I should drop out from society, I should shrub, right? Or on particular cases, I'm dealing with some person who's a friend or an associate, but this person has become kinda on me in a certain way that I should no longer put up with this and I should dissociate with, uh, with this person. Another, uh, variation that comes out, uh, of this is when we start thinking about intellectual strategy, you know, if we are not going to only talk with people in our own, uh, bubble, uh, that's actually too pejorative in our own intellectual circles. If we're going to interact with people we disagree with, well that means that we, or in some sense, sanctioning them if we agree to talk with them, or if we invite them to our events or if we appear on those stages. So I wanna put it as a question, how do we apply the very general principle of sanction of the victim to making decisions about whom to associate with, uh, in, in real life?
Speaker 0 01:13:44 Well, this goes back to the founding of the Atlas Society,
Speaker 4 01:13:48 <laugh>. Oh,
Speaker 2 01:13:48 Yes. Don't wanna revisit that history. <laugh>,
Speaker 4 01:13:52 If I could jump in, uh, if I could jump in, Scott, on this issue of strategy and application. Um, one, one of the great historical examples that Objectiveness should remind themselves of is, uh, the utopian socialists. So in France, in the 1830s, the idea of, of the utopian socialism was a counter enlightenment, a counter industrial movement. But the idea was, we're gonna withdraw. We're, we're not gonna work in profit-oriented private sector factories. We're gonna go create our own communes, our own cooperatives. And, and remember Mark's critiqued them. Yeah, you guys are pansies. You know, you need to be militant. You need to be taking over these factories, not leaving, not leaving them, and going off into your gulches. I mean, that's really, and and it's interesting also in Atlas, the section is called a Utopia of Greed, that the section on Guz Gulch, I believe is titled Utopia of Greed.
Speaker 4 01:14:53 So she's using this, using this word utopia in a way that previously all utopias were left-leaning anarchical. And she's kind of tweaking that and saying, no, there's a utopia of greed, which I love. But, but, but apropo tactics look at, look at the controversy going on today down in Florida, where the, the tactic is don't leave and abandon, but use the tactics of the status. So Ron DeSantis, who is actually one of the better governors in the country, is facing controversy now because what he's basically saying is, well, if we can't get rid of the public schools, I'm going to mandate that the public schools not teach crap, not teach c r t not teach gender stuff, right? And, and from our perspective, we might say, well, that's just totalitarianism or authoritarianism from the right. And, you know, if we're truly, uh, you know, into, um, civil disobedience, I mean, think of what this, think of what, how difficult this argument is.
Speaker 4 01:15:54 It basically sounds like surrender, surrender the public schools entirely to these savages, uh, or try to do homeschooling. But in which case, we still have to pay for the savages public schools. Um, I I, I remember in the old days, instead of fighting antitrust, or remember the conservatives used to say, well use antitrust against the labor unions. Remember Anne Rand would say, no, you need to get rid of the antitrust. So what I, I'm curious what peop, I'm curious what people think about this. I'm suspicious of it, but I don't, I I'm also sympathetic to it, this idea of, well, we're just gonna use the tactics of the status, by the way, including charging the capitol, right? If you can riot in the streets in 2020 after George Floyd, why can't we riot at the Capitol and overturn elect? See? So that technique seems futile, but that's obviously not withdrawal, is it? It's, it's, we're gonna use their tactics. Their tactics seem to work. We'll just use 'em for different ends. Right? I see that happening. I'm just curious what people think.
Speaker 0 01:17:05 Yeah, I, I, uh, you know, I think there's an interesting, uh, relation between, uh, what is, um, sanctioning the victim and, and what is cheek turning? What is, you know, is that akin? I I I have Jewish ancestry with the whole life or an eye thing. So, uh, you know, at what point are we just, you know, what Richard was saying, I think there's a point. And there there has to be, I think that it should be one single standard. And so that if, if the standard drops, then that's how everyone acts. It's not good. But the alternative is, is letting them win. I know that's controversial,
Speaker 4 01:17:44 <laugh> then, then there's also an, there's also that interesting, very interesting scene in Atlas after and during, when gat is being tortured and, you know, being told to become the economic dictator, where I think it's Ragner and others come in all guns blazing, right? And free him. And so there, so that's not, you know, passive resistance. That, and I think the famous line was something like, I think Ragner said something like, these status who use force, you know, these savage, they have no idea what force is like when guided by Reason <laugh>. I like something like that. Right, David? What a, yeah, what a line. And, and yet, when you think about it, okay, that does kind of sound like I is saying no, there's a call to arms at some point. Now it's, it have to be a really serious extreme case like that. Or is it a sanction of using tactics? It's, it is in self-defense, of course, there's not initiating force, but it is definitely resorting to force. So we're not Gandhi passivists in that regard, but, um, that's in the novel. There's no doubt that's in the novel.
