Undercurrent

“Is the Welfare State Just?”: An Interview with Don Watkins. from The Undercurrent on Vimeo. Best-selling author and Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, Don Watkins, will debate UW-Madison political scientist, Howard Schweber, on the morality of the welfare state. When: April 1st. 2014 Where: UW-Madison Wisconsin @ 6:30 Central; Varsity Hall 2 This event will be live streamed (link info will be posted on www.itsyourlifeownit.org) Check out our recent video interview with Don Watkins, where he discusses his position on the issue. Stay tuned for our upcoming interview with debate opponent Howard Schweber, where he counters Watkins’ argument and offers a preview on his defense of the morality of the welfare state. What do you think about the welfare state? Is it just? Leave your comments here, or share your thoughts on Facebook and Twitter. The post Announcing TU’s Spring 2014 Campaign Event! A Debate entitled, “Is the Welfare State Just?” appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://theundercurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/iStock_000003827328Medium.jpg"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-5398" alt="iStock_000003827328Medium" src="http://theundercurrent.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/iStock_000003827328Medium.jpg" width="611" height="407" /></a></p> <p>Since the early 1900s, education has been compulsory in most U.S. states for children between the ages of six and seventeen. The precise age range varies, but the consequences are often severe. Local ordinances, like <a href="http://www.effinghamdailynews.com/local/x1981936981/Proposed-Effingham-County-truancy-ordinance-would-fine-parents">those recently proposed</a> in an Illinois city, levy fines against parents whose children miss a certain number of school days and can make alternative educational strategies such as homeschooling more difficult. Similar <a href="http://www.albanyherald.com/news/2013/may/02/student-truancy-crackdown-urged/">laws</a> also provide for uniformed officers to patrol and enforce truancy laws.</p> <p>In Texas, truancy is considered a <a href="http://www.texasobserver.org/tough-truants/">crime</a> and students can be prosecuted in adult courts. Texas law permits students to miss at most ten days every six months. In <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/us/texas-lawmakers-take-on-truancy-laws.html?_r=4&amp;">one case</a>, Elizabeth Hebert was summoned to appear in court as a “parent contributing to nonattendance.” In the end, the case was dropped when it became clear that it was her daughter Rachel’s chronic cerebral palsy that was keeping her from school, not her mother’s negligence.</p> <p>The philosophy behind compulsory education is that students need education in order to become responsible citizens. If some do not understand the value of an education, according to this way of thinking they should be made to see its value through time spent in the school system.</p> <p>Despite being zealously enforced, compulsory education policies cannot force students to learn—not in any meaningful sense.</p> <p>Simply bringing students to school and exposing them to information does not make them see its value or force them to benefit from it. Learning means more than the passive absorption of information: it means actively integrating information into knowledge. To actively integrate information, one must maintain a vigilant mind, investigate available information, relate it to prior experience and to one’s wider body of knowledge, and make it the basis for one’s practical ambitions.</p> <p>For example, a student might be taught passively to recall the information that Hitler was an evil leader of Germany who was responsible for the holocaust and World War II. But to acquire meaningful knowledge, a student must seek to understand how Hitler could have been elected by an otherwise civilized society: because it had accepted certain core political ideas in a time of economic turmoil. The active student has the potential to learn a valuable lesson that might inform his own political awareness and make him a more informed citizen who could be vigilant against dictatorship. But this understanding is too subtle to be dictated to a student by a teacher; it can only be obtained through self-directed learning.</p> <p>Students who integrate information into knowledge gain the ability to teach themselves. But students who simply memorize facts do not have this ability because they have not learned to love learning itself. They must rely on other people to explain the significance and meaning of new information, just as they accepted that the teacher was telling them everything they needed to know.</p> <p>The only guaranteed result of the compulsory educational process is a student who may have acquired some awareness of basic information and some low level skills but who needs to be reprogrammed in every new situation. Such a person is in thrall to those who can explain (or simply dictate) lessons to them.</p> <p>At an intellectual level, an education is valuable to a student only <i>if he or she wants it</i>. The mind of an individual cannot be compelled to value an education (or anything else)—especially an education which is presented as irrelevant to the student’s own values.</p> <p>Suppose that a student wants to work in a trade that does not require an advanced formal education. There are numerous employment opportunities that do not require individuals to have an appreciation for Shakespeare or an understanding of algebra. In many cases, these students are wasting valuable time that would be better spent preparing for their future.</p> <p>There may indeed be many students who would profit from Shakespeare and algebra but who do not desire to learn it. Such students have only themselves and their parents to blame. If they fail to pursue their own interests, or their parents fail to encourage them to do so, they alone bear responsibility for the consequences.</p> <p>There are also students who do want to study these topics, and they are also victims of compulsory education. They are sometimes required to be in the presence of other people who do not want to learn and who distract them from the pursuit of their goals.</p> <p>It is precisely individuals who have a strong sense of self, who understand that the curriculum taught in the traditional government classroom is not relevant to or even consistent with their own ambitions, who suffer the most under compulsory education.</p> <p>Consider for instance the case of <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/28/texas-honor-student-jailed-for-missing-too-much-school/">Diane Tran</a>, an honors student who missed more than ten days at her school in Texas. Tran, who works one full time and one part time job to support her siblings, was jailed for twenty-four hours and fined for her truancy. The words of the sentencing judge illustrate a central problem with compulsory education policies: “If you let one run loose, what are you going to do with the rest of them?”</p> <p>One has the sense, from these comments, that the judge is talking about escaped criminals who ought to be rounded up, not absentee school-children engaged in supporting a family. Tran’s case demonstrates that individuals who can learn on their own do not benefit from being forced to sit in classrooms all day. Competent, exemplary citizens do not roll off of production lines at the end of high school—they handcraft themselves.</p> <p>Both students who wish to learn and those who do not are victims of compulsory education because both are taught that they, as individuals, do not matter. Requiring people to attend school, over and against their (and their family’s) wishes teaches students that they should not trust their own judgment, that they should instead respect the values that government authority figures dictate to them.</p> <p>Perhaps it was not a coincidence that <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/churchill.pdf">Winston Churchill</a> was able to describe Germany in 1934 as a “nation . . . of the most educated, industrious, scientific, <i>disciplined</i> people in the world.” Compulsory education was first introduced in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/1999/dec/03/schools.comment">Prussia</a> and later extended to the unified German nation in the nineteenth century.</p> <p>Churchill was not wrong: many Germans were well-educated, in the sense that they had developed certain skills that enabled many to be better industrial workers. But it is not enough to know how to perform even an advanced scientific task. A person must know <i>why</i> they should perform such a task. And a student who has been taught by compulsory education that his own values do not matter will have few tools for deciding what purpose his work should serve. Hitler’s Nazi party did not come to power because of compulsory education, but German schools clearly didn’t prepare the German citizenry to resist Hitler’s arguments.</p> <p>People must be able to decide which goals they should work towards and which values they should pursue. Their own needs, priorities, and capacities should guide them in making this decision. While a person may be informed by outside sources, the ultimate decision about which goals to work towards rests with the individual.</p> <p>An appropriate system of education would apply the same kinds of principles to educating older children and adolescents that <a href="https://amshq.org/Montessori-Education.aspx">Maria Montessori</a> developed for educating younger children. Such a system would recognize that children as individuals needs to be given the freedom (within appropriate limits) to pursue knowledge that is relevant to their own interests and should not be compelled to follow a particular course of study dictated by the state. There should indeed be some parental oversight, but this should aid children in pursuing their own goals.</p> <p>While a broad, liberal education, like that taught in our public schools, might be useful to certain students pursuing a college education, it is no substitute for allowing students and parents to make their own decisions about what is valuable and allowing them to develop their minds in unique, individual ways. At least <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/17/utah-legislator-calls-for-end-to-compulsory-education/">one legislator in Utah</a> has recognized the need to abolish compulsory education laws, and other states should adopt similar measures.</p> <p>Compulsory education laws are at best an ineffective societal experiment being carried out on our children by force. As such, they are immoral and should be scrapped in favor of allowing individual people to make decisions about what is valuable to themselves.</p> <p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="http://theundercurrent.org/unlearning-individualism-lessons-compulsory-education/">Unlearning Individualism: The Lessons of Compulsory Education</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://theundercurrent.org">The Undercurrent</a>.</p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:JUhcmGiK9AQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=JUhcmGiK9AQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:WkrIHMmXu7Y"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:WkrIHMmXu7Y" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=e7DORJvtuuM:f63hzHeZgcw:l6gmwiTKsz0"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/the-undercurrent/~4/e7DORJvtuuM" height="1" width="1"/> Link to Original

