Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
I was disappointed when a commentator on this blog suggested that Ayn Rand would have supported Kaushik Basu’s heinous suggestion that bribe givers be exonerated from culpability.
I have no doubt that it is impractical, and hence not worth while, to pursue retail “bribers”, and so I advocate system reform. But to take a position that bribe givers should somehow be exonerated from their crime (no matter how petty) is beyond deplorable. It is worthy of severe rebuke.
And it is totally absurd and demeaning to suggest that Ayn Rand would have EVER countenanced such nonsense in the name of “rationality”. She would have been the first to point out that rationality without reference to VALUE (human life and liberty) is pointless and guaranteed to mislead. There is a slippery slope from rationality to "rationalisation". Rand would NEVER advocate blind reason.
I cite from John Hospers’s Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, p.593, where he refers to Ayn Rand’s concept of value (and morality).
The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals. But just as animals would not be able to survive by attempting the method of plants, by rejecting locomotion and waiting for the soil to feed them—so men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship. [Virtue of Selfishness, pp.23-24] [Sanjeev: This section applies to bribe SEEKERS]
"Man's survival," then, means his survival as a specific kind of biological organism—that is, as a human being; that is, as a rational being. The good-for-man is that which is required for his survival as a rational being. Accordingly,
It does not mean a momentary or a merely physical survival. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a mindless brute, waiting for another brute to crush his skull. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a crawling aggregate of muscles who is willing to accept any terms, obey any thug and surrender any values, for the sake of what is known as "survival at any price," which may or may not last a week or a year. "Man's survival qua man" means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice. [Virtue of Selfishness, p.24] [Sanjeev: This section applies to bribe GIVERS - their momentary survival, their surrender to thugs, their surrender of values, their search of "survival at any price" is BEYOND deplorable. It is petty, it is worm-like. It is not human.]
Does it follow from the above that it would be wrong for a man ever to risk his life? Not at all: if, for instance, a man were trapped in a dictatorship, where freedom of thought and action were suppressed and proper human conditions of existence were made impossible, he might very well risk his life in the fight to escape or to overthrow the dictatorship; but his act would be motivated by loyalty to the life proper to man and by his refusal to exist in a subhuman state.
One is saying much more than simply that man must be alive in order to pursue values: one is saying that man must pursue values in order to remain alive—and that this is the base of ethics and of all questions of moral value.
The point is clear. We do not live for the sake of survival. We must live a PROUD life that PLEASES us in every way. But we cannot be proud (and even haughty, as all of Rand's heros are) if we do not respect ourselves SO MUCH that we will spit on anyone who seeks to undermine our self-respect.
An act of bribery is demeaning, dehumanising, vile and servile.
Ayn Rand and I were soul-mates from before I knew of her. John Galt was her and John Galt was I: even before I ever heard of John Galt.
I live for my satisfaction, to achieve MY ideals. Your servility and compromises do not interest me. Nor would Ayn Rand care for Basu's rationalisations (or those of my commentator).
Third rate "economists" and socialists can "rationalise" all they like, but it takes some self-respect to give life its meaning.
I trust my commentator – who simply has no clue about Ayn Rand – will one day start valuing himself as a human. Currently he lives a sub-human existence, a crawling aggregate of muscles.
If my commentator still doesn't understand what Rand stood for (and I stand for), then I suggest he refer to Kant's categorical imperative. That's exactly the standard of assessing an action that Rand was following, and which I advocate.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- Raghuram G Rajan is a welcome change to Kaushik Basu
- Ayn Rand, the goddess of liberty
- A shame that socialist Kaushik Basu is now World Bank chief economist
- In 1966 Ayn Rand had pointed out the serious flaw in Keynesian thinking
- Ayn Rand could get quite abrasive, but rightly challenged confused ideas
- What reforms, Kaushik Basu? What do you know about reforms?
- Why Swami Vivekananda rates far higher than Ayn Rand
- Extracts from “What Is Capitalism?” By Ayn Rand
- Ayn Rand the sworn enemy of racism, which is a form of collectivism
- Et tu, Basu?
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
Ayn Rand would have sharply rebuked Kaushik Basu for his dehumanising corruption proposal http://t.co/5KJZA4bE
Ayn Rand would have sharply rebuked Kaushik Basu for his dehumanising corruption proposal http://t.co/nMCHYW8G
Sanjeev,
I am not sure if you are referring to me here – or someone else.
