The analogy is useful to me because that's what I mean by something being causal.

If every mind has a unique configuration so that plenty of times speech doesn't result in someone taking a particular action or having a particular belief, then I'd say that we're not at all able to show that speech is causal to actions or beliefs. Some other factor is causal to actions or beliefs in those cases--something about the minds in question (and perhaps that someone chose to perform a particular action or adopt a belief in response to the speech).

Let me rephrase your question for clarity's sake: If someone is unaware that their emotional complexes and habits-of-thought have been created or reconfigured by a self-serving manipulative agent, should we consider these complexes and habits---and all resulting physical and psychical activity---voluntary? — ZzzoneiroCosm

You didn't clarify it. You made it more complex. My question was quite simple.

The answer is no. (If you want to pivot to a dusty discussion of free will, count me out.) — ZzzoneiroCosm

Finally. Thank you for agreeing that your argument in the OP isn't an argument against your Rand quote because if it's not voluntary, then it doesn't fall under the point Rand was making. So you're essentially creating a straw man. This what most of you socialists do when it comes to Libertarians.

Here "propagandic phenomena" is defined as "that phenomena by which a self-serving manipulative agent creates or configures the emotional complexes and habits-of-thought of a given subject." — ZzzoneiroCosm

So, how does a self-server become a self-server? How is it that they are able to manipulate others without being manipulated themselves? Maybe we each make a choice to give up some of our individual liberty in order to interact with others, or in order to take part in manipulating others.

If someone is unaware that their emotional complexes and habits-of-thought have been created or reconfigured by a self-serving manipulative agent, should we consider these complexes and habits---and all resulting physical and psychical activity---voluntary? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'd say that we shouldn't assume that they're voluntary, and we shouldn't assume that they've been caused by the "manipulative agent" either. We don't actually know what's the case there, but we do know that to date, we haven't been able to demonstrate that speech can be causal to actions and beliefs. It can certainly be influential to actions and beliefs, but influence is different from causality.

You didn't answer my question.

It might be worthwhile to note, however, that by pretending to take Rand seriously Ryan & Co appear to understand something that their opponents don't, and thus cannot criticise, or their criticisms can be arbitrarily dismissed as "misunderstandings".

They don't seem to be pretending; it's a perfect myth to justify antipathy (unempathy) in the old Calvinist vein maybe like Max Weber said. (I of course exclude Trump who is way dumber than Ryan.)


The smartest or most philosophically-minded of their opponents might understand it though it seems to be difficult to understand it except by being it. I think it's good to learn how to criticize it and I think the cure to not understanding it is to think more about it. We can at least approach it with a powerful imagination.