The newest edition of The Undercurrent is now available to order, and will arrive on your doorstep in the middle of March! Place your order by clicking here, or e-mail your name, address, and the number of copies you would like to [email protected]. The final day to order copies is February 24th, so get yours today! The Undercurrent is sold at or below our cost to print and ship the papers. Here are the prices for the Spring 2014 issue (including shipping and handling): 250 copies $30.00 500 copies $60.00 750 copies $85.00 1000 copies $115.00 1500 copies $165.00 If you would like to hand out copies but cannot afford to do so, please let us know. We may be able to find a donor to sponsor your distribution efforts. Send your request by e-mail to: [email protected]. On the other hand, if you have no time to distribute, we would greatly appreciate a donation. We’ll gladly distribute to a college of your choosing, or select a deserving campus on your behalf. In this issue, we survey the effect of government entitlements, analyze new Pope’s “nonjudgmental” attitude on social issues, and explore why it’s important for students to develop moral character. In this issue, we survey the effect of government entitlements, analyze new Pope’s “nonjudgmental” attitude on social issues, and explore why it’s important for students to develop moral character. As a special treat, we will feature an article by guest contributor and best selling author Don Watkins, on his current campaign, “End the Debt Draft.” Support your favorite Objectivist student organization and order today! The post We’re Now Taking Orders for the Spring 2014 Edition! appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Today’s generation of college students grew up on the notion that if they did well in school and got a college degree, good things were ahead. But recent news darkens this outlook. These days, everyone is facing stiffer competition for employment: in May of 2013, there were 7.2 million people seeking work, up dramatically from 5.5 million in May of 2003. This is an increase of 30%, even as the total population has increased by only 9%. A recent report indicates that unemployment among Millennials aged 25 to 32, of all educational stripes, is higher than that of Generation X and Baby Boomers, among others. As the ratio of jobs to job-seekers has increased, the percentage of college graduates who are unemployed or underemployed has grown as well. The 2013 unemployment rate for those over 25 with at least a bachelor’s degree was around 8%, compared with just 5% in 2003. Students desperately need these jobs just to cover the cost of their education: since 2003, average student debt has increased from $19,300 to $35,200. Worse still, a 2013 report notes that while there are currently 28.6 million jobs in the economy requiring a college degree, there are currently 41.7 million employed college graduates. This means that about half of recent college graduates are working at jobs that don’t require their degree—up almost 10% from the year 2000. Present conditions simply don’t inspire the college endeavor. Quality jobs today are thus scarce at a time when students need them the most, giving students a greater incentive to settle for jobs for which they are simply overqualified. In the face of a daunting job market, what can today’s generation of students do differently to make the most out of their decision to go to college? To begin with, students must face the fact that competition for the best and most promising jobs will be tougher than it was a decade ago. Obviously, success inside the classroom is crucial to success after school. But even if students go to college and perform exceptionally well academically, it’s important not to overlook that university life presents more than just the opportunity to learn academic content and methods. Rather, it presents a unique opportunity for young adults to hone the particular virtues of character that will prepare them to pursue a happy, successful life. “Character” is the essence of who an individual person is, the enduring set of practical and emotional habits that result from his chosen convictions and values. Character traits, such as ambitiousness and competitiveness, differ from cognitive skills, such as mathematical proficiency and the ability to play the piano, insofar as character traits are the products of life habits—habits that are useful not only in work but in all of our other pursuits. In fact, cognitive skills are often themselves the results of life habits. “Virtues” of character are the particularly pervasive character traits which can empower a person to live his life and live it well. The job search itself requires virtues that students have the chance to develop further while attending school. The best jobs for graduates don’t come simply packaged with an earned degree. Searching for the right job requires a constant, carefully planned course of action. If students emphasize the development of their character throughout college, they have the opportunity to hone the virtues that are essential not only to finding a good job, but also to their pursuit of happiness more generally. Productiveness is the most obvious of those virtues. A 2012 study of how college students allocate their time each day shows that the average student spends just 3.4 hours each day on “school related activities,” including class and homework. That hardly seems to be an adequate amount of time to allot to school work each day, and raises the question of whether students today are being as productive with their time as they could be. To be sure, college should be a fun experience—but constant partying that permeates today’s university atmosphere flies in the face of the notion that celebration presupposes some achievement to celebrate. The productive student will go beyond merely attending class and performing well. He will both engage himself in the active pursuit of his hobbies through the many avenues on campus, and begin to build a social and professional network through campus clubs, part-time work, or volunteering. This active, productive mindset is critical to the job search: employers desire resumes showing evidence that a job candidate is a self-starter who creates and pursues opportunities for himself—which suggests that he would do the same for them. Going to college today represents a sort of rite of passage into adulthood from adolescence, in no small part because it is suitable environment for a young person to develop independence. Most students will leave home for the first time, exiting a world where teachers hold their hands and parents do their laundry, and entering an entirely new social environment, where professors are relatively hands-off and parents are nowhere to be found. But how many students entering college truly endeavor to foster their own independence? How many conceive of their life, and the form it will take, as their own responsibility and no one else’s? As the numbers indicate, not enough: while less than one-third of college graduates 18 to 24 still lived at home in 2001, that figure rose to almost half by 2011. While many students need their family’s support during college, the gravity of the change from living at home to attending university brings new opportunities for growth. It provides the perfect setting for young adults to learn to do things for themselves, starting at first with simple things like cleaning their dorm rooms and getting assignments in on time. But if students think of university as their own personal experiment where they alone, in a new and exciting environment, have the opportunity to craft themselves into the kind of person they’d like to become, then the kind of independence learned in college will be far more useful than for just doing the laundry or even getting that A. By doing everything from trying out new and challenging hobbies advertised at the campus club festival, to developing distinctly personal convictions from in-class discussions and conversation with peers, students have the opportunity for a world of independent growth. College can prepare students to develop a new and unique sense of who they are, and to face a market of employers searching for those outstanding few candidates with a confident and developed sense of identity. Employers want confident students who are willing to put themselves out there for the world to see. College students must also learn to defend the fruits of their independent productiveness with the virtue of integrity. Not only do students need to decide which ideas, values, and career goals are the right ones, they also need to act in accordance with their decisions. The graphic design graduate who settles for a job coaching soccer, the economics graduate who settles for a job as a supervisor at the local supermarket, the physical therapy graduate who settles for a job as a salesperson at his family’s car dealership—none of these graduates had the integrity to say “no” to or to break free from a job they never desired. Values have no value if they aren’t put into practice. Of course, finding the ideal position may be no small feat when jobs are scarce and opportunities more limited than they were a decade ago. But it’s possible for graduates to retain their integrity—their commitment to their deepest values—even if they’re unable to earn that ideal job at first. Graduates with integrity will relentlessly pursue the job that allows them to translate their values into action, if at first they fail to do so. While the first job right out of school may not be ideal for many, it offers an invaluable opportunity for graduates to meet professionals, apply skills and learn new ones, and with time, springboard from that first job to a better one. Those graduates who end up unemployed or working less-than-ideal jobs often tend to blame the job market. There’s certainly merit in that sentiment. But that way of thinking won’t change anything or help anybody. Rather, graduates should be asking the same question that current students must ask themselves: have I really done all that I can do? That analysis begins—but does not end—with grades and job performance. It extends to the further question: am I really all that I can be? The answer to that question lies in whether students have used college as an opportunity to become productive, to foster independence, to act with integrity, and to develop other virtues of character. These virtues will guide young persons though college as students, help them to navigate the unsure waters of the job market as graduates, and give them the tools to pursue the best life possible as mature adults. Creative-commons licensed image from Flickr user Dick Johnson. The post The Character Experiment: How Cultivating Moral Virtue Will Strengthen the Post-Grad Experience appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