Speaker 1 01:18:50 No, and I, there's a lot I could say about that scene. Um, and one thing to note about the novel is, um, and, um, is Rand was very aware of the Christian background and, um, ga spread out, um, like Christ on the, uh, the torturer rack was the ultimate. And, uh, so he was rescued and, um, by people using retaliatory force. But I think there's, there's a broader issue here, uh, or an issue that I, I just wanna put on the, on the table, please remember that Ala Shrug is a novel in her notes for on, in, uh, unre notes in writing the novel. She said, I start with a fantastic premise of the prime movers going on strike. And she meant fantastic in the sense of a fantasy, not, not fantastic in the sense of, oh, this is really cool, but no a fantasy, it would not happen in real life.
Speaker 1 01:20:04 This. And she says, um, I set, I set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them. And I show it on a hypothetical case what happens in the world without them. So she never thought that this was a realistic thing. I mean, imagine the best objective is philosophy. You can imagine, um, going to Elon Musk and, uh, Jeff Bezos and convincing them to lead their businesses and go to some valley in Colorado where they're going to, you know, create a small car company or a small, uh, book service or whatever. It's not gonna happen, you know? And, um, so the novel, I mean, it's a tribute to Iran that she made this so plausible to us that it's a, it's a great read, but what she's talking about is fantastic. It doesn't happen in, and will not happen in the real world. So I know there have been people who after, particularly after the, uh, in the Tea Party who talked a lot about going golf Yeah. And, you know, more power to 'em. But, um, you know, we're not gonna go golf in the real world. We have to deal with situations like existence of public education. And given that we have that, you know, it's an educational system. So it's wrong that we have a publicly run up the school system. But given that we do it's point has to be educating and educating to, uh, uh, standards of, you know, competence in for kids in rewriting arithmetic.
Speaker 4 01:22:07 Yeah. And, and notice, and notice, David, one of the more heroic things Elon does is he says, well, I'll just buy Twitter and fix it. Uh, uh, and, and certainly other entrepreneurs have tried and are perfectly free to say, well, I'm gonna start my own university. Uh, you know, Rockefeller started, uh, university of Chicago, and we know Carnegie Mellon started. Okay. So why can't current wealthy people create the institutions that displace the corrupt ones? Uh, you know, it's, it, you don't have to run away to gulch and run some small, uh, red house. Uh, yeah. But that's a, that's a great point, David, about her, the fantastical account of Yeah. Fantasy in that regard. Great point.
Speaker 1 01:22:50 And the, what you're mentioned, Richard, is, uh, happening today. I mean, there are educational voucher, uh, ventures that are, you know, being, um, started off out, out of the ground and, uh, with funding. So, I mean, that's the way we fight back. It's not by withdrawing. You couldn't go to Gold College today. Actually, one of the, one of the problems with updating the movie to con contemporary times, um, and I've talked with Herman Castle a lot about this. Um, his cult SKO is not possible between, um, I mean, today with Google Maps, you know, the race ring would not, would not, you know, just would not work <laugh>. So these guys would be found. Anyway, I'll, I'll leave it there. So, Scott, back to you.
Speaker 0 01:23:52 Alright. I didn't know if, uh, Steven, you wanted to say anything real quick before we went to, uh, our last, uh, people coming up to the stage?
Speaker 2 01:24:00 Well, I don't know if this can be real quick, but maybe we'll just leave it as a, as a thought experiment. So if we scale down from dropping out of society altogether, or trying to, you know, convince Elon Musk and so on, and I agree that's, uh, that's not at all the right strategy. And I also agree on the, on the education point, but there are still lots of other scenarios where the principle applies. So for example, here at Atlas Society, we're an educational institution and we're, uh, we we're open, we're willing to talk to lots of people, but nonetheless, we draw a line and we say, we're not going to engage with certain sorts of people because that would be giving them a sanction. And, uh, uh, uh, we're not willing to give, to give that sanction. So we're not going to say invite the, uh, the head of, I don't know, is it the US National Socialist or Nazi party?
