exaltron

Ok, but suppose that there were a small race of super-human/alien/bionic androids who were impervious to nuclear weapons? What would you say then, huh smart guy?

I think you are assuming that the possible outcomes in this scenario are: 1. The farmer keeps his land 2. The government takes it by force If those are the assumptions I would say it would be rational for the farmer to want to keep his land. However in a free market, anyone who had an interest in self-preservation would be free to channel money towards an offer that any rational person could not refuse. Assuming that the resource was so valuable and crucial for survival then, what could the farmer expect to gain by holding out? Would more money be forthcoming after the apocalyptic destruction? I would definitely argue that no amount of sentimental value could outweigh the amount of money that this person would surely be offered in a free-market, hence my assessment of such a person as irrational or "psychotic" (not clinically speaking of course, we would have to know more about his psychology) if he were to hold out. Okay, but in this case you are actually making an argument for individual rights, ie, the farmer would be able to do what is in his interest despite the governments claim that it should have the right to sacrifice his interests. I think what you need to look at is whether "among rational men" there can or should be conflicting interests. Objectivism demonstrates that the answer to that question is most emphatically no (cf OPAR or CTUI).

well, DUH, anyone can see that it's a.. a...uh, spacema- alien.. deep sea diver? /got nothin'

I think the second point above really just ends up playing into the shystery trap of that fantastic hypothetical. Wallace is purposefully trying to push Rand to a point where she would have to say "OK, yeah, in that situation, individual rights wouldn't be as important as the collective's interest in not being annihilated". But it still gives too much credence to the hypothetical. How would that happen in a capitalist-dominated society? How would one psychotic person be able to amass the kind of wealth and financial support it would require to threaten so many people? It would take much more than a few irrational people to achieve this. Same goes for those rare-yet-crucial resources: It would require that a huge number of people would support some irrational scheme whereby those who controlled the resource would not sell it at a reasonable price to those who would in turn make the best use of it. Soviet-style communism for example...

I've actually seen this and even watched it again with a semi-lefty friend who was visibly swayed by the arguments (It helped that Michael Moore was in rare idiotic form talking to Stossel). The one thing I don't understand is the idea that money you don't spend on healthcare in the case of the Whole Foods employees was said to go into a savings plan or Roth IRA. However in New York State, I've always been told that if you don't spend the money in your HSA, it is basically gone (then again I suppose it was never really mine to begin with as far as my trusted local representatives are concerned).

And the award for most thoroughly and completely dropped context goes to... The first problem with your hypothesis is that it assumes that somehow I could be living under some sort of murderous tyranny, and yet I would somehow be able to get a message to anyone, much less the Prime Minister of Canada. The second problem: How exactly would you propose "settling this thing", if "The only thing that stands between Canada and enslavement by its expansionist southern neighbor is its nuclear-tipped missiles, which can take out every U.S. city from Boston to San Diego"? That makes no sense, it's a complete contradiction. If there were a way to settle the thing without the annihilation of every US citizen, then how could you say that the only thing stopping the US from enslaving the Canadians was their missiles? Setting both of these aside, you cannot negotiate with aggressors, it's called appeasement, it's never worked. It only emboldens them and shows them that you are nothing but a paper tiger. They are precisely counting on the type of rhetoric you are setting forth, in the hopes that they can paint the nation who is under attack as an aggressor, obfuscating the fact that they are the ones who put their citizens at risk, they are completely and utterly responsible for that predicament. So no, I would not appeal to the leaders or the citizens of Canada. My interest would best be served in this bizarre hypothetical by either appealing to my fellow citizens to help overthrow the tyranny or trying to escape. It would emphatically not be in my interest to suggest that the Canadians do something which would clearly not be in their interest, namely appease a dictator and aggressor who represents a clear and present danger. The fact that some or even most of the citizens of the US might not support the aggression would not change that (based on your description of the situation, it would be far beyond the possibility of Canada supporting some kind of Wolverine-esque uprising). They would laugh in my face and they would be well justified, since I would basically be asking them to roll over and die.

Yeah, that was a bit sloppy. I was referring to a statement which I believe comes from the book Junk Science Judo, which indicates that cancer rates overall have not gone up at all with the increase in industrialization and chemical production over the last 200 years. Basically if routine exposure to chemicals caused cancer, generally speaking, we should expect to see an increase in cancer rates overall, which has not been observed. I think chemicals are much more likely to be blamed for health problems because of junk science smears (cf, the alar scare, the banning of DDT, etc), than are actually going to found at such high concentrations as to cause real health problems. Also is it not the general consensus that just about any substance at a high enough dosage can be shown to cause cancer (eg, aspartame)? That definitely was vague though, should have been more clear, thanks for pointing that out.