It’s not every day that we see the mainstream media celebrate a religious figure as some kind of rock star. From Jimmy Swaggart to Ted Haggard, journalists usually treat religious leaders as hypocrites, buffoons, or both. Dispensation seems to have been granted for the new Roman Catholic pope, Francis (a.k.a. Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina). Bergoglio has become the darling of the media—rising even to the status of Time’s “Person of the Year”—because he has projected a more “liberal” tone on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Bergoglio consummated this love affair with the media on a plane from Rome to Brazil. When asked about his evaluation of homosexual priests, the pontiff declared poignantly: “Who am I to judge?” And yet journalists and pundits eventually qualify their adulation over the pope’s new “tone” with the admission that he has not proposed altering any substantive aspects of church doctrine. In fact, Bergoglio has reaffirmed all of Rome’s contentious dogmas: he has opposed same-sex marriage as a “total rejection of God’s law” and condemned abortion as a “fearful” offense against God, just to name a few. And even as Bergoglio puts a smile on the Church’s social doctrine, he pontificates with a grimace on matters economic. In his recent “apostolic exhortation” Evangelii Gaudium, Bergoglio issues a harsh condemnation of free market capitalism. In the tract, he directs his ire not at some faceless system, but at the individuals whose free choices drive the capitalist economy. The pontiff chastises as inhumane and ignoble the capitalists who are “in thrall to an . . . indifferent and self-centered mentality.” He laments “careerism” as the pursuit of “parched” souls who find themselves “buried under a pile of excuses.” He rebukes individualism as an “evil.” One could accuse Bergoglio of hypocrisy: he claims the mantle of nonjudgmental tolerance in one breath while hastening to judge people categorically in the next. But to single out the Pope in this regard would be petty. No one masquerading as “nonjudgmental” can be fully consistent. To sneer at moral judgment is—you guessed it—to make a moral judgment. The flaw here is not hypocrisy—it’s self-refutation. Members of the cult of moral tolerance can’t help but be judgmental in spite of themselves. No human being can avoid the necessity of making judgments. This applies in particular to the leader of a religious ideology. As a systematic world view, Catholicism offers its followers guidance for living and lists of virtues and vices consonant with its vision of the good life. To issue this advice is to render moral judgment. The need to judge the world and the people in it is a fact that is rooted in something deeper than one’s adherence to any specific ideology. It goes to the core of what it is to be a human being. Human beings are conceptual beings who unavoidably grasp similarities and differences in what they observe. And we cannot help but notice differences between what we take to be food and poison, between apparent friends and enemies. Whether we live in a cave or in a civilized metropolis, we need to make judgments of value. Try as we may, we cannot abandon the necessity of judgment, because we can’t see the world as an infant, without the benefit of the experience or the belief system we have built up over the years. The most we can do is pretend that we do not need to judge; we can abdicate the responsibility of forming judgments rationally, abandoning our judgment to chance and whim. We can lazily jump to conclusions on the basis of our first impressions, or we can try to believe only what we want to be true—rather than believing what our best assessment of the evidence dictates. When we abdicate the responsibility for rationally judging for ourselves according to our firsthand grasp of the facts, we usually surrender our standards of judgment to other people: to our parents, our peers, or to the voices of whichever authority figures have worked their way into our subconscious when we let down our guard. So while we can’t avoid making judgments as such, we can choose to irresponsibly parrot the judgments of others. But judging the world around is far too important a responsibility to abandon to others. Moral judgments concern the most fundamental choices in life. Some choices lead us to a fulfilling life, while others license stagnation or destruction. Being honest solidifies our grip on reality, while dishonesty isolates us in a fantasy world. Living with integrity harmonizes our actions with our values; compromising these values makes our lives schizophrenic. Practicing justice rewards others who practice our values; injustice punishes allies and rewards our enemies. Even if we don’t communicate these judgments to others, it is crucially important that we make them for ourselves, not only to identify the right people to associate with, but also to reaffirm to ourselves the kind of life we want to live. But it is also crucial to pronounce moral judgment. The kids who cheer on the playground bully rather than shun him give him license to bully again. The voters who distinguish a politician’s character flaws from his policy stance should not be surprised when the same politician enacts corrupt policies. Diplomats who negotiate with dictators can now reflect on the long history of betrayal and aggression of the tyrants they have coddled. Evil people gain power in the world because good people remain silent. It is understandable if good people chafe at “judgmental” behavior: they may confuse irresponsible judgment with the practice of judgment as such. And we should resist the intellectually lazy father who criticizes his daughter for wanting to have a career rather than becoming a wife and mother out of high school, or the dogmatic teacher who chastises a student for registering an unpopular opinion on a paper assignment. We should be especially critical of the irresponsible judgment of those who are held up as moral authorities. Consider the priest who regards homosexual acts as immoral because they are condemned in an ancient text—a text that sanctions the existence of slavery but prohibits the consumption of shellfish. Pressed on the relevance of this ancient text, the priest might insist that the natural purpose of intercourse is reproduction (ignoring the fact that he does not condemn sex among sterile couples), or that children need role models of both sexes (leaving aside that he belongs to an all-male clergy). If he then goes on to defend his judgment as a matter of faith, as a claim to be believed without evidence, then the utter irrationality and irresponsibility of his judgment rears its ugly head. When some of the most intellectually reckless people issue some of the loudest judgments, it is little wonder that the practice of moral judgment is unpopular. But the alternative is not to refrain from judging. It is to be more scrupulously rational in one’s own judgment—and to harshly judge those who refuse to be scrupulous themselves. For this reason it is particularly inexcusable to ask that the world refrain from judgment because one fears being judged—because one is insecure in the merit of one’s own decisions, and unsure of how to engage in responsible judgment of one’s own. Perhaps it is no surprise that priests intone that we should “judge not lest we be judged.” It seems to exempt them and anyone else who lacks confidence in his own virtue from being held culpable for their own irresponsible judgments. Needless to say, the “judge not” attitude doesn’t stop the priests from preaching the moral teachings of their religion. They can rationalize this behavior by claiming that these are actually God’s judgments, not theirs. This is the most they can do to reconcile their preaching with their belief that human beings are too insignificant and too sinful to judge things for themselves. But anyone with a mind has the ability to make responsible moral judgments. One does not need to be an omniscient or omnipotent being to tell the basic difference between good and evil. Moral judgment is the right and the privilege of proud human beings, one that should not be surrendered to others, let alone those who don’t have the confidence to judge for themselves. Who are you to judge? A human being with a mind, that’s who. Of course to judge others is to assume a serious responsibility. To do it appropriately is no easy task. But neither is anything important in life. On this matter, the philosopher Ayn Rand proposed a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom of “judge not lest ye be judged.” As an alternative, she proposed that we “judge, and prepare to be judged.” Do you agree with this advice? Judge for yourself. Creative commons-licensed image from Flickr user theirry ehrmann The post Who You are to Judge: A Response to Pope Francis and the Cult of “Tolerance” appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Join The Undercurrent. Spread the Right Ideas. Get Paid. Who: Talented webmaster to join our team part time. Priority consideration is given to students, but all are welcome to apply. What: Paid internship, $15/hr. 3-8 hours/week. When: Starting February 2014. How: The Undercurrent is always looking for the right people to join our growing team. Apply here! The Undercurrent draws participants from across the country, and therefore interns will work from home, collaborating over email and regular teleconference meetings. Webmaster hours are flexible in order to allow interns to combine their TU work with normal classwork and other obligations. Applicants need not be FT students, but FT students will receive priority consideration. Application Deadline: February 10th @ Midnight. Webmaster Internship Description: Webmaster tasks may include: site design on TU.org and itsyourlifeownit.org, content updates and special projects during events. Note: Not all of the skills listed on the application are required. TU may be able to offer growth mentorship for the right applicant. Questions? [email protected] The post Webmaster Internship: Apply Today! appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Under the Surface Episode 4: The Morality of Self-Interest from The Undercurrent on Vimeo. The Undercurrent is proud to announce the release of the final episode of the “Under The Surface” series. The series aims to present Objectivist ideas in a relatable manner to those students who are either unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, or who hold common misconceptions about Objectivism. Watch “Rethinking Selfishness: Ayn Rand’s New Conception of Egoism,” a lecture by Dr. Onkar Ghate to learn more. In the fourth and final installment, we summarize the implications of the earlier episodes. What one upholds when one affirms the importance of choosing one’s own standards, of finding meaning in one’s life, and being willing to fight for one’s vision of what is meaningful, is a code of morality. But it is a code of morality unlike most conventional codes of morality. It is a code of the morality of self-interest. Subjects interviewed discuss what the self really is, what its interests are, and why pursuing these interest demands a rigorous set of standards. The most important of these standards is that we not sacrifice the interests of the self, not to anyone or anything else. We’d like to extend another big thanks to Magnanimous Media, who helped us produce this high-quality video. The post The Morality of Self-Interest: Under the Surface Episode 4 (Final Episode) appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Under the Surface Episode 4: The Morality of Self-Interest from The Undercurrent on Vimeo. The Undercurrent is proud to announce the release of the final episode of the “Under The Surface” series. The series aims to present Objectivist ideas in a relatable manner to those students who are either unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, or who hold common misconceptions about Objectivism. Watch “Rethinking Selfishness: Ayn Rand’s New Conception of Egoism,” a lecture by Dr. Onkar Ghate to learn more. In the fourth and final installment, we summarize the implications of the earlier episodes. What one upholds when one affirms the importance of choosing one’s own standards, of finding meaning in one’s life, and being willing to fight for one’s vision of what is meaningful, is a code of morality. But it is a code of morality unlike most conventional codes of morality. It is a code of the morality of self-interest. Subjects interviewed discuss what the self really is, what its interests are, and why pursuing these interest demands a rigorous set of standards. The most important of these standards is that we not sacrifice the interests of the self, not to anyone or anything else. We’d like to extend another big thanks to Magnanimous Media, who helped us produce this high-quality video. The post The Morality of Self-Interest: Under the Surface Episode 4 (Final Episode) appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Adapted with permission from an article by Jason Crawford Anand and Shikha Chhatpar launched three successful tech companies in America between 2001 and 2008. Both came to America as students, studying at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, before beginning their careers. Due to America’s restrictive immigration laws, they were required to return to India for a legally mandated period of time before applying for citizenship in the United States. Despite the fact that they owned multiple companies in the U.S., employed U.S. citizens, and paid taxes here, the Chhatpars’ application for a visa was denied. As a result, they jettisoned their U.S. employees and returned to India, where they began developing products for the Indian market because they feared that they would be unable to return to the U.S., where they preferred to live and work. In their 2012 book entitled The Immigrant Exodus, Vivek Wadhwa and Alex Salkever detail the plight of immigrants attempting to come to the U.S. and the toll that our restrictive immigration laws are taking on the U.S. economy. They note that the Chhatpars’ story is not unique and that immigrants who would otherwise innovate and improve the U.S. economy are now coming to the U.S. to study and then leaving because of our restrictive immigration laws, to the benefit of their native country’s economy—a phenomenon they call “reverse brain drain.” They are correct: it is a frequently neglected fact that immigrants are often innovators and job-creators. As President Obama and House Republicans have recently acknowledged, highly skilled immigrants are a potential boon to our economy. But there is more that can be said—that must be said—in favor of open immigration. Every immigrant is a human being with unalienable individual rights. Typically, each wants to come to America to pursue a better life. The immigrant’s goals might be to teach at one of the world’s best universities, to work at one of the world’s best companies, or simply to live a better life in a relatively free, prosperous country. And there have been many people, who have fulfilled their goals by immigrating to this country. Among the many whose names have become iconic are: Alexander Graham Bell, William Procter, Marcus Goldman, William Colgate, E. I. du Pont. Albert Einstein and Charles Pfizer. We take those goals and we bury them under a mountain of paperwork. We take dreams and we put them on years-long waiting lists. We take futures and subject them to arbitrary caps and quotas. By what right? By what standard? There is no other form of bigotry in this country still practiced, still institutionalized against so many people. If we had special work permits just for women, it would be denounced as sexism. If we had caps or quotas on the number of blacks living in the country, it would be denounced as racism. But in the name of the misguided notion that government ought to protect the interests of some workers over others we impose both of these on immigrants for no crime other than having been born abroad. We should look at our immigration laws not merely as an economic inefficiency, but as a moral outrage. We should look at them with indignation and disgust. Our nation was founded by those who believed in the right to the pursuit of happiness. One cannot celebrate that right without also thinking that the pursuit of happiness is also morally righteous. Anyone who cheers the sight of a great achievement, in science, in athletics, or in business, implicitly celebrates as a moral virtue the hard-headed tenacity required to bring one’s dreams into reality. More than many others, immigrants must overcome the greatest odds to pursue their happiness. To bring their dreams into reality, they must travel thousands of miles from home, learn a new language, and prove themselves in opposition to prejudice. So, policies which make it much more difficult for immigrants to pursue happiness, to work hard, to achieve and to enjoy the benefits of their labor are morally wrong to the extent that they discourage virtuous people from moving to this country and fulfilling their dreams. Restrictive immigration policies not only harm immigrants who choose to come to America; they also harm citizens who already live here. For every worker we keep out of the country, we hurt the company and the team he would have joined. For every teacher we block, we hurt the students whose lives he would have touched. For every artist we deny, we hurt all the fans who would have loved his work. A moral economic system where people are free to immigrate, innovate and improve their own lives is also the kind of system where both immigrants and citizens benefit the most. In the name of the individual right to pursue happiness, we should dismantle the entire bureaucracy of immigration restrictions. Open the doors. Let them in. Short of a threat to public safety, no immigrant should be denied entry to the US or residence here for any reason. Nothing less is morally conscionable. Ask not what immigrants can do for our country. Ask: by what right, by what privilege, can anyone presume to keep them out? Creative commons-licensed images from Wikimedia feature Albert Einstein, William Procter, James Gamble, Eleuthère Irénée du Pont, Charles Pfizer, Alexander Graham Bell, and Marcus Goldman. The post Brave Innovators Deserve Freedom: The Moral Need for Immigration Reform appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

