aeinste1n

I personally love Colbert's humor. When I saw this segment I first danced for joy that objectivism recieved free advertisement, but then later sighed because I remembered that he only brings things up to make fun of them. As far as humor goes in objectivism, I would say that nothing that is serious and a statement of ones values can be made to laugh at. In other words, Colbert was in the wrong, whereas if he would have said it sarcasticaly like "why would anyone ever want to be interested in themselves" then this would be fine as it illustrates the truth of the principle.

Thanks so much for the replies. I really appreciate it. I suppose you are right, I assumed that it would be operated in a completely rational society. The are, however, many venues for corruption. I never meant that the government would use the money for anything other than to pay for the actual prison costs. So, in that sense yes, I can see how any source of income to be generated by prisons would be against a capitalistic society. I guess then all we can do is lower the cost of living quarters and use the prisoners to help maintain the jail. As for Joe Arpaio, I don't really know much about him or his history. I heard a similar idea from him once, and I didn't want to steal his credit or anything. I in no way endorse him. (jeez, I feel like Obama after the Crazy Preacher thing) I did want to comment on one post though. No, I am actually offended and confused as to how you got racial conquest and slavery out of this. As I stated, this would only be for criminals who actually committed crimes. I am in no way pro-slavery. But, like I said above, I can see how it could easily be corrupted. Finally, to add my comment on the ongoing restitution tangent. The fining of criminals does violate their rights, their right to the product of their own work. Yes it would take a lot of money to completely compensate for a violent crime, but murder or rape could mean different things to those victimized, as would losing wealth be different to different people. The fact of the matter is, I can't see a system that is run completely by restitution. However, monetary restitution is a violation of the criminal's rights, and, if it is determined to be equal and just, then it would be an acceptable punishment for a violent crime. It comes down to whatever the jury/judge/society determines to be an equal loss of rights on both sides.

I have been toying around with the idea of a way to make imprisonment a more practical punishment. Currently, prison costs millions of dollars and is more of a punishment for the state than the criminals. Many of whom recive modern comforts. I have borrowed several ideas from a warden in Arizona named Joe Arpaio. My proposed system would be like this. First of all, instead of buffing up and raping eachother, the prisoners will be working. This prison will be less like a hotel and more like a sweatshop. I'm not so concerned for the prisoners comfort, but we won't work them to death. In fact, working will be volitional. If you choose not to work, you don't get fed. Just like in the real world. I figure if we sell this labor to buisinesses we could pay for the prison system, we wouldn't need China for labor anymore. How much less would it cost to ship toys halfway overseas and pay meagre wages than to ship toys across town and pay no wages? And if anyone is concerned about the quality of the product, it will be inspected (with extra punishment for faulty work), and besides, it's probably not much safer than toxic baby food, and lead toys from China. Secondly, instead of punishing criminals to time, we sentence them to an amount of credit to earn. Have something similar to a factory and and apartment, intead of a prison. They can sign up to work as many hours as they choose, and if they work hard enough, they can get promoted to a higher quality job that earns more credit per hour. They can likewise be demoted, or punished with more credit to earn. Another idea is to allow them luxuries like non-crappy food, or better furniture for their cell, etc., in exchange for credit earned. They will stay longer but they have a more comfy time. All this means that the harder they work the sooner they can get out, giving them incentive to maybe put in a few extra hours. I say there is absolutly no better form of rehabilitation, because this is exactly how the world works. They would come out of prison ready to succeed, not strong enough beat people up. Thirdly, I push for much harsher punishment. If the prisoners work harder they still won't be able to get out for a long time. No more light sentencing. A year or two of manual labor should create some good deterance. And as for life imprisonment, I would not suggest infinite credit to earn, but an exorbantly high amount. One that they might just be able to reach in their last years. Having no chance of freedom would destroy any incentive to work harder. Now, as for those too old to work. We already have special care for them now anyway. And I doubt it makes much of a difference either way. If you are too old to assemble toys, you are probably too old to murder or steal. Prisoners that are sentenced for a large amount can build up credit and then just do minimal work for the remainder of their stay. (they will still be required to do some work to "pay" for meals) I have also thought about this system being used as something similar to a volitional debtors prison, to give a job opportunity to the poor, but I am unsure if that would give too much power to the government. I think this system is far superior to the one we have now. It is more efficient (maybe even profitable), more apt at creating deterrance, and it promotes proper rehabilitation to a capitalistic society. Are there any kinks with this system? Any problems with its funtionality? Any problems ethically? Any ideas for improvement?

