Jonny Glat

If logical progression is insufficient in arriving at truth, then what do you think constitutes a sufficient means?

When Ayn Rand said that individual rights should not be subject to public vote, she meant that rights-violating government policies like welfare programs and socialized medicine should be banned no matter how many people support them.

Criminal trials arise from the need to protect individual rights. A jury deliberating on a verdict is not voting on whether individual rights should be protected, but on what decision best protects those rights. This is the case even if the jurors make a mistake.

Viable has several meanings according to context, Based on your description I think this one "Able to be done, possible" fits. Using this definition, its is certainly possible to steal $50000. I would think it is not as possible as finding a doctor and a hospital and some benefactors who would be willing to work things out.

There's really no other way to derive principles of economics except by the observation of reality. Even Mises does so. So, assuming that "empirical data" is a synonym for the observation of reality, I'd say that there is no other source for principles of economics except empirical data.
In economics, with limited opportunities for controlled experiments, one is left with empirical data that has all sorts of aspects. Sometimes there are also very few instances of some type of event (like a major multi-year economic downturn under a fiat-currency regime), and enough variation among the instances that drawing out principles is not a simple task.

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living."

Reason: I know that healthy dieting and exercise will increase my health in the moment, my life's longevity, and my physique. These are metaphysical facts. Chocolate in excess makes you fat. Being a couch potato in excess makes you fat. I choose to increase my quality of life by working hard at the gym, and choosing healthy "fuel" for my body.

Purpose: I want to live life to the fullest, looking my best, feeling my best, so that I may achieve my career goals, pursue my love interests and attain happiness on earth.

Self-Esteem: I love myself. I love living. I love doing. I know that my life has value and that I am competent and worthy of living. If that is considered narcissistic than it is a virtue.

So in other words, you will pretend that the conceptual faculty does not work in any particular manner, in order to avoid having to use concepts in the contexts for which they are valid. You do not require any evidence to conclude that "effect" is a property that can be assigned to "existence" - the mere fact that those two words can both be used together in a grammatically-correct sentence is sufficient evidence to form that conclusion, in your mind. Words can have whatever meaning you want them to have, and can be used in whatever context you like, in order to support your predetermined conclusion. And colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

We certainly are governed strictly by the laws of cause and effect, and there are no loopholes in causality. However, accepting this view does not immediately lead to the acceptance of determinism, as is often supposed. The non sequitur is often accepted because many people have an incorrect conception of causality. For many people, determinism is part of the definition of causality; this viewpoint might be termed 'billiard-ball' causality, where all instances of causality are assumed to be instances of objects interacting deterministically like billiard balls. However, Objectivism supports a more general conceptualization of causality, which does not smuggle in determinism. Causality, properly conceptualized, is simply the statement that, "A thing acts in accordance with its nature." This formulation leaves open the question of whether or not that nature is deterministic or (as in the case of human consciousness) some ability of self-determination is part of that nature.

Now, I would not dispute the fact that the particles which make up the human brain and form the physical basis for human consciousness act deterministically, but it does not follow from this that the system as a whole acts that way (see fallacy of composition). In fact, to claim that determinism is true is to engage in a contradiction. The existence of knowledge itself presupposes that volition exists; knowledge depends on our ability to volitionally weigh evidence and separate truth from falsehoods. To claim something as true which undercuts the basis for truth is clearly contradictory. For some further threads on determinism, see 1 2 3 4.

The rest of your point, however, is well taken (replacing 'acting deterministically' with 'acting causally'). If we pretend that our free will can do more than it actually can, then we will be helpless to face many personal issues. Our minds have a certain, definite nature, and our will is limited in scope. We need to understand this nature and these limits in order to act effectively (this is just another example of "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"). The example of kicking an addiction is a good one, where understanding how the human mind works will contribute greatly to one's success. Psychological issues in general depend on a good understanding of the nature of human consciousness. This thread on procrastination and how to beat it using an understanding of human consciousness also comes to mind.

As to your first point, certainly Rand thought it was more appropriate for men to pursue women in romance and for them to take the active part. In her own life, however, she did not do this - she pursued Frank O'Connor (in fact she tripped him), she pursued Nathaniel Branden, and she may have pursued several other young men as well although they did not actually begin a relationship. I am hesitant to speak for "Objectivism" but my honest understanding is that, like so many other things, IT DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL. Clearly, from your post, you prefer to be pursued. If this is the case, you should probably strive to be with men who are willing to pursue you. There is such a thing as romantic compatibility in addition to just personal compatibility. You should not apologize for or be ashamed of your preferences. However, you should also understand that they are not universal and that it is not "better" to prefer to be the pursuer or the pursued. In fact, it may even change from relationship to relationship - with one person you (the royal you, not you in particular) might do better as the pursuer and in another relationship with a different person it might be better for you to sit back and wait.

There are many rational reasons to take either role (or to mix them up, there's no law that says each person can't do a bit of both). When you pursue, you can feel confident that you are taking action to achieve a value and that your success or failure is more dependent upon what you yourself have done. On the other hand, you run the risk of rejection and you are "showing your hand", so to speak. When you are being pursued, you essentially ask the other party to make an "upfront investment" in you. You have a position of power whereby you can take or leave what someone else has offered. The downside to this is that you may feel like you are left waiting around, that you aren't doing anything, that the dynamics of your relationship depend primarily on another. It is my belief that either the pursuer or the pursued can be "in control", but they are different forms of control.