The recent budget deal struck by Democratic Senator Patty Murray and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan is being hailed as a groundbreaking compromise, and a defeat for the obstinate “ideological purity” of the Tea Party. It is not the first reaction of its kind. Commenting on the government shutdown of October, Carl Bernstein (the famed Watergate investigative journalist) recently wrote that “We are becoming more and more close-minded as a people, culturally.” Bernstein and others blame the current budget impasse and resulting “polarization” of discourse on politicians who engage in “ideological warfare” by sticking to their convictions. Similarly, a recent article from The Wall Street Journal claims “there are many reasons to think Congress is more polarized than at just about any time in its history.” Peter Wehner, writing in Commentary, laments this trend as “a break with the kind of moderation that is essential for a free society.” “Extremism,” he writes, “leads to dogmatism and distorted thinking, to viewing politics in apocalyptic terms.” How instead should politicians conduct themselves? The implication is that they should be more “open-minded” and more “moderate” in thought and in action. Open-mindedness is commonly considered to be a virtue. Good people are thought to be open-minded because they listen to what others have to say and do not assume that they are always right just because they happen to have an opinion on an issue. At first glance, there seems to be nothing wrong with that attitude. However, when one is called upon to be more “open-minded,” what is really being asked? When Ted Cruz took a firm stand against Obamacare, saying that it was immoral, he was criticized by many for being an “extremist” and “close-minded.” But his critics were obviously not giving the same consideration to his viewpoint as their own. In view of this double standard, what then are proponents of “open-mindedness” really after? Particularly in arguments about politics, morality, religion, or art, those who say we should be open-minded are asking for more than simple courtesy. They are asking you not to seek definite answers to controversial questions. They would have you assume we cannot know such answers. They would even object if you ask questions about popular opinions that most take for granted. In short, they are asking you to surrender your mind and your judgment to the evaluations and judgments of others. But stop and ask yourself: what is practical or “realistic” about not seeking answers? How can we achieve anything if we assume that we don’t or can’t know anything or that there are no standards for what is right or wrong? It may be a difficult to answer moral and political questions, but why does that mean answers do not exist? Are there no moral or political questions that we can answer? Are there not some practices or mindsets that are definitely wrong? At one point in our country’s history, the idea that there was something wrong with racism was very controversial. The dominant view was that blacks were inferior to whites and deserving of lesser treatment. However, a few individuals opposed this mindset and asserted that racism was definitely morally wrong. Were the critics of racism being “close-minded” in supposing they could definitively answer this controversial question? On the contrary, they were challenging a received viewpoint by critically examining the evidence and by challenging the framework through which the majority of people viewed such issues. For instance, when racists claimed that blacks were less than human and should be treated like animals, critics asked whether a superficial trait like skin color determines our humanity. They suggested that it might be our achievements and our method of survival instead. Critics of racism pointed to what ancient Africans had created (sometimes before Europeans): iron smelting, the domestication of animals for food, along with complex political and judicial systems. They asked, “If blacks are just animals could they have created these things? Then why are we treating these people like animals?” To understand and to confront the immorality of racism people had to be active-minded, not open-minded or close-minded. By being close-minded, racists evaded the evidence for our shared humanity. By being open-minded, the intellectually lazy moderates of the day only sought to compromise with the racists, allowing some slavery, some segregation, but not too much. By being active-minded other individuals eventually dismantled racist assumptions and compromises with them. The solution to today’s moral, political, and social issues must also be active-mindedness. The issues we face today are of course very different from the problem of racism. But the point is this: if active-minded activists could help find answers to these questions, if they could help settle a controversy that once tore our nation apart, we can solve our problems today through the same approach. An active-minded approach requires that we engage in the same process of asking what is morally right and wrong. It requires that instead of reprimanding Cruz for offering an opposing viewpoint and demanding that he be more “open-minded,” people should give reasons for thinking that Cruz is wrong if they think he is. And it suggests that we we can find answers about the budget controversy if we ask the right questions. Bernstein and others blame close-mindedness and ideological warfare for shutting down the government. However, major controversies underlie the debate between Cruz and his opponents. Politicians need to be active-minded to get to the bottom of these controversies. They need to question the assumptions of their opponents and look to see if there is evidence to justify their own assumptions. On the question of the budget deficit, politicians must ask fundamental questions about our government. They need to ask, is right or wrong to always resort to raising taxes in order to maintain the government’s out-of-control spending? Are the programs these taxes fund necessary simply because they have been in place for so many years? Were these programs ever envisioned or intended by the Founding Fathers’ view of government? On what principles was our government founded? What is the proper function of government? To cease to ask these questions is to subject our entire political to the whims of any politician who is the most successful in forcing his close-minded ideas down other people’s open minds. Rather than lazily accepting someone else’s answers, we need to seek and find answers of our own. The answers might not be easy to find, but answers do exist. Michelle Lenzen is the pen name of a fiction writer. Creative-commons licensed image from Flickr user _Imagi_. The post We Should be Active-Minded, not “Open-Minded” about Political Controversies appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

There has been an explosion in recent years of apocalyptic books, movies, and television shows. The agents of destruction have been many and various. Zombies are a common culprit, featured in the Resident Evil franchise, 28 Days Later, World War Z, and The Walking Dead. But zombies don’t have a monopoly on the end of the world. Pandemics, earthquakes, climatic catastrophe, extraterrestrials, asteroids, and vampires have been central to such works as Contagion, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, Falling Skies, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, and I am Legend, respectively. What has caused this increased interest in end-of-the world entertainment? To get a handle on that, consider what these kinds of stories have in common. Whatever the catalyst, any good apocalypse leads to widespread societal collapse. The hallmark of any such collapse is the problem of scarce resources. People are thrown into a world where survival depends on scavenging the barren landscape for whatever abandoned morsels remain and competing with other survivors for the same. Every gain is someone else’s loss. Seizure and force are the coin of the realm. What about such a world makes for compelling entertainment? It is not a question of escapism. Who would want to escape to such a desolate place? Rather, there is something deeply resonant in this fictional universe, something people regard as important and real, concretized and dramatized. In the days of the Cold War, there was a real concern about nuclear annihilation. Today, there is no such concrete threat. The destructive powers of terrorism are local, not global. Instead, recent public anxieties have been fixed on problems of purported scarcity: exploding debt and financial instability, diminishing fossil fuels, overpopulation, environmental erosion, and so on. These concerns manifest a deeper concern over resource depletion—financial, natural, and environmental. Some might say that unchecked resource depletion will result in catastrophic scarcity, making a real apocalyptic scenario only a matter of time. But is it? Is wealth actually a scarce, finite quantity, divvied up equally or unequally simply by ruthless seizure? No. Some natural resources appear finite, but wealth, properly regarded, is not. The creation of wealth depends both on finite natural resources and the human ability to use these resources through intellectual ingenuity. Consider this. If wealth were a fixed sum, subject only to depletion and division, then who would be wealthier—a Neanderthal millennia ago or a citizen of the United States today? Were wealth fixed, the Neanderthal must have been wealthier, because less wealth was “depleted” and it was divided among fewer people. But who honestly yearns for the life of the Neanderthal? Who would give up an iPod for the sound of two stones clacking together in a desperate quest to make fire? So the essence of wealth is not the possession of finite resources but productive activity and technological achievement. And these can be brought into existence by ambitious and inventive human minds, pushing us forward and generating levels of wealth never before seen. Men are not zombies doomed to mindlessly consume their fellows. In a society where people are free to trade or not as they wish, all transfers of wealth are for mutual benefit. Such a society is not ruled by roving bands of highwaymen, but by traders exchanging value for value. When a return on the investment may be expected, men will also produce values and increase wealth. In closing, one work of apocalyptic fiction deserves special attention. Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged tells a story of economic and societal collapse. The world of Atlas Shrugged is populated not by literal zombies but by their intellectual equivalents, who use guns and governmental edicts in a frantic attempt to consume the brains of the few human beings that remain. These metaphorical zombies are infected, not by a virus but by an idea come at last to fruition. Part of this idea is a static, concrete-bound view of wealth—that wealth can only be taken or distributed, not produced. The other part is an unflagging belief that men should selflessly immolate themselves for “the greater good”—that is, for the sustenance of zombies who offer nothing in exchange but their eternal hunger. Atlas Shrugged also presents a vision of a different world—a sunlit place where men produce and exchange values to survive, rather than living as zombies and surviving only by the force of their jaws and the selfless compliance of their prey. What makes Atlas Shrugged uniquely compelling—and terrifying—in the realm of apocalyptic fiction is that the cause is not some fantastic agent like a zombie virus but rather the ideas that do, in fact, dominate our culture. Fortunately, it also presents the antidote—the ideas necessary to defeat its agents of destruction. I like a good zombie flick as much as the next guy, but I certainly don’t want to live in one. What about you? Creative Commons-licensed image from Flickr user Stephen Dann. The post Of Zombies and Men: What the Apocalyptic Reveals about the Mainstream View of Wealth appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Join The Undercurrent. Spread the Right Ideas. Get Paid. Who: Full-time students seeking experience applying Objectivism to today’s world. What: Paid internship, $1000 stipend (100 hour commitment). When: Spring 2014 (Feb-April). How: The Undercurrent is always looking for the right people to join our growing team. Apply here! The Undercurrent draws participants from across the country, and therefore interns will work from home, collaborating over email and regular teleconference meetings. Work hours are flexible (averaging 10 hours per week) to allow interns to combine their TU work with normal classwork and other obligations. Candidates should be familiar with Objectivism but need not be experts in the philosophy. Candidates must be full-time students. Early Application Deadline: December 16. Late Application Deadline: January 6. Internship Description: Editorial Internship Description Our program allows students to participate in our writing and editing activities to communicate an Objectivist analysis of culture and politics for our blog and print formats. Selected candidates will write and publish objective, persuasive articles and blog posts for a general or college audience and receive valuable feedback and editorial guidance from our editing team. Regular tasks include: - Writing regular shorter blog posts and possibly longer articles for our print editions - Participation in the collaborative editorial process with other writers - Attendance and participation at regular teleconference meetings “Writing for The Undercurrent offered me the chance to work with a wonderful team of highly-qualified editors and alongside like-minded students. I learned how to adapt my writing from satisfying the expectations of professors to appealing to the minds of a college audience. For students with an eye towards improving their persuasive writing, challenging their understanding of Objectivism and its application to current issues, and having their voices heard, this internship is well worth the time.” —Former editorial intern Questions? [email protected] The post Spring 2014 Editorial Internship: Apply Today! appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