The oil refinery only has the right to degrade its own property. Just because it was there first doesn't give it the right to pollute neighboring tracts of land. Rand was against the form of environmentalism we see in contemporary society, namely the worship of nature that elevates it above what it is: an environment which humans can and must alter and exploit in order to survive and thrive. But that doesn't mean that clean air and water are not valuable, nor does it mean that anyone can harm you or your property with impunity. If there is a demonstrable harm done to you or your property, your rights have been violated. Now granted, many environmental claims (eg, I lived next to a chemical plant, now I have cancer) are imminently specious (in fact cancer rates overall have never shown any increase with exposure to chemicals). But there are cases where industries pollute and do harm, and in those cases, any rational Objectivist would observe that rights have been violated. I believe Capitalism the Unknown Ideal and For the New Intellectual both have essays that address this issue much more eloquently than I have.

This may have been covered in other threads, but I think the best way to look at a dictatorship is that it is a hostage situation on a much larger scale. Imagine a crazed gunman takes an innocent woman hostage and starts shooting at you, you, in the course of defending yourself, accidentally shoot and kill the woman. You are not a murderer, you were simply trying to defend yourself, the gunman is the one who knowingly put the woman in harm's way, and presumably would have killed you and continued killing until both he and his hostage were killed. That is precisely the calculation of a dictator, he counts on that moral equivocation that blanks out on the context of war and aggression. He knows that most people will swallow the logic of "you killed an innocent civilian, you are a murderer" and not dig deeper to consider that a peaceful country like the US has no reason to kill innocent civilians, unless they are unfortunate enough to be held hostage by a warmongering dictator. Now of course, if you take an example like Japan in WWII, the emperor enjoyed overwhelming popular support for Japanese aggression, so it is hard to feel sorry for those civilians that were unlucky enough to pay the cost of that support. But it seems to me that at least half of these cases involve civilians who do not support the acts of aggression that put them in harm's way. Then again, the ability of dictatorships to control the flow of information and make themselves look like victims of aggression can complicate the issue. Consider for example that a significant number of North Koreans actually believe that the US has designs on attacking North Korea, at which point US soldiers would cannibalize the NK civilians, as is the time-honored tradition of the US military..

From my blog, 5x5: Oh lord did I ever get a bitter chuckle out of this WSJ article on increasing drug prices. Just when you think the issues of individual rights and supply and demand couldn't get mired any further in altruistic rhetoric, here come our illustrious presidential candidates to prove you wrong. First up, Obama: OMG, What the.. who? Is there even one word in that quote that is not completely worthless? What "monopoly power" do the drug companies have, you mean that competition-destroying seven-year patent they get just for being lucky enough to sink millions of dollars into discovery that might yield a safe and live-saving medication? And by "unjustified price increases", I'm assuming he means charging more for a drug than people can afford. Well bravo, my good man, you are correct, it is in fact in the economic interest of the drug companies to set a price for their product that the majority of people can afford, in order to maximize their profits and- oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you? Ah, what you meant was that everyone should be able to afford the drugs and that the industry's profits and rights to its intellectual property are not your concern, you unprincipled little worm. Yes, I almost forgot that as an employee of a corporation in the health care industry, I have no right to consider my interests over the needs of those who demand life-saving drugs at a price of their choosing. Ok, good luck with that, I'm sure that golden goose will just keep-a layin' eggs in perpetuity. Not to be outdone, her comes Senator McCain to offer his radically free-market approach: But of course, like a true capitalist, McCain simply wants to "keep competition vigorous" by pretending that Canadians get their drugs through some sort of free market. Let's just forget that 99% of all money spent on drugs in Canada is money that is coercively taken from Canadian citizens by their government, who then "negotiates" a price with the pharmaceutical industry. Oh Canadian Government, don't worry about Obama, he's too busy calling the Pharmaceutical industry a monopoly to notice that you actually are one. What tickles me is that McCain is playing along with the industry's "safety" game, ie, that they're just concerned that if drugs are reimported, the vaunted public (whose right to "safe" drugs is inalienable), might end up with some fake Viagra. Oh Pharmaceutical Industry, when the hell are you gonna take your family jewels out of your purse and stand up for your rights to your property and your profits? Seriously, when a cube monkey in your multi-billion dollar industry has to point out that all your altruistic PR is just playing into the hands of those who would enslave you... Please tell me you are working on a drug that can treat a chronically weak backbone.

I worked on this product team for almost six years and I never saw this coming. We knew that there were issues, most notably the reluctance of insurance companies and HMOs to cover something that was not seen as a medical necessity. But that Pfizer would simply cut its losses on something that so many millions had been spent on just boggles my mind. It almost makes me think socialized medicine might not work as well as they're saying it will...