Your second point re: feminism. I don't know. It depends on what sort of feminism you mean. There is a type that seems to hate masculinity for its own sake as well as any behaviors perceived to be masculine, such as assertiveness, stoicism, etc. I would not, however, blame feminism per se for the lack of confidence the young men you run across seem to feel. I would just say they probably don't have much self-esteem which is a cultural problem more generally. Keep in mind that many, if not most of those traits often associated with masculinity are also strongly tied to individualism. Someone who does not know how to be an independent guy may simultaneously lack "masculine" qualities for that reason.

I will just finish with the thought that often thinking of "men qua men" and "women qua women" obscures the issue, in my opinion. There are many different kinds of both men and women, which is a good thing. Keeping the discussion to opposite-sex relationships for simplicity's sake, a "traditionally" masculine man might be a wonderful mate for one woman but not another. Although clearly some qualities are objectively desirable (intelligence, good health, strong character), the precise combinations of those traits that are optimal are highly individualized. Some women would consider a wealthy, powerful man dedicated to a socially-valued career (doctor, lawyer, politician) and desiring to be in charge of his household and family a wonderful mate, but I would not.

The most important thing is to stay true to yourself and your values. If you won't be happy with a passive guy, then don't pursue them and make yourself uncomfortable. On the other hand, if you're just striking up a conversation with a more timid guy, that doesn't seem like such a big deal. You're just talking, right? You don't expect every man you talk to or befriend to be a potential partner, do you?

Perhaps you may find this excerpt helpful, from Ayn Rand's "Philosophy:Who Needs it" in regards to "Responsibility/Obligation":

"Causality Versus Duty"

I think in this hypothetical the mother had chosen a long range goal of having a child, and that goal subsumes necessary action of taking care of her value, her child.

I disagree with this in part; positive emotions (or any emotions, for that matter) are not the standard of value, but they are values.

See this thread: Bill Clinton's Impeachment--The legal aspects of abnormal behavior. It's quite a long one and full of pointless bickering, but there is about 10% or so of the posts where you will find some thoughts that may be helpful.

If you don't want to go through all that invective, then as a very brief summary, the philosophical basis for legal restraints on public displays was stated by Miss Rand as follows:

while not a novel bioshock gives an amazing atmosphere and presents an amazing story, although I don't think it would turn out that way it's still an amazing game.

Socialism is a flavor of collectivism, or a political system based on slavery and mysticism, or in a more abstract concept: it is a system based on force. Advocates of any collectivist system usually evade their fundamental contradictions which are specifically Existence = Identity. Consciousness = Identification. Therefore advocates reject the notion that Man has free will and is merely a collection of atoms, programmed by fate, god, or genes. Man doesn't have a mind, they contend, therefore Man cannot be held accountable for any of his behaviors. This means that Socialism's efforts to redistribute wealth equally, or to a degree more equally, is morally right because its not Johnny's fault that he isn't smart enough to be an astronaut and just as importantly, Maria the physicist, the one who works to understand and solve and create and produce did so automatically just like her genes/god/fate designed her to do, therefore she has no right to a larger paycheck than Johnny. Socialism is the political system of determinism, subjectivism, and anti-reason because it denies the Individual and claims his life, his ability, and his productive output belongs to everyone and anyone in society. Socialists deny Free Will, they deny the right to property, and they deny the right to life.

It is absolutely, objectively irrational to contend that socialism is viable, that socialism is moral, and/or that socialism is rational.

Sexual attraction is problematic. Even heterosexual men do not agree on what is sexually attractive. One often sees some of the oddest couples. I've seen guys that weight 300 pounds with beautiful young women who weigh 100 pounds. Or very tall guys with petite girls. Who can explain the attraction?

In my view, most women are bi-sexual. Women do things that "straight men" would be very reluctant to do, like kissing, holding hands, sleeping in the same bed, trying on each others clothes and shoes, etc. Women consider this touchy-feely stuff to be normal, and many experiment with doing lots more. At the same time, many men who are in declared heterosexual relationships are messing around with gay men, and even gay prostitutes. Sexuality, like most behaviors, falls along a continuum. I think that there are blatant male homosexuals that one can identify as they walk by and who are open about their lifestyle, while others are more subtle. My tennis partner is gay, but not blantantly so, and I have had meals with his partner and his friends some of whom are real screamers. I wondered what the gay guys were thinking about me being the only straight guy at the table. I don't think that it is valid to generalize about lifestyles and roles. I don't have firsthand knowledge of what gays do, and I'm not in the least bit curious about it either. I also don't go to clubs and pick up women because night life doesn't appeal to me, and I don't drink alcohol. Different strokes for different folks.

If the act of male homosexual behavior is perverted, why then are so many men and women into anal sex? They are doing what male homosexuals are doing, just with different gender partners. Homeosexuality: what is it? Is anyone who ever had a same sex experience a homosexual or a latent one? Personally, I think that if one experiments that way one is bi-sexual, and I wouldn't even think that that might be something interesting to try. I also wouldn't climb a mountain or visit underdeveloped countries. Those experiences do not appeal to me. So, who is the normal one? Most people like to go to the beach. I don't. Most people drink alcohol. I don't. Most people wants kids and pets. Not me. So, do we say that the norm is just a statistic? The answers are not readily evident.

Yikes. Maybe because sex is the physical expression of romantic love, which is someone's response to his or her own highest values in the person of another, to paraphrase Ayn Rand (see here). And only people have the capacity to choose their own moral values, and thus be an object of romantic love and thus proper sexual desire. There is an essential difference between homosexuality and those other things you list, which is: other individuals are capable of rational thought, making moral choices, and building moral character, even if they are the same sex as I am. Plastic yard flamingos are not.

This type of feeble 'slippery slope' argumentation might crop up often in religious fundamentalist circles, where sex is derided as base and animal... but one would hope that it wouldn't in Objectivist circles, where the nature of sex is properly understood and appreciated as a deeply spiritual response to another individual.