"The only thing we have to fear, is accessing our porn at rates slower than 3 gigabytes per second." Hmm, we invented cars, but we don't give every child a free car now do we? Oh, wait that's what you're trying to get passed right now isn't it. Really guys, really? sigh Well, if you can't beat'em, join'em.

Yes, but the question is why are they altruistic. In their studies wouldn't they see that reason would favor an objectivist stance? Intellectuals are mainly altruist because that morality has been taught to them in most of the higher coastal schools, and they spread it around the country. These schools have been heavily influenced by european ideals and for that reason a more socialist european code of ethics is taught. Another reason is that most intellectuals view capitalism as irrational is because it is favored by the right. The political right (i.e. most republicans) are supportive of a more free market system, and they defend it quite irrationally. Quite frankly, anything that is defended by arguements like "we've always done it" or "God said to" seems inncorrect. This is why many intellectuals distance themselves from anything they see as mainstream or inferior. This intellectual trend is spreading, and actually quite dangerous. Intellectuals and "wordsmiths" shape the ideas of a society. The ramifications are evident in this recent election.

Of course! Justice is silly. Who cares if someone is right or wrong. The evil and decietful people are the same as the good and honest ones. Why judge people, it's not like we need to determine if anyone is right or wrong. Morals shouldn't be applied to reality, that's just ridiculous. Oh, but wait. Saying that wishing to succeed is like a "parasite", that it is "wrong", is exactly what you are trying to condemn. This is the stance of a mysticist. That it is not our place to jusdge, and that morality has nothing to do with life. Objectivism condemns some as evil and some as good, if it didn't do that, then what would be the purpose of the right and the wrong. We have to judge (objectively) in order to have justice and a functioning society. Even from the beginning it was known that the thief was different from the trader. Moral judgement is vital, if it didn't exist why would anyone be good in the first place? (because they wouldn't even know what the good is.) Humans are not inherently evil. That is what you seem to think. That if any person attempts something, they will fail. If we are all ultimately worthless, then why try anything. People can succeed, they can achieve their values. The reason most people don't (besides the intrusion of others on their rights) is because they choose not to. Objectivism does not tell you what to hate, it tells you what to love; reason, productivity, personal values, and self. Yes, arrogance, or pride, is exactly what those nations who are moral will feel. They will know that they are right and justified, and they should certainly be proud of it. To be humble, and lower that which they have done right, is to say that it wasn't really right at all. America has not yet earned the right to be proud. She has not achieved capitalism or justice since her original founding. But, when that happens, I say that we should shout it from the rooftops, "We are good, we are moral, we are right. You should be more like us." We should say that not because it is arrogant, but because it is true. Do not fool yourself. Britain did not murder innocents because it was capitalistic. It did not force millions into near slavery because it was free. It did these things because it had become more socialist, because it cared less about free market success and more about market domination. Britain, like America, began to fail because it had no grounding for capitalism, and slowly, the government came in and seized control. Please, I only wish America felt discredited because we don't believe in capitalism anymore. Americans feel like their country is wrong because it believes in capitalism. But what we fail to realize that is that we already favor the welfare state, and condemn the hardworking to slavery. Precisely. It either comes justly from someone who is morally right, or it comes randomly from someone who is morally wrong. Ha. People do not fail because they are aware of the fact that they are succeeding. Like I said before, just because you succeed does not mean you fail. You are right about one thing though. It is inherent in human nature to be proud of their success, it's only natural to be happy when have achieved your values. Wanting to achieve is not a weakness. It is a strength, because if there is no desire to be had out of winning, then nobody wins. Succeeding, achieving your values, and doing what is right, will not make you a monster. If, the full realization of your values is the destruction of innocents lives, and the devastation of the world, then you are amonster, and, were from the very start. Objectivism states that productive work, with respect to the rights of others, is your action, whereas success is your goal. If, after that point, you become an evil destructive person, then you personally have chosen to stray from your morality. To achieve success by production is objectivist, to then turn around and destroy others is not. If the evil you wish to eliminate is the violation of peoples' rights by those in power, then you are in the same boat as objectivists. You should hate those who actually commit the evil act, not those who are just "arrogant". Yes, it is called objectivism.