Hi Kendall and Sophia, just wanted to apologize for letting this get away from me and thank both of you for your insight into this highly complex issue. Without going back and responding point by point to all your posts, I would say I generally agree with the approach you are both taking, but I would still argue that Rand did alter her idea of a heroic man from one who was "not deeply affected by love" to one who- as you both pointed out- is deeply affected, but through force of will and rational thought, does not allow himself to be overcome or fundamentally held back by his grief. I remember when I was really struggling with the loss of love recently, I began writing a song about that specific concept of being able to value someone even though they are no longer in your life. It was then that I started to understand the difference between what I was feeling now, which was sadness and loss over something that was wonderful and rational, as opposed to what I had felt in the past which was anger, resentment, frustration over relationships that ended senselessly and felt like an irrational waste of time. I think this couplet: And if this sweet sorrow is the cost Then I know it's really something that I've lost sums up what I feel about that relationship most of the time. As much as the concept of "sweet sorrow" isn't necessarily compatible with the concept that pain doesn't matter and has no meaning, I used poetic license to delineate the difference between the type of senseless pain that is the product of irrational premises and the type of pain that is worth suffering and getting past, with the understanding that the love I experienced far outweighed the disappointment of having to let it go. I think that may be a departure from what you're describing above, Kendall. And in my worst moments I definitely have experienced what some might call "too much wishbone and not enough backbone". Perhaps this is a symptom of having had the experience of conjuring my ideal woman in song and then having that ideal fulfilled (So much for The Secret..). But seriously, I think this may be one of hardest lessons I'm learning from Objectivism- that even when you do everything right and are completely honest, sometimes things just don't go your way, and you have to accept that and move on. Agree. I'm still not convinced that this is consistent with Rand's notes on Roark, but I am beginning to see how she was more focused on the idea of Roark being independent to the extent that he couldn't be broken by love, that he wouldn't compromise or dilute his values for love. I think perhaps the phrase "Nothing can really touch him" is what I bristle at. I don't think she means that he is not capable of love, emotion, loss, grief, etc., but that is why I would argue that such a statement belongs in the notes and not in the novel. Ultimately, I think the elements of Rand's fiction that depict the heroic struggle that it should require to get past the loss of someone who truly reflects your values on all levels have much more resonance for me than those that depict her characters moving on without any untangling of emotions. I suppose it's just hard for me to believe that anyone who has lived with integrity their entire lives and then experienced a relationship that entails a manifestation of that fidelity to one's values, can experience the massive complexity of emotions and the "letting go of the reins" that I believe is proper to such a relationship, without having to do some serious work to get over it. At the very least I think the "maiden voyage" would tend to be a rough one. I'm certain that my next relationship will be much smoother in that it won't represent the fulfillment of something I didn't even know was possible. Kendall, I think you mentioned that your recent relationship was much easier to get over; I wonder if this wasn't a function of having experienced something similar in a previous relationship and having known that life goes on? It certainly is helping me these days. As new-agey as it sounds, I actually find value in the struggle I've had over the past few months. It's taught me a lot about who I am and where I can find strength when I need it. For any Objectivist who hasn't experienced it, I highly recommend getting your heart stomped on by a real life Dagny or Galt

Great quotes, Kendall (I'm guessing you have the PC database.. wish they made that for the mac). Very briefly, I think the concept of "need" is a bit fluid throughout. Depending on the context, it would seem to mean different things. Ultimately I agree that there is no second-handed need or dependence per se in her characters, but what I take issue with is this statement, for example: I would argue that ultimately she did not present Roark as not deeply affected by his need for Dominique. As in Atlas, much of the tension of the plot comes from watching the heroes struggling mightily against their need and desire for Dominique and Dagny. Granted, what makes Rand's novels different is that that love is not the ultimate value, I think that's what she means when she says that love is not "all-absorbing" or "selfless". In any other novel, we would see Roark, Francisco, Rearden, and Galt compromising their own values and goals in order to have Dagny (ie, noncontextual romance). I think if Rand had written Roark as she originally sketched him in those quotes, he wouldn't have been as compelling a character as he ended up being- complex, strong, but with a passionate emotional capacity (contrast this with Gary Cooper's robotic version of Roark who is more consistent IMO with that original sketch). I would like to go back and read that entire set of entries on Roark and TF to get a better picture of this, but my impression is that there were a lot of things that Rand developed and changed from her original notes and outline, and I would argue that this element is one of them. I have to admit that I'm particularly interested in the subject as it is something that I'm struggling personally with right now. I have always considered myself to be very independent and strong, but having experienced a massively fulfilling