Actually, I never referred to Basu’s comments. I have not even read his comments deeply yet. It was PD who referred to him.
And, it was I – not PD – who mentioned Ayn Rand’s name a few times.
So, I am confused who of us two you are referring to.
Saurabh, my aim is to have you and PD (and others reading this) join the Freedom Team and work together to FIX India’s problems. I try to demonstrate through my rapid fire writings that there is no short cut, no rationalisation, that can overcome the disastrous problems of India.
I don’t want you to think that I speak with spite. I am firm and very blunt, but I speak to promote the bigger picture of personal integrity and freedom.
In brief, don’t worry about “who” is the commentator I refer to. This is a simplification. Worry, instead, whether what I say makes sense or not.
I want you on board, not offside.
s
Dear Sanjeev,
Thanks for your reply – and it has made me happy.
My aim in life is to make the following intellectual case: “Irrationality is the root cause of all evils”.
I think our purposes have significant overlap. So, I too intend to reach the minds of intellectuals/leaders like you. Also, I will not be deterred…
The question I have for you is: Does joining FTI ‘require’ one to have Political ambitions? My vision is to primarily be an intellectual – and not a Politician. I want to fight for and against Ideas primarily.
To know more about me, you can refer to my website. Regards..
Dear Saurabh
I’m looking for citizens, not observers. There are very few citizens-intellectuals in India, almost all have taken on the self-proclaimed mantle of preaching to the corrupt and incompetent leaders of India, as if these mobsters are interested in listening to them. Such delusion.
By all means fight bad ideas, but you can’t fight against bad ideas without directly being at front. This is a war. No place for a commentator/preacher. Only doers are needed.
s
OK. This seems to be another point of difference between us.
I am mainly interested in a ‘revolution’. And I think that revolution will suceed by the ‘objectivity’ of Ideas.
My approach is to mainly ‘do’ mental karma. This implies doing research (in understanding human-beings and their cognitive biases), gaining excellent clarity and objectivity in thought and behavior, and making an intellectual case for the right ideas.
And, my target segment is not just the corrupt leaders. I also want to target the non-corrupt would-be leaders (such as you). They also need guidance. In fact, I think these leaders need philsophical/intellectual guidance the most – to ensure their war has impeccable foundations.
I may be sounding boastful/pre-sumptuous. But, this is what my goal is. Time will tell the rest. Right now I am in the process of discovering the ‘truth’. So, I am asking fundamental questions – and applying critical thinking.
For instance, to give you a flavor, the issue of bribing being moral for ‘legitimate’ cases is still not clear to me. So, as my potential leader, can you again make a case for it? WHY is it immoral? It can’t be immoral becuase it is immoral. It has to have something ‘basic’ in it to make it immoral. What is that?
I request an answer that is logical/non-emotional, and that discusses the ‘fundamental’ principles involved.
Dear Saurabh
You make a big mistake by (a) trying to influence other leaders and (b) not understanding the grovelling, animal-like immorality of bribe giving for the same of petty personal gain.
Let’s move on.
s
Dear Sanjeev,
You are still not giving me the ‘rationale’. You are using mainly adjectives.
If you could condense your entire argument into 5-6 objective sentences – it will make it easier to read/understand/debate/etc.
This may be in your self-interest. Think about it.
But, we will move on, if you wish so. Though I am still keen on continuing.
Saurabh, I’ve explained at length already. You have not heard. For more details on what self interest means (enlightened self interest, not petty short sighted) consider reading DOF (http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/). If you were a potential leader for India I’d spend more time with you, but you’ve ruled yourself out.
Dear Sanjeev,
You are right – you have already written at length.
But, the problem I have been facing is that, since you have used so many words, I am not able to get the ‘essence’ of your argument.
That is why it would have been good if you could have written your argument again – and this time just the ‘essence’. This would have helped me read/understand/debate it better.
A verbose answer is very very difficult to critically evaluate. Though, I can still devote time to reading it. But, it will become even more difficult to then debate with you. The confusion will keep on multiplying ..
If you see this point of mine, then we could re-engage. I will make my best effort to comprehend and critique..
If you really are not willing to deal with me from now on, then no need to reply or to even let my comment appear on your website. Regards..
Saurabh, read Ayn Rand’s summary. Just the handful of words starting: “It does not mean a momentary or a merely physical survival.” That’s in essence, also my summary. Do consider reading Adam Smith on enlightened self-interest, and a shorter version in DOF.
s