<p><img class="aligncenter" id="yui_3_11_0_3_1385498721859_430" alt="" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2545/5848376440_00111ef41e_z.jpg" /></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>There has been a roaring outcry over the recent bill signed by Russian president Vladimir Putin outlawing the public visibility of homosexuality. In the US, by contrast, recognition of homosexuality has grown tremendously. Many popular TV shows have at least one gay or bisexual character. Gay men and women can openly serve in the military and have been granted marriage equality in <a href="http://huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/another-state-votes-for-g_b_4245701.html">fifteen</a> states. After years of second-class citizenship, gays and lesbians are beginning to make progress in winning recognition and protection of their rights.</p> <p>As homosexuality becomes increasingly socially acceptable, we hear more about “gay pride.” There are now numerous holidays and events intended to celebrate “gay pride”—National Coming Out Day, Day of Silence, Pride months, Pride parades, and Gay and Lesbian film festivals. These celebrations of “gay pride” are similar in spirit to the various ethnic history months, film festivals, and other events celebrating “black pride,” “Korean pride,” “feminist pride,” etc. To take “pride” in such things implies that it is important to take pride in one’s biology or some other accidental collective attribute. Gays should be striving for the recognition of an individual’s right to pursue relationships of his or her choice. Yet what these events celebrate is not individualism, but rather, collectivism.</p> <p>One doesn’t take pride in having blue eyes or blonde hair, so why would one take pride in being gay or bisexual? If we shouldn’t judge people based on their skin color, gender, or sexuality, because these characteristics are innate or trivial, than why should we take pride in them? If there should be “black pride” and “gay pride” then why shouldn’t there also be “white pride” and “straight pride?” In truth, there shouldn’t be any of these kinds of pride, and for the same reason.</p> <p>To share in a group’s collective “pride” one would have to abide by the rules defined by that group. So many believe that to be gay one has to be flamboyant or fashionable. But this attitude spurns the individual who takes pride in himself contrary to group standards and values. That’s why “white pride” or “straight pride” would be nonsensical, because no one expects or believes all white individuals to abide by the same characteristics or share the same beliefs. However, many do believe that gay individuals must dress and talk a certain way and share the same beliefs.</p> <p>To say or believe that we are defined by innate characteristics such as our race, gender, or sexual orientation ignores the fact that we choose what we wear, how we talk, and what we value. These choices are what we are defined by, and what make us more than barnyard animals. What collective pride takes for granted is that we are self-made. We choose our values, careers, and relationships; they do not choose us.</p> <p>To be successful in any career or relationship one has to actively pursue it. One has to be growing constantly in one’s skills and knowledge. One who takes pride in one’s work or career is not taking pride in the accidents of one’s birth, but in one’s accomplishments and achievements. One is taking pride in a hierarchy of skills and knowledge one has acquired through years of dedication and hard work. Skills and knowledge are gained through one’s choice to acquire them; we are not born with them. Pride is then not something you are born with, but something that one must achieve.</p> <p>You must choose to value certain things required of your work and then act on those values. If you want to be an engineer you must choose to demonstrate precision and accuracy through your actions. If you want to an entrepreneur you must choose to be<i> </i>innovative and determined. True pride is achieved through one’s chosen effort and values. Therefore, pride is not something that should be celebrated once a year or even once a month, but every single day of one’s life.</p> <p>If gay people want to achieve full liberation from prejudice and to truly defend the rights of homosexuals, they must abandon the notion of collective pride. Instead of celebrating their membership in a group, they should be celebrating individuals’ chosen achievements. By taking pride in their achievements, gay men and women will succeed in being taken for who they are—individuals.</p> <p><em>Michelle Lenzen is the pen name of a fiction writer.</em></p> <p><em></em><em>Creative Commons-licensed <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/17267678@N00/5848376440/in/photolist-9UNsyy-9UKHfx-9UKwj4-9UKBW6-9UKJ38-9UKLtM-9UNzBU-9UNpry-9UKw72-9UNDwy-9UKKxR-9UNBiU-9UKvXe-8ekGoN-9X62YJ-9X62GE-9UKExx-fncxgm-cCLsGE-cCLsxb-cCLsB5-cCLssG-cCLsmW-cCLsLm-cCLsE1-cCLspo-cCLsjb-fomarD-aaHBDa-8qdDAm-7UHwfq-7UHxRU-7V19uf-9WNJnt-9WNzg6-9WRTKs-9WNSAR-9WR4Mm-9WNGzD-9WRYh5-9WNkCz-fogfGR-9WMTjd-cjNpey-fnnyHj-9Y5qfo-cxjyqG-cxjGgu-aaM3bD-cxmbjb-cxjA2u">image</a> from Flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gpaumier/">Guillaume Paumier</a>.</em></p> <p>The post <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com/pride-is-a-celebration-of-ones-achievements-not-association-with-a-group/">Pride is a Celebration of One’s Achievements, Not Association with a Group</a> appeared first on <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com">The Undercurrent</a>.</p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:JUhcmGiK9AQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=JUhcmGiK9AQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:WkrIHMmXu7Y"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:WkrIHMmXu7Y" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=2Oa8WeAPfv8:-TD8_0zVyag:l6gmwiTKsz0"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/the-undercurrent/~4/2Oa8WeAPfv8" height="1" width="1"/> Link to Original

In his viral blog piece “Marriage Isn’t For You,” Seth Adam Smith proposes that the best kind of love is selfless. When he began to doubt whether he should marry his girlfriend of many years, Smith consulted his father, who offered the following advice: “Seth, you’re being totally selfish. So I’m going to make this really simple: marriage isn’t for you. You don’t marry to make yourself happy, you marry to make someone else happy. . . . Marriage isn’t for you. It’s not about you. Marriage is about the person you married.” Taking this advice to heart, Smith re-evaluated his approach to love. He decided, “Selfishness demands, ‘What’s in it for me?’, while Love asks, ‘What can I give?’” But is it really true that romance is based on selflessness? Let’s first try to imagine how one would choose a romantic partner by asking Smith’s question: “What can I give?” This demands selfless love—that we should love someone, not because of that person’s valuable qualities and virtues, but instead because of what that person needs from us. Consider the following example. Sally is a college student pursuing her dream job when she meets Paul, a lonely college dropout of the same age. Sally is motivated, hard-working, and goal-oriented. Paul lacks these qualities of character, as well as any kind of long-term motivation. If Sally were to ask “What can I give?” she would find that she has plenty to give to Paul. Her energetic attention and care will help cure his loneliness. With this in mind, Sally decides that she must try to love Paul, because he needs her love. If selflessness is really the standard of love, then it must be Sally’s duty to love Paul. But what would happen if Paul were to ask Sally, “Why do you love me?” If she were honest, she would have to answer, “Even though you aren’t that smart or the best looking guy around, I love you because you need me to.” Imagine how insulted and degraded anyone would be to hear that kind of response! Let’s now try to imagine how one would choose a romantic partner by asking the question Smith rejects: “What’s in it for me?” This question demands selfish love—that when we fall in love with someone, it is with personal qualities and virtues that we value. To love is to value. Consider the next part of Sally’s story. While dating Paul, Sally meets a fellow student, Luke, who shares many of her qualities and interests. He even has an adventurous spirit, an enduring optimism, and wonderful taste in art—and as such, she is attracted to him. Now conflicted in her feelings and presented with the possibility of pursuing a relationship with Luke, Sally asks herself: “What’s in it for me?” She thinks that the value to be gained in pursuing Luke is obvious, and that he would enrich her life. However, she knows it would be selfish to do so. She faces a moral choice: should she choose to keep degrading herself and insulting Paul, or should she empower herself, be honest with Paul, and admit the truth of her feelings for Luke, as he so deserves? This conception of love has powerful appeal. It holds that when we meet the kind of person who shares our personal interests, complements our lifestyle, and embodies our most deeply held beliefs and values, that person has the capacity to enrich our lives, and so we can truly and properly love that person. The kind of happiness to be gained in loving a person selfishly has the capacity to be fulfilling, long-lasting, and joyously enriching, because the person we love complements rather than hinders our life’s ambitions. Loved ones are like fellow-travelers on life’s journey towards further horizons. Naturally, not only do we want to get to our destination, but we want to choose a partner with whom we can enjoy that journey. Choosing the right fellow-traveler is integral to our enjoyment of life’s journey, and choosing the wrong partner can make it miserable. Because Sally’s one-sided relationship with Paul involves constant giving and never receiving, she will be threatened by ongoing resentment and regret. Both fellow travelers in a relationship must be moving towards the same horizon, but Paul clearly has no desire to do so, and Sally deserves better than that. But a relationship with Luke has the clear potential for an enduring, joyous happiness. Sally’s choice of Paul over Luke—the selfless choice—is also an immoral choice. If Sally seeks justice, she cannot remain with Paul: he doesn’t deserve her love, and she doesn’t deserve the suffering of his partnership. If she seeks honesty, she cannot remain with Paul: she knows her feelings for Luke, and to remain with Paul would be an insulting sham to them both. If she seeks integrity, she cannot remain with Paul: she knows her values and her dreams, and to ignore Paul’s incompatibility with them is to betray who she is. To choose our fellow-traveler selfishly is to choose one who, consistent with each of these virtues, makes life’s journey truly happy. If today’s premarital youth are to take one thing from Smith’s piece, they should come away with a clear understanding of how not to approach searching for a person to love and marry. Creative Commons-licensed image from Flickr user Victor1558. The post Marriage IS for You: A Response to Seth Adam Smith appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

The Undercurrent is pleased to announce the release of our Fall 2013 campaign lecture, “Rethinking Selfishness” by Onkar Ghate. This campaign lecture, held at Stanford University, is part of a larger campaign, aimed at promoting Ayn Rand’s idea of selfishness on campuses nationwide. Dr. Onkar Ghate’s lecture explores how Rand challenges us to radically reconsider our beliefs about right and wrong, why our misunderstandings about the notion of selfishness impair our ability to think about morality, and how Rand’s conception of self-interest is distinctive. Dr. Ghate explains why selfishness has served him as source of unconventional but inspiring moral guidance and why Rand teaches that morality is about creating a self whose interests you can truly speak of advancing. For more on how The Undercurrent plans to promote rational selfishness on campus, check out our campaign website: It’s Your Life. Own It! Special thanks go to The Ayn Rand Institute, who co-sponsored this event. The post “Rethinking Selfishness: Ayn Rand’s New Conception of Egoism,” a lecture by Dr. Onkar Ghate appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Under the Surface Episode 3: Why Stand Up for Yourself? from The Undercurrent on Vimeo. The Undercurrent is happy to announce the release of yet another episode, our third, in the “Under The Surface” series. The series aims to present Objectivist ideas in a relatable manner to those students who are either unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, or who hold common misconceptions about Objectivism. In the third installment, we interview people who have fought for their values in the face of adversity and have come out on top. Subjects interviewed discuss conflicts they have faced with parents, coworkers, and mentors, and the attitudes they developed to live through and rise above the conflict. Further they comment on the value of experiencing one’s own efficacy in the face of opposition, and the sense of efficacy that comes from resolving conflicts and helping others share one’s own values–especially if one does not dwell on conflict and does not regard oneself as one’s brother’s keeper. We’d like to extend another big thanks to Magnanimous Media, who helped us produce this high-quality video. The post Why Stand Up For Yourself?: Under the Surface Episode 3 appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

