Wotan

It's amazingly sad to hear that Steve Jobs recently went into semi-retirement, evidently due to overwhelming and unlucky health difficulties. Because Jobs is a true capitalist hero. He gave the world: computer windows and mice, the Apple II, Macintosh, Pixar animation movies, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Humanity is incomparably richer and happier because of just this one man. And a grateful planet has made him a deserved billionaire in the process. Steve Jobs contrasts with the capitalist semi-heroes Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. All three started from nothing and ended up mega-rich, having benefited their fellow man massively thru business genius and stunning capitalist achievement. But Jobs differs from Buffet and Gates in that he isn't a public advocate of the killingly-evil morality of self-sacrifice, nor the loathsomely-evil politics of welfare statism. It's worth noting that all three business magnates have enormous numbers of employees who are strong New Liberals: whether Objectivists, semi-Objectivists, libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, or updated classical liberals. The numbers here are wildly disproportionate and shocking. Yet none of the three commercial giants and high-prominence public figures -- not Buffet nor Gates nor Jobs -- openly promote these neoliberal ideals, nor donate to organizations which do. So all three could stand some intellectual self-improvement if they want to be considered truly and incontrovertibly great. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs are all genuinely magnificent businessmen -- but philosophical dolts.

No. But the world does. Everyone wants to know: What should gov't do? I just told you.

Good guess, Zip. But not so. My point is: cutting (or raising) taxes is irrelevant to freedom. Only cutting spending and regulation advances liberty. Cutting taxes is fool's gold -- or sheer poison.

I deliberately omitted advocating cutting taxes. I don't think that such a policy is consonant with increasing political freedom. Cutting regulation is always and universally good -- until we get to 0. Cutting spending is almost always and universally good -- until we get to 2% or so (to fund the police, army, jails, courts, gov't itself, and nothing else). Cutting taxes is questionable. Or positively evil. Cutting taxes doesn't reduce the size or power of gov't. It just puts off the day of reckoning. All those gov't bills have to be paid eventually. Probably better sooner than later. Paying later via excessive tax cuts raises inflation and interest rates -- both of which hurt the economy. Tax cuts which add to the deficit also provide the mere illusion of doing something -- of cutting the size and power of gov't -- not the reality. Only cutting regulation and spending provides the reality of shrinking gov't reach and influence, and of advancing individual liberty.

Mark2 is right that Craig Murray (whose book I read) is an amazing hero and freedom-fighter, in his own way. He's also a fairly admirable lover of "wine, women, and song" and life! Mark2 is also right that the U.N.'s idea of individual rights is very inferior to America's first 10 Amendments, and subject to wide interpretation besides. Still, it's far better than what the Libyans are almost certainly going to get. In some important sense, however, it is America and the West's job, business, and social duty to insist on liberty for the helpless political children of Libya who are currently so ignorant. America and the West should be like a brief, light parent to them governmentally. A tiny effort now by the political liberals of this earth will very likely yield large benefits for both parties later. And, yes, in some instances (where the cost is low and profit high) this insistence should take the form of guns and bombs against evil-doers and slavery-reinstaters. No more than justice allows, to be sure, but force is proper and necessary here. The socialists and jihadis should be nipped in the bud, so that the political liberals can far, far better flourish in the long run.

When dictatorships are first overthrown, they're extremely vulnerable and open to outside influence -- especially from the semi-civilized, semi-free West, which they generally look up to, and naturally turn to. This was true of eastern Europe in 1989, the Soviet Union in 1991, Kuwait in 1991, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Tunisia and Egypt this year, and most recently Libya. These were the times when the political liberals, and other forces of freedom, needed to act. This was when the West -- led by America -- needed to insist on a new government and rule of law based upon the U.S. Bill of Rights -- or at least the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which virtually all states are already pledged). Western liberal influence ought to have come down hard on these weak, wide-open peoples and polities. America and the West ought to have influenced the hell out of them in the direction of liberty, justice, and individual rights. But in fact they did only a hint of a suggestion of a shadow of this. Mostly the self-hating, self-destroying West violated its Age of Reason and Enlightenment liberal roots and essence by adhering to its current false and evil political philosophy of democracy -- not freedom. It promoted autonomy and self-rule -- not freedom. It backed political correctness and multiculturalism -- not freedom. It supported moral equivalency and cultural relativism -- not freedom. Such is the loathsome and depraved political value system of today's irrational, illiberal West. Earlier this year America and the West brutally betrayed the long-suffering people of Tunisia and Egypt. And we're about to do the same to the people of Libya. Virtually no-one in scumbag, pro-slavery America, Britain, France, Germany, and Japan is going to speak up for freedom in Libya -- just as virtually no-one did recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia and Egypt. The philosophically ignorant, morally unself-confident, self-hating, self-destroying, irrational, illiberal West -- led by impotent, feckless, paper tiger America -- is about to do its usual stupid, hateful, evil thing in Libya. Just watch.

Big Brother is killing America. The economically-stupid-and-evil right-wing conservatives favor cutting government taxes while the economically-stupid-and-evil left-wing progressives favor raising government spending. These political and economic ignoramuses allege that this tyrannical nonsense will "stimulate the economy." But the correct answer is -- as much as possible -- cut spending and cut regulations.