No, the republican party was not influenced heavily by Ayn Rand. Niether was America. The republican party chose capitalism not because it was championed by objectivism, or because it made any sense. The republicans chose capitalism on arbitrary grounds. We chose without reason and we aboandoned it just as quickly, which is why we are no longer followers of the free market and why we are suffering econmically. No, I'm fairly sure there are successful people that remained successful all their life. If continuous failure were ultimately unavoidable, there would no such thing as inheritance. If we will all eventually fail, then why would we ever try? Capitalism does not boom and bust. When America became capitalist it "boomed". When we got comfortable, people started to point out that free market had no moral grounds. (objectivism was not influential) And we reverted to a more public and welfare based system. Then came the crushing recession. America has never truly created a capittalist economy anyway. We have become increasingly welfare-state which is why we are facing one of the worst periods in our history. Yes, it is. But that's because out civilisation is predominantly altruist and mysticist. If the crushing lows continue after we have a firm and objective culture, then we'll talk. Success is the opposite of destruction. The very principle of rational selfishness is that you can succeed and produce without taking advantage of others. It is the socialist and facist society which must destroy others to prosper. Objectivism does not claim that those who fail are evil. The "Ayn Rand Hero" is precisely one who continues to try even if he fails. Attempts to achieve his values no matter what the obstacles, because he realizes that his values are all that he should seek. Because he knows that if he lowers himself to the point that he lives off the sacrifice of others then he has no purpose, no reason to live. The morally inferior are not those fail, but those who don't even try. What? There is only one part of us that requires food; our bodies. And only one part of us that requires fufillment of values; our mind. Of course we can control ourselves, if we couldn't we would be primitive animals. If we couldn't control our urges to bully and pick fights that is all we could ever do. Morality would have no purpose because we wouldn't be able to follow it.

Jeez, simmer down. That comment wasn't directed at me, and this is really late, but I still feel the irrational anger. A blog isn't worth it.

While I agree that the war on the south was in many ways unjust, and Lincoln may not have been as much of an abolitionist as he is made out to be, Lincoln is not the most horrible person in history. There have been so many more terrible and hate-deserving people in this world. Is Lincoln really deserving of so much attention? Find someone more evil to burn in effigy. Look, the civil war was fought brutally and was not really started for just reasons, but then you would also agree that we should hate our leaders for starting: the mexican american war, the war and genocide of native americans, vietnam, korea, and, most recently, Iraq. America is known for starting wars for unjust reasons and labeling them noble. The civl war is just one of many.

Alexander was best known for his close support and backing of his troops! He was one of the last great commanders to actually fight with his men, and he was very close friends with many of them. The high morale of his men was what allowed him to defeat armies that were much larger than his own. He was also one of the first generals to employ heavy cavalry and charging tactics with his companion cavalry. The reason he didn't invade India was because his cavalry and phalanx were ill-equipped to fight elephants, but admittedly also because he had never encountered the typhoons that whipped across the Indian Ocean. Some scholars actually believe that he was planning to conquer India, but became ill and decided to return to Persia. Alexander did not posess superior technology. The persians had a huge and prosperous empire, and they were able to field any number of ranged and specialized military technologies. What the persians failed to counter was the combination of heavy armor and disipline of the phalanx and companions. The persians did have the capability to field heavier forces, but mainly preffered evading and wearing down the enemy instead of a direct decisive confrontation. Essentially Alexander remphasized the fact that quality is superior to quantity and in this case diversity. But the reason I chose Alexander was because of his assimilation techniques. He didn't just rape and pillage like Ghengis Khan, or enforce harsh new laws like Ceaser, Alexander kept most of the existing governments in place and merely subverted the kingship to himself. He even invited the losing generals and kings to dine with him instead of being executed in the traditional manner. He kept all of the trade routes and national infrastructure intact. Alexander's goal was not to destroy the world and its prosperity, but to unite the world under one ruler. Had he not died early, his far-reaching kingdom would have remained intact because he assimilated, not conquered.

Muslim writings also say that you should be hospitible and never initiate violence unless you are being opressed. Like any other irrational belief system Islam can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways. Some as, Thompson noted, are a more imminent threat because they advocate the direct use of force to achieve their goals. We use the term "radical" to describe these interpretations because they are not just irrational, they cause people to commit immoral acts therefore stopping them is a higher priority.

Hmmm, that's a tough one. If democrats count as animals I think I would have to go with the Dean Scream. If not, I would say a hyena laugh.

I generally agree with most of the other posts. This is not a huge deal, and you won't accomplish much with an angry letter. This is one of those let out this anger by writing such a letter, not by sending it. You need to take a calm and rational approach to this. If you alienate people they are less likely to look into objectivism. I had a teacher like this, and the best way to deal with it is to be tactful. Get on good terms with your teacher before you start argueing. If she doesn't respect you at all she won't listen to your arguements. Just mention little objectivist snips at the right time, and maybe if she wants you to write a paper, give it an objectivists view on things.

As if animals had rights. But yes I agree, this is a small victory in the sense that something right was done. Unfortunately that's about it.