<p><iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/77510581" height="281" width="500" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p><em><a href=" ">Under the Surface Episode 1: What Gives Your Life Meaning?</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/theundercurrent">The Undercurrent</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</em></p> <p><i>The Undercurrent</i> is happy to announce the release of its second video in our “Under The Surface” series. The series aims to present Objectivist ideas in a relatable manner to those students who are either unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, or who hold common misconceptions about Objectivism.</p> <p>In the second installment of Under the Surface, we interview people who find that productive work adds meaning and purpose to their lives. Subjects interviewed explore the parallels between creativity in art and in business, and comment on the importance of loving the doing vs. the rewards that result from doing it. Further they comment on how excelling at a productive career is a form of self-expression and a realization of the pursuit of rational self-interest.</p> <p>We’d again like to extend our thanks to <a href="http://www.magnanimous.biz/production">Magnanimous Media</a>, whose team worked hard to as volunteers produce this high-quality video.</p> <p>The post <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com/what-gives-your-life-meaning/">What Gives Your Life Meaning?: Under the Surface Episode 2</a> appeared first on <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com">The Undercurrent</a>.</p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:JUhcmGiK9AQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=JUhcmGiK9AQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:WkrIHMmXu7Y"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:WkrIHMmXu7Y" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=6ZP0YQn5qbE:IwuI7mXDtfA:l6gmwiTKsz0"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/the-undercurrent/~4/6ZP0YQn5qbE" height="1" width="1"/> Link to Original

<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://the-undercurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ghate-banner.jpg"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-5189" alt="ghate banner" src="http://the-undercurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ghate-banner.jpg'>http://the-undercurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ghate-banner.jpg" width="602" height="320" /></a></p> <p style="text-align: left;">Dr. Onkar Ghate will deliver a lecture, “Rethinking Selfishness: Ayn Rand’s New Conception of Egoism,” and hold a public Q&amp;A on Thursday, October 24th, at 7pm Pacific/10pm Eastern. His lecture will explore how Rand challenges us to radically reconsider our beliefs about right and wrong, why our misunderstandings about the notion of selfishness impair our ability to think about morality, and how Rand’s conception of self-interest is distinctive. Dr. Ghate will explain why selfishness has served him as source of unconventional but inspiring moral guidance and why Rand teaches that morality is about creating a self whose interests you can truly speak of advancing.</p> <p>A live stream will be available, and the Objectivist student groups at Austin, Loyola Chicago, UW-Madison, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Arizona and Temple University, are all organizing mass viewing parties.</p> <p>Room 290 location and parking:<br /><a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/page/room-290" target="_blank" rel="nofollow nofollow">http://<wbr />cyberlaw.stanford.edu/page/<wbr />room-290</a><br />The live stream link will be posted closer to the event date, here (where you can also RSVP for the event):</p> <p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/527266184021986/">https://www.facebook.com/events/527266184021986/</a></p> <p style="text-align: left;">Dr. Ghate is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. He teaches at the Institute’s Objectivist Academic Center, speaks on philosophy and Objectivism across North America, and publishes scholarly articles on Ayn Rand’s fiction and philosophy. His op-eds have appeared in the Houston Chronicle, Foxnews.com, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Providence Journal, San Diego Business Journal, Orange County Register and BusinessWeek.com. He has given numerous radio interviews, including NPR, BBC Radio, and has appeared as a television guest on CNBC, KCET, Fox News Channel and the CBS Evening News. Dr. Ghate received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Calgary.</p> <p>*For more on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/theundercurrent?directed_target_id=0" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=27894627436&amp;extragetparams=%7B%22directed_target_id%22%3A0%7D">The Undercurrent</a> and their campaign geared toward egoistic morality (selfishness), visit: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fitsyourlifeownit.org%2F&amp;h=ZAQGYyy5E&amp;enc=AZPr7nNxjvMjRQj6jk_5dZZPvdgd7zfgcNDQCO46b2UCUhtmx7N-K10yG5HG3LrZugQ&amp;s=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow nofollow">http://<wbr />itsyourlifeownit.org/</a></p> <p>The post <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com/join-us-for-a-live-webcast-from-stanford-onkar-ghate-on-rethinking-selfishness-october-24th/">Join Us for a Live Webcast from Stanford: Onkar Ghate on “Rethinking Selfishness,” October 24th</a> appeared first on <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com">The Undercurrent</a>.</p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:JUhcmGiK9AQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=JUhcmGiK9AQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:WkrIHMmXu7Y"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:WkrIHMmXu7Y" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=dgKRTtMFU_g:aEFgBdiixcE:l6gmwiTKsz0"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/the-undercurrent/~4/dgKRTtMFU_g" height="1" width="1"/> Link to Original

<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.itsyourlifeownit.org" target="_blank"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-5185" alt="itsyourlifeownitORG" src="http://the-undercurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/itsyourlifeownitORG.png'>http://the-undercurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/itsyourlifeownitORG.png" width="624" height="631" /></a></p> <p style="text-align: left;">Our campaign this fall semester is geared toward promoting the morality of self-interest on campus. For more information on the various projects involved in this campaign, including our upcoming speaking event at Stanford University featuring Dr. Onkar Ghate, and our “Under the Surface” documentary series, visit our new microsite: www.itsyourlifeownit.org</p> <p>You can help increase Rand’s visibility in the culture (and on campus) by “sharing” <a href="https://www.facebook.com/theundercurrent/posts/10151984624617437">this Facebook post</a> and the link!</p> <p>The post <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com/announcing-our-new-microsite-and-campaign-its-your-life-own-it/">Announcing Our New Microsite and Campaign: “It’s Your Life. Own It.”</a> appeared first on <a href="http://the-undercurrent.com">The Undercurrent</a>.</p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:JUhcmGiK9AQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=JUhcmGiK9AQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:WkrIHMmXu7Y"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:WkrIHMmXu7Y" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?i=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?a=BwVmiSo4ovo:GpyR2GnO2V0:l6gmwiTKsz0"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/the-undercurrent?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/the-undercurrent/~4/BwVmiSo4ovo" height="1" width="1"/> Link to Original

It is old news by now that large numbers of American college students suffer from low self-esteem and major depression. In one survey, 30% of students reported feeling “so depressed that it was difficult to function” at some point within the past year. Stories of teen and young adult suicides have become alarmingly commonplace, with some 19% of American youth contemplating or attempting suicide every year. More alarming still, several decades of clinical and educational initiatives aimed at improving self-esteem have not made a dent in these figures. Anyone who has browsed a self-help shelf at Barnes and Noble, consulted a therapist, or watched an episode of Oprah knows that prescriptions for “raising your self-esteem” abound in our culture. Yet, despite the many injunctions to “accept yourself for who you are,” the depression epidemic on campuses shows no signs of abating. To be fair, modern approaches to treating depression do work for a lot of people. Among those who opt for either medication or evidence-based psychotherapy, some 40-60% of patients show significant improvement in their mood and self-esteem. But what of the 50% or more whose self-worth does not improve? Clearly, there are numerous potential obstacles that might impede a person’s struggles to (re)gain self-esteem. But there is one universal factor in the development and maintenance of self-worth that cannot be escaped, and yet it is rarely discussed in either books or therapy rooms: by what standard is one’s “worth” to be evaluated? When we judge someone as “worthy,” it means we like and approve of him or her; our emotional estimate amounts to the judgment that they are good. But any such judgment is made by some standard, some measure of what it means to be good—whether consciously known or not. For example, if we are filled with admiration for the ingenious, self-made entrepreneur who rises out of the slums and makes his fortune in Silicon Valley, it is because we believe—on some level—that persevering against adversity to achieve one’s personal ambitions is good. If, on the other hand, we believe that sharing in the plight of one’s community is a higher good than personal achievement, we will feel nothing but scorn for the greedy “profit-chaser” who escaped his troubled neighborhood to pursue his own ambition. Likewise, if our words and actions do not fully match our internalized standard of the “good,” we will not fully admire ourselves. Thus, the standards one has internalized will play a crucial role in one’s self-evaluation. Identifying those standards and working to internalize healthier ones, if needed, should therefore be a crucial step in any effort to improve self-esteem. Yet this step is conspicuously missing from prominent therapeutic approaches. After all, any attempt to guide the selection of a proper standard of the “good” presupposes a standard of moral goodness, which is a question for philosophy, not psychology. The default answer accepted by most of our culture (including psychologists) is: “Be selfless.” But how does this bode for self-esteem? Imagine you are about to graduate from college and you’re developing a cool new idea for an app. You do some research into the current world of tech start-ups, and are excited to discover that Silicon Valley may be ripe for your invention. But as you plan your big move to San Francisco, you are reminded of a competing “duty”: your mother urges you to return home to help her keep an eye on your drug-addicted brother. What do you do? If your moral worth is measured by your selfless devotion to others in need, the “good” choice is obvious: you must return home. Yet you also know that your chance at happiness and self-fulfillment awaits you in Silicon Valley, and some part of you even feels there is good in dedicating yourself to the fearless pursuit of your ambitions. Suppose you decide to pursue your business venture. Mixed with any pride you might feel as you begin to profit from your new invention will be some guilt and self-loathing at the selfish path you have chosen. The weight of that guilt, in turn, will sap your enthusiasm about developing your business. Absent any moral compass to direct your pursuit of an ambition you regard as inherently immoral, you will likely lose focus and become increasingly half-hearted in your efforts to perfect your idea. It is in such circumstances that ambitious people develop addictions of their own, to distract them from their guilt. Before you know it, you will have undermined your success on both the moral and professional fronts, dealing a double-blow to your self-esteem. What if, instead, you do your “duty” and return home to your struggling family? Imagine what would become of your self-respect as you clean your brother’s puke-stained shirts and bloody noses, suppressing all thoughts of how you might have felt while launching your product or brainstorming new ideas with fellow techies in Silicon Valley. How much admiration would you feel for yourself as you notice your inevitably growing sense of resentment at your brother, who is the cause of your exile from a world where you would actually feel at home? How much can you truly like yourself, and for how long, once you have given up precisely those aspects of yourself you liked the most—whether your knack for creating software, or any other pursuit that brings you personal pleasure and enjoyment? How can you like your self while renouncing all that which you selfishly value? In fact, any attempt to uphold “selflessness” as a moral standard guarantees the erosion of your self-esteem, regardless of what course you choose. After all, part of what it means for something to be “esteemed”—be it a job, a person, an idea, or a “self”—is to bring pleasure and personal value to the esteemer. But to pursue that which brings you pleasure and personal value is the very essence of selfishness. To attempt to live by a “selfless” moral code is to become, in effect, your own worst enemy; the degree to which you want or like a thing is the exact degree to which you must dislike yourself for pursuing it. In every decision you face, large or small—whether it’s what to do after graduation, what courses to take next semester, or whose dinner invitation to accept on a Friday night—you have to choose among numerous alternative paths, and it is morality’s proper task to guide you in identifying a path that aligns with your longer-term goals and values. Yet a code of “selflessness” provides only one essential dictate by which to select and evaluate your actions: thou shalt not consider your own goals and values; in other words, thou shalt not do what you like—and thus, shalt not be the person you want to be. Imagine, by contrast, the power of a moral standard that explicitly upholds your happiness—i.e., the achievement of your most deeply held, self-chosen values—as the highest moral good. Instead of being stuck in a constant negotiation between guilty pleasure and self-righteous misery, you would experience the invigorating pride and confidence that properly accompany the pursuit of a cause one knows to be good. It is this unconflicted sense of pride that motivates the often-exacting effort and discipline required to achieve one’s long-term ambitions, whether in the professional, academic, or personal realm. Of course, the idea of an explicitly selfish moral standard is still too radical to have been incorporated into mainstream psychological approaches. But such an alternative does exist, and it is elucidated in other pages of this issue (see “Morality: Who Needs It”). Unlike its more conventional counterparts, this code has a logical basis in the factual requirements of human life and flourishing. Without such a healthy, life-promoting alternative to offer, psychologists are forced to sidestep the issue of moral standards altogether. Yet we have no choice about needing to judge ourselves by some standard; our only choice is whether to remain guilt-bound to whatever hodgepodge of selfless duties we have absorbed from our family and culture, or to opt for the duty-free alternative—and bask in the joy of being proudly, selfishly good. Veronica Ryan is the pen name for a Ph.D. student in clinical psychology. Creative Commons-licensed image from Flickr user Victor1558. The post Reclaiming the “Self” in Self-Esteem appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

