UC Regents Meeting Protest at UCLA
So I realize that this is a bit late, but the thread about my status update got a bit out of hand, partially due to attributing positions to me based on the fact that other Objectivists made certain (unclear) comments. (Thank you, Sara, for helping to clarify some of that.) My purpose here is to further clarify my position…now that I’ve cooled down a bit. Also, I should mention that because I hate arguing about politics (and political-type issues), I don’t intend to respond to any further comments–unless there is some great value to me making further clarifications.
To begin with, my status update was not primarily about whether the protest got violent or was a violation of rights (although it did get violent). Nor was it primarily about the fact that I disagree with the opinions of the protestors (although that is relevant). My condemnation of the protesters was fundamentally about the style of the protest. It certainly has nothing to do with students daring to stand up for themselves or expressing an opinion that goes against the status quo. (And Christopher–why would you suggest such a thing when I myself started and run an activist organization that impugns wholesale the last two millennia of philosophy? It’s pretty unjust to accuse me of such hypocrisy.)
My problem is that the protest was utterly anti-intellectual. This is evident from the fact that group looked more like an angry mob than students rationally expressing their discontent: body language, yelling and shouting, defiance of and confrontation with the police (and the fact that the police were desperately necessary because the “mood” of the mob was incredibly threatening), advocating walking out of class and accosting those who went (this actually happened to a friend of mine), no serious intellectual arguments to back up their positions, etc.
Compare this protest to the Tea Parties–still leaving content aside. Police were not required at the Tea Party protests (to my knowledge), except, in some cases, to protect the protesters themselves. (Even if there were a few exceptions, my point is the overall trend and my own experience at a number of these protests.) The Tea Parties offered actual intellectual content–yes, emotions ran high, but they weren’t just rank emotionalism. And although some of the content may have been pretty poor (although I agree with the movement as a whole), at least the effort was to convince using argument and persuasion.
That having been said, I do not think that it is a coincidence that I disagree with the content. These students want education for free. Given the current cultural climate, it’s no surprise that many people think that education, health care, and many other services for free–they think these are rights–but nothing is “free” in the sense that it comes out of thin air. To take the education example: knowledge has to be discovered (which can be expensive, especially in the sciences), and professors, administrators, and staff need to get paid. And who is to pay for these things? These students want American citizens to be forced through taxation.
Now, Ben, you suggested that crimes of physical violence are graver than those against private property. I don’t agree with that as a rule (although I agree in many cases), but the irony of your statement is that when the government coercively taxes its citizens, it is under penalty of force, that is, physical violence (e.g., in an extreme or ultimate situation, the government coming into one’s home with guns and dragging one out to jail). (Let us set aside a discussion of government financing in the type of society I advocate, and also the notion that I somehow agree to some sort of social contract binding me to paying taxes–both are relatively sophisticated issues in political philosophy.)
These students have a severely ingrained sense of entitlement, and their protest amounts to little more than the emotionalism of a child screaming “But I want it now!”, without any regard for the actual requirements of what it takes to create education and how to make it affordable.
Speaking of making education (or health care or any other human value) affordable, why not subject it to the same conditions that made every other human value affordable in our capitalist paradise–freedom (i.e., free markets)? Like all industries subjected to the profit motive and free trade, the quality of education would go up while the price went down. This can be verified inductively by looking at countless examples throughout history or deductively through the science of economics. (And for those of you who will raise the “elasticity” objection, consider how vitally crucial things like transportation, computer access, cell phones, etc. are, and yet somehow they are still incredibly affordable.)
Returning to my criticism of my protest, I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the protest got violent, resulting in the police having to use (retaliatory) force and making arrests. Because the manner of the protest was so anti-intellectual, so emotionalist, so angry, so aggressive, it was no surprise at all that it lead to blows. Somehow, I have difficulty envisioning the Tea Party protesters in LA, amid their speeches, storming the Federal Building. The difference is quite stark.
Jon–of course I am not against boycotting (unless of course, one is in violation of a contract by so doing). One certainly has the right to avoid associating with another. However, that’s not the same as a sit-in. (Sara already indicated that it is a matter of property rights–although, the issue is unfortunately muddled when “public property” is involved.) Thankfully, a sit-in is not at issue here, even though I think that sit-ins share a certain fundamental anti-intellectual similarity with the kind of protest that occurred at UCLA.
Finally, as for name-calling and baseless accusations–a status update is not a treatise. I have only so much room to give an indication as to my status, and at that moment, it was to indicate my extreme displeasure with what happened at UCLA. Believe me, it was mild compared to what I was feeling. And really, it was mild compared to the disrespect and sarcasm that some of the commenters on the original status update showed to other commenters.
Anyway, I hope that this clears up my position. For those of you interested in some of the more philosophic points, I recommend Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. In particular, I recommend the essays “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government”.