Schwarzenegger was a tough guy of character with a true element of libertarianism in him when he took office. But he was TOTALLY corrupted by power. After a few years in office, he came to be 100% in favor of Big Brother. Governor George Pataki (1995-2006) of New York was almost IDENTICAL. Something about Welfare State power lays the strongest man low.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. sN *** Martin Luther King was anti-Western, anti-American, anti-freedom, pro-socialism, pro-sacrifice, and pro-"god". He was an adulterer, plagiarist, arch-hypocrite, and general lowlife. And, oh yes, he was a stunning RACIST. Why is HELL does irrational, illiberal, self-hating, self-destroying America have a holiday dedicated to him? On, yeah.

We can't deal with "the N word" unless we note who is using it: almost all blacks and virtually NO whites. We also have to note who is racist today: the overwhelming majority of blacks and close to NO whites.

Harris is serious about this "no free will" nonsense -- unfortunately. He makes the same argument in his current book The Moral Landscape -- an otherwise decent work which claims that proper ethics and a guide to universal well-being can be scientifically determined and verified.

Nowadays only niggers call niggers niggers.

Dante -- I appreciate the seriousness of your answer (finally!). Maybe William James won't win the debate after all. And, yes, his whole essay is considerably off in that he thinks collectivistically about 90% of the time in it. Still, I think everyone is missing his main point. Life is a kind of passionate, throbbing, exultant phenomenon. Without war, life become insipid, colorless, and hardly worth living. Or such is James's argument. So we NEED a non-war alternative to keep life exciting, thrilling, vibrant, and hugely fun. AND to give our lives meaning and purpose. I think my suggestions to provide the needed passion and excitement are pretty good: competition in business/wealth, sports/games, love/friendship, art, education, and volunteerist organizations. AND competition against reality and yourself (which I forgot to add in my initial comment). But maybe my alternatives aren't that great, and someone else can provide some superior alternatives, or show why my suggestions are weak.

William James is a good example of a very strong philosopher, and his 1906 essay is still hugely influential. It's a shame that so far no-one here on OO.net takes his analysis seriously or provides a superior alternative (other than my own). In the face of silence, William James surely wins by default.

Philosopher William James in 1906 said that in order to defeat the phenomenon of war -- with all of its positive impacts upon human character, social unity, and personal greatness -- we need "the moral equivalent of war." He suggested socialism and/or mandatory collective national service for youth. I suggest rather ferocious effort at business/wealth, sports/games, love/friendship, art, education, and volunteerist organizations. Also goodly attempts to defeat human suffering and DEATH. The combination of most of these should hugely get the competitive fires of individual greatness burning -- while still promoting human solidarity and brotherhood -- and prove to be viable "sublimations" and superior alternatives to the extraordinary horror, destruction, and expense of warfare. http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm [The Moral Equivalent of War; 8 pages of semi-difficult reading]

Objectivist ideas constitute a radical challenge to current world philosophy and culture. People naturally fear the new and unknown -- especially when it's radical.

Everyone is different. Common sense indicates that different people in different circumstances need different approaches to life. This is the somewhat loose but general use of the term "philosophy." However, perhaps the formal use of this term is appropriate too. Different people may need a different set of virtues in order to achieve their separate set of values.

Philosophy is that discipline and branch of knowledge which tells you what the world is like and how to live in it. It explains the nature of the universe, and how to live fully and happily. But does the same philosophy hold for all people at all times? It seems to, when it comes to metaphysics, epistemology, and logic. So too even politics and economics. But what about ethics -- the heart of philosophy? And what about sociology, aesthetics, psychology, and spirituality? Does this vary from person to person based on such seminal issues as differences of age, locale, circumstances, and individual nature? Should a hated, ugly, stupid, poor, 80-year-old man in Lapland, who has extreme cancer, and is a manual laborer, practice the same philosophy as a beloved, pretty, smart, 15-year-old girl in Hawaii, who is healthy, and wants to be a poet? Would the same philosophy apply to Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, Homo Erecti, and bonobos? Maybe it's different strokes for different folks! Certainly some level of improvisation, based on personal situation and individual nature, seems desirable and necessary.

"Evil" is the diminution of quantity and quality of sentient life. "Malevolence" is diminishing it deliberately.

The Muslims are spitting and laughing in our faces here. When will we finally fight back? If the Cordoba House Muslims support jihadi groups via obligatory Muslim charity, they should go to jail. If jihadi groups support them, that makes this a criminal enterprise which shouldn't legally be allowed. One way or the other, the top jihadi mosques and madrassas in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan should be Predator Droned to rubble!!!

I read The Virtue of Selfishness at 18 and 1/4. Converted to Objectivism within 24 hours. Felt ecstatic, thrilled, bewildered, enervated, and beaten-up.

Islam is being SO insensitive to the feelings of New Yorkers and Americans here. It's almost as if they WANT to cause us pain. It's almost as if they find us weak and lacking proper self-respect, so they take this opportunity to LAUGH at our agony.

Ex-babana eater: Hacking various cheap hardware devices by a single person for private use is such a trivial "crime" that in reality it constitutes no crime at all. In the history of man, has anyone ever been prosecuted for such? De minimis non curat lex.

Thanks whYNOT and JayR!

No-one has a comment on my short story? Damn, guess I wasn't radical enough!