“Gender inequality is the problem of our generation,” declared Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg in her 2011 Barnard College commencement address. Her remarks there have since reignited debate about sexual discrimination, pay inequality, and the role of women in the workforce. Even since her inaugural TED Talk, she has been spearheading a campaign to empower women in the workforce. Sandberg’s most controversial claim is that women are the ones holding themselves back. In her recently released book Lean In, she implores women to take a “seat at the table” and “not leave before they leave.” At the same time, Sandberg leaves unchallenged the problematic claim that sexual discrimination is what is holding women back, and fails to explore the deeper causes of the psychological barriers that inhibit women in their careers. A commonly held belief maintains that for every dollar earned by a man, a woman only makes 77 cents. The usual suggestion is that when a man and woman of equal qualifications are given the same job, the man receives higher pay simply because he is a man, i.e., because of sexual discrimination. Many also believe that there are fewer women in the workforce—especially in leadership positions—because men are chosen over women. This apparent income inequality is largely a misconception. One of the chief reasons men have higher-earning jobs is because they stay in the workforce longer and so are more likely to acquire seniority. Sandberg and others do not consider that before Fortune 500 companies can hire more women in leadership positions, there need to be more qualified women competing for these jobs in the first place. Many women choose to leave the workforce to have children. As a result, they are not able to put in the time needed to strive for higher paying jobs. When this and similar factors are accounted for, it turns out that the 77 cents-on-the-dollar statistic is not exactly accurate. When a woman works the exact same hours as a man in the exact same profession, her median earnings are 91 percent compared to his. That is still a nine percent gap, but it is drastically different from a 23 percent one. Generally, women earn less in gross income because they choose to. Why would women choose to earn less than men? Many see it as their role and selfless duty to raise children–that, in order to be a good mother, they must stay at home. Psychologically, some women hold themselves back by believing that they must play the role of “nurturer,” a moral ideal which is reinforced by longstanding Judeo-Christian cultural standards. Even so-called advocates of “women’s rights” say that women are specially tuned to an “ethics of care.” On the other hand, not having children and instead pursuing a high-income job is considered selfish. Since selfishness is thought to be bad, many women choose to be “moral” and so decide not to pursue jobs that would allow them to earn the same high salaries as men. The reason why women should be allowed to pursue high-income jobs and not be discriminated against on the basis of their sex is that they are not doing anything wrong in pursuing such careers. Pursuing an advanced career is a productive use of one’s life—and it is also selfish. To be selfish means to be concerned with one’s own interests, and being productive is in one’s own interest. If it is not wrong to be productive, then why is it wrong to be selfish? Likewise, it is in the self-interest of employers to hire and retain the most productive individuals they can, so it is in their self-interest to treat both men and women justly. If this principle of justice is morally right, then how can the selfish motive underlying it be morally wrong? (See “Morality: Who Needs It” in this issue.) Sandberg says in her book that “rather than engage in philosophical arguments” she wants to provide practical solutions, but what she fails to consider is that philosophical ideas are at the root of what is really holding women back. Her book acknowledges that it is a prejudice that women should have different goals than men—that they should want to contribute to society and improve the lives of others. But she does not address why so many women have felt pressured to adopt these different goals. Women have felt an obligation to contribute to society and to help others because they embrace the baseless philosophical ideal of selflessness. Having a child can be a selfish choice, granted that it in one’s own interests and aligns with one’s values. Having children can be an investment, just like putting more hours into work each week. It is an opportunity to nurture and cultivate the long-term development of another in the image of one’s own values. Like any other relationship between two individuals there are many benefits to be gained from the interaction, but not every relationship or friendship has the same value or any value at all. Therefore, whether one should have a child or not depends on the individual. Selfless parenting is bad parenting. When one does something not because one wants to do it, but because one feels it is one’s duty or obligation, one often doesn’t do it well. It is not unlike being asked to complete a task at work that one thinks is pointless, or which doesn’t have any long-term value and is not in one’s self-interest. Parenting is too important to be done reluctantly and drudgingly. Parenting out of duty leads to resenting one’s children, not loving them. If we want women to move forward in the workforce and strive for greater success, we all need to lean in. Namely, we need to lean into the task of thinking for ourselves and seeking only what will be of value and of long-term benefit to ourselves. We must abandon the ideal of selflessness on philosophical grounds and embrace the morality of rational self-interest. The problem of our generation is not one of gender inequality, but rather of oppression by invalid moral ideals. Michelle Lenzen is the pen name of a first-year student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The post To “Lean In,” Women Must Abandon the False Moral Ideal of Selflessness appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