Speaker 2 01:24:55 If there is such a thing to come and, and have a debate with David Kelly about whether capitalism or national socialism is the better political system. So we say, no, uh, we're not going to offer that sanction, that that person is beyond the pale. We, we disagree fundamentally. But by contrast, I mean, this is, again, a little bit fantastical, but, but suppose the Pope of the Catholic church, you know, offered to David Kelly to have a debate about whether religion is true or not. Now, we would say we disagree with the Pope's philosophy and the moral code that the Pope stands for, you know, and it's arguable about whether we have greater disagreements with the pope's, uh, moral philosophy than the moral philosophy of the, the national socialist guy. But I think if the Pope offered an internationally televised debate with David Kelly, we wouldn't say, oh, no, no, we're we, we can't sanction the Pope. Instead, we'd be more eager to say, yeah, yeah, David should have that debate with the Pope. That would be great.
Speaker 4 01:26:03 Absolutely. Yes.
Speaker 2 01:26:04 <laugh>, so intellectual, uh, you know, deep intellectual disagreements aside, it seems that's not the only issue at work at deciding how to apply the sanction of the victim principle. So that's what I'm looking for is, you know, what, what detailing judgment principles, uh, are, are we using to make the decision there?
Speaker 1 01:26:27 Steven, I would love to debate the Pope. I mean, he gets a million, a million audience. I'm, I'm, I'm on. Can you set that up?
Speaker 2 01:26:36 Yeah. All right. So that then is to say it's not just do you, you know, disagree with this moral code and it, it's being used against you, but there are kinds of cost benefit judgments that, that, uh, also have to be factored in. And those are the interesting, uh, the, the interesting ones.
Speaker 4 01:26:54 I mean, historically, uh, when Reagan used to be criticized for getting the evangelical vote, he would say, they're endorsing me. I'm not endorsing them.
Speaker 2 01:27:03 Yes.
Speaker 4 01:27:03 It's a big distinction. Important distinction. Yeah,
Speaker 2 01:27:06 That's right. So, so is it then to say, well, we've got this strong versus weak analysis, and the Pope is offering a certain kind of, uh, weakness as moral that we disagree with, but in fact, he has a certain kind of power because of the size of his audience, and so then we're into a multi-dimensional analysis of power?
Speaker 0 01:27:29 Well, I, I think there's a case to be made for, uh, you know, the whole premise of not talking to libertarians or sanctioning them. I alluded to this earlier that there has been a strain of using sanction as an excuse to excommunicate people. And in fact, there's, uh, a case to be made for saying it's just contextual. It depends what's going on, what we think we can get out of it. We do a cost benefit analysis and decide based on that.
Speaker 2 01:27:57 Yeah. And those two have to be integrated.
Speaker 0 01:28:01 Sure.
Speaker 1 01:28:02 Right. I, for, for if, if anyone wants to explore this further, I, I wrote about this very issue in, um, um, what's my truth
Speaker 2 01:28:17 And toleration?
Speaker 1 01:28:19 Truth and toleration. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2 01:28:21 Thank you. And then confess. Yeah.
Speaker 1 01:28:23 So anyway, um, Scott, thank you. Any other, um, Thomas here,
Speaker 0 01:28:31 I think, unfortunately, uh, Allison and Elizabeth, we are up against the top of the hour, but, uh, this has been a great discussion. Uh, we've got great things coming up at the Atlas Society. Uh, next Wednesday, February 8th at 5:00 PM Eastern the Atlas Society Asked when Giro Na Joa. Uh, then, um, Thursday the ninth, we'll be back here on Clubhouse with Richard Salzman and David Kelly doing an ask Us anything. And then, um, speaking of sanction, this should be a good one. Uh, Wednesday, February 15th at 5:00 PM the Atlas Society asks Jonah Goldberg. So, uh, maybe, uh, you know, we can, uh, heal some riffs from the old, uh, Whitaker Chambers, uh, review or something <laugh>. But, uh, again, um, this is the Atlas Society. Uh, we encourage you to go to our website, atlas society.org, uh, to see all the events. And, uh, thank everyone, uh, for, for joining us who participated. Thank you, Steven and David. Um, and, uh, we look forward to seeing you again in the future.
Speaker 1 01:29:46 Thank you, Scott.
Speaker 0 01:29:48 Take care. Thanks
Speaker 1 01:29:49 Guys. Steven enjoyed.