In a recent speech at the University of Buffalo, President Obama described his plans to reform higher education. The aspect of this plan most likely to impact colleges and universities involves the creation of a new ratings system which will measure the value of a student’s education relative to the amount of money they spend to acquire it. Based on what we know now, the President’s plan would involve increasing the amount of government aid given to universities whose students make more money after graduation or whose students start and finish at the same school. Reductions in financial aid would affect schools that do not meet these standards. Previous administrations have increased spending on higher education just as they have increased spending in the healthcare industry. Now, the President’s plan seeks to put in place “quality controls” that mirror controls over the healthcare industry. The cycle of government intervention works something like this—as government spends more money on education, the cost rises. A recent article in The New York Times concluded that although higher educational costs are caused by a number of factors, the main cause is that the number of seats open in universities is limited, while government money is seemingly unlimited. This is unsurprising, since it is a simple application of the law of supply and demand. Government subsides encourage more and more people to spend a combination of private and government money on education. But since there is a limited supply of seats in universities, the price necessarily goes up in order to distribute the limited number of seats to those who can afford them. Since most colleges are unwilling to raise admission standards, the average quality of education at most universities also decreases. Sometimes, the quality is also affected by these increasing numbers of students, as administrators struggle to increase the size of their institutions. The process is currently playing out in the field of higher education in much the same way as it has been in the healthcare industry for the past quarter of a century. Once the government has caused prices to go up through subsides, it tries to put in place price controls. When quality of service subsequently goes down, it attempts to put in place quality controls. The President’s plan combines both price controls and quality controls in the same proposal. Try as it might, the government’s plan will not improve the quality of America’s higher education system. On the contrary, it will in fact do more damage to it than it has done already. First, the creation of a ratings system based on cost and reward will necessarily destroy disciplines in the humanities which offer less monetarily lucrative degrees. Just look at what happened to the teaching of history and civics after the passage of No Child Left Behind during the Bush administration. Because history did not affect a school’s rating, and therefore its budget, it became an irrelevant subject pushed to the side. Alternately, the plan will continue to turn schools into centers of conformity where government-approved dogma is preached. This alternative is just as bad, and has a precedent. A few years ago, the state of Texas introduced state-mandated history textbooks that covered “conservatism” in glory while omitting key minority figures from the past. Under a system where government demands that it get what it pays for, the humanities will either become the propaganda mouthpieces for each and every administration’s political dogma or will otherwise be cut as universities seek to improve their figures. Neither result is proper nor does either actually increase the quality of education. Most importantly, the President’s plan will make the underlying philosophy of our educational system one of pure pragmatism. It will not matter that a student knows nothing of how the world should work or has worked in the past, as long as they know how it works in the present as articulated through government-approved curricula. Fueled by pragmatism, knowledge deemed less useful by the government, vis-à-vis its ratings system, will be disregarded. Freedom of inquiry will be abridged, as professors are made to conform to standards not unlike the “common core” standards governing secondary schools, and schools are forced to adopt a set curriculum on the model of No Child Left Behind. Critical thinking skills will go by the wayside in universities, as test taking gains more importance. President Obama’s plan will not fix the system’s problems but will complicate them further. The solution involves removing government from the process of higher education. Reducing government subsidies for students would enable the cost of college to fall, as more people weighed the risk and reward of attendance. Moreover, reducing government regulation of universities would enable consumers to make their own decisions about the quality of an institution, rather than having the government make those decisions for them, often to their detriment. In a “free” educational system, government determines what degrees are valuable and who should have them. In a free market educational system, individuals determine the value attached to an education and whether it is valuable to them. The former encourages conformity and blind adherence to standards while the latter permits individuals the freedom to establish and pursue their own goals. If a stronger, more functional educational system is to be had, President Obama’s program and others like it must be rejected. Otherwise, our higher education system and the students who are part of it really will be left behind. Thomas Duke is a graduate student in Communication Studies at the University of Alabama. The post No University Left Behind appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Since March 1st, when the 2013 budget sequestration began, many political pundits have decried the “inevitable” and “disastrous” effects of cuts on one special interest group or another. Recent commentary on marginal cuts to the National Institute of Health (NIH) has followed suit, with some even going so far as to call this the beginning of a “dark age” for science. Such commentary typically features stories of scientists—each pursuing promising research leads at prominent universities—who have been reduced to practically begging the NIH for what they believe to be increasingly sparse funds. Yet the current cuts have merely reduced the NIH budget from $30.8 billion to $29.1 billion. Implicit in many of these hyperbolic arguments against cuts is the notion that it’s the role of the government to fund scientific research. These commentators suppose that state coercion is necessary to achieve scientific progress and that private individuals should not make decisions about how best to manage their own their wealth. They prefer, thus, that the government take the wealth it deems necessary for scientific progress. But the only proper role of government where science is concerned is to protect individual rights in the free market, allowing new innovation to continue unimpeded. When the government coercively funds scientific research, it demands that individuals in the free market suspend their judgment about which research to invest in, to the extent of the amount that they are taxed. This means that for every percentage point of an individual’s income the state takes to fund “scientific investment” in programs like the NIH, that potential investor may no longer use his own mind to determine how it should be spent. But it’s precisely because private individuals are the proper owners and managers of their own wealth that they tend to spend it more efficiently than government does. Individuals have to work hard for their paychecks—time, energy, and their greatest efforts are put into acquiring them. By contrast, politicians and bureaucrats have nothing personal invested in a government budget, having never worked hard to earn it or even to persuade others to voluntarily give it. They don’t face the kind of consequences that private individuals do if their investment is a failure, since the blank check provided by taxpayer pockets will always be there to fund the next social experiment. After the 2008 financial crisis, for example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was touted as a plan which would invest in the technology of tomorrow. Over $500 million taxpayer dollars were loaned to Solyndra, despite multiple and ultimately prophetic warnings that this was not a promising investment. In fact, government money also endangers innovation when it comes—as it always does—with political strings attached. A comparative study by MIT economist Pierre Azoulay of two groups of scientists—one with funding from the private non-profit Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and the other consisting of NIH MERIT award winners—revealed that researchers funded by the former were more successful in their respective fields, and had more promising projects, than did those of the latter. Federal granting agencies tend to target research projects which are most likely to achieve specific government-oriented goals, and thus severely limit creativity and flexibility by demanding the achievement of those goals, as opposed to allowing the discovery process to guide subsequent research. The heavy-handed effect of government on innovation is painfully obvious in the applied science of medicine. Medicare and Medicaid have created a web of red tape which doctors must conform to simply to continue practicing at a profit. According to a 2011 survey of U.S. and Canadian doctors and administrators, administrative costs were a far greater burden on the resources of American physicians than on those of their Canadian counterparts. Even in the U.S., the effects of the new Affordable Care Act on innovation have been felt palpably in the medical device industry, where a tax on venture capital investment has slowed the pace of innovation to a trickle. What evidence is there that the state’s will is a suitable replacement for the discipline of the market? Many will cite the development of the Internet—the crown jewel of “government research.” The Pentagon’s Advance Research Projects Agency Network is often cited as the program which jump-started the Internet, for the sake of national defense. But Robert Taylor, director of ARPA in the 1960s, clarifies that it didn’t create the Internet: “The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks.” Though the Arpanet was one of the world’s first basic computer networks, it was at Xerox labs, in 1970s Silicon Valley, where the first structured network of such connections was established through the development of Ethernet technology. Because ARPA had not developed the technology quickly enough, Xerox proceeded to do so on its own. So the men who can truly be credited with the development of the Internet into a globally-accessible commercial matrix are thinkers such as: Vint Cerf, former program manager for ARPA who took his skills to the market, where he played an instrumental role in the development of the first commercial email system; Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web; and Steve Jobs, who put the ideas developed by Xerox to commercial use in many of Apple’s first marketed computers. Productivity and innovation tend to flow from the minds of self-interested individuals pursuing profit—not from government orders. The broader story of scientific progress from the Industrial Revolution to the present day provides an overwhelming case for a laissez-faire approach to scientific research and technological development. Clinical biochemist Dr. Terence Kealy notes that the rate of economic growth for the most prosperous industrialized nations does not seem to have been improved in any drastic way in the United States by the massive boom in Cold War science funding. In fact, despite exponential increases in government spending on research over the past few decades, findings published by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development indicate that between 1971 and 1998, publicly funded research and development had virtually no impact on growth rates. This much should be obvious, though. The vast majority of paradigm-shifting innovators over the past two centuries were not the products of government research. Henry Ford did not revolutionize the automobile industry with his Model T Ford and the assembly line by the grace of government subsidies. Alexander Fleming did not need to beg for government funds in order to observe the growth of a Pennicilium mold in his laboratory. Alexander Graham Bell’s curiosity, experimentation, and eventual invention of the telephone were not inspired by government edict. Most innovation today flows from research funded by private investment. Often this investment comes from businessmen running large-scale commercial enterprises, seeking to most efficiently manage their resources. One of the most important components of successful businesses, especially those specializing in technology, is a research and development team that can outdo competitors. Consider Steve Jobs once again. When the idea for an MP3 player which had its own digital marketing interface and software (iTunes) was proposed at Apple, Jobs dedicated 100% of his energy to its development. 200 Apple employees, 80 engineers, and untold funds were funneled into the development of the device that would revolutionize the entire music and entertainment industry. Countless technological developments since then, from touch-screen to razor-thin processing systems, have been made in attempts to compete with the iPod and its Apple-born progeny. Private interests also have a long history of funding groundbreaking, farsighted scientific research. After Flemming’s initial observation of Pennicilium, British researchers Howard Florey and Ernst Chain became interested in the practical applications of his discovery. Upon rejection of their application for a grant by the British government’s Medical Research Council, they turned to The Rockefeller Foundation. John D. Rockefeller established the foundation, in part, to see the kinds of game-changing innovations which Florey and Chain would make come to light. By 1945, after receiving a 5-year grant from Rockefeller’s foundation for their research, Florey and Chain shared the Nobel Prize with Flemming for the development of medical penicillin. Whether through directly commercial research or philanthropy funded by commerce, science is advanced best when individuals must use their minds to choose where to put their money, in hopes of funding the next big idea. Government coercion is conspicuously absent from this equation. The expansive story of scientific progress over the past two centuries involves many compelling examples of private innovation. But their story is largely untold, because it occurs all around us, every single day. It is the story of every individual’s pursuit of his creative passions, curiosities, and interests. And in order for this story to continue, each individual’s mind—and the wealth that it produces—must be his to use. Scientific progress, thus, is much more likely to develop in a system devoid of state coercion—that is, in a laissez-faire economy such as was present during the immense scientific progress of the Industrial Revolution in America. In a system that permits private individuals to make, keep, and spend their wealth in the manner which they see fit, the state is properly barred from inhibiting individuals from the peaceful pursuit of their own lives. No one can force the minds of private market participants to innovate, and no one should try to. J.A. Windham is a first-year law student at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Creative Commons-licensed image from Flickr user dbking. The post How Public Science Hinders Innovation appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

This weekend at Stanford University, twenty of the nation’s top Objectivist student club leaders will unite for an intense day of leadership training to develop their skills as communicators of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. The Undercurrent, which is organizing the seminar, is dedicated to encouraging students to engage in activism that promotes Ayn Rand’s ideas on college campuses. The Undercurrent’s first leadership seminar will feature lectures focused on basic club development, maintaining club longevity, marketing strategy, and communicating philosophical ideas. Speakers include TU principals and former club leaders, including a number of Bay Area entrepreneurs such as Jason Crawford and Jared Seehafer. Newly appointed Director of Development Brittney Rivera, who is coordinating the event, will also speak. Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will deliver online an exclusive capstone talk to the attendees. The TULS event is part of The Undercurrrent’s Fall 2013 campaign, which aims to promote Ayn Rand’s morality of rational self-interest. In addition to providing leadership training to students, the leadership seminar will give Objectivist club leaders the chance to play an active role in planning and promoting activism events surrounding another Stanford-hosted campaign event, a lecture by Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow and President of Intellectual Leadership at the Ayn Rand Institute, to be delivered on Thursday, October 24th. In addition to supporting the Stanford campaign event, TULS students will learn how to market the event on their own campus with the goal of hosting live viewing parties, turning a traditionally local lecture into a nationwide phenomena. Aside from Stanford, participating schools include UT Austin, Loyola Chicago, UW-Madison, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Arizona and Temple University. Dr. Ghate’s lecture, “Rethinking Selfishness: Ayn Rand’s New Conception of Egoism” will explore what makes Ayn Rand’s idea of self-interest distinctive, explaining why it might serve as a source of unconventional but inspiring moral guidance. The talk and the leadership seminar are co-sponsored by The Undercurrent and the Ayn Rand Institute. Participating students have been networking in a private Facebook group for weeks now, and are increasingly enthusiastic to participate in the upcoming event. A conference of Ayn Rand-oriented student activists on this scale is unprecedented. The Undercurrent sees encouraging students to build and take part in a growing activist network as imperative to the success of the Objectivist movement. Thanks to the support received from TU’s campaign fundraiser, a thriving student network is closer to becoming a reality. The Undercurrent hopes to continue creating exciting projects in which young activists can participate in the explosion of visibility of Ayn Rand’s ideas on campus. The post Announcing the TU Leadership Seminar for Objectivist Campus Club Leaders appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original

Under the Surface Episode 1: Who Sets Your Standards? from The Undercurrent on Vimeo. The Undercurrent is proud to announce a project which has been in development for the past several months. A key component in our mission to ignite the Objectivist student movement is to present Objectivist ideas in a relatable manner to those students who are either unfamiliar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, or who hold common misconceptions about Objectivism. Our new video series, “Under the Surface,” features inspiring individuals who have put themselves first and achieved noteable personal and professional successes as a consequence. This video series is the foundation of our fall campaign aimed at promoting the morality of rational self-interest, and it will continue to inspire our print and blog articles, as well as involvement in campus events. We will soon be launching a web site dedicated to spreading the central message of our campaign: “It’s Your Life. Own It.” Today’s debut video is titled “Who Sets Your Standards?” In this first installment, we interview a range of individuals at various stages of their careers who have thought carefully about what it means to set their own standards. Questions discussed include: Should we measure our success by our own standards or by the standards of others? Are social prestige and popularity sources of real self-esteem? What does it mean to think for oneself? I hope that you enjoy this series as much as I’ve enjoyed watching it grow from an idea into something truly inspiring. I’d like to extend special thanks to Magnanimous Media, whose team who volunteered their time and expertise to produce this high-quality video. Stay tuned for more! The post Who Sets Your Standards? Announcing the First Video in Our Fall Campaign appeared first on The Undercurrent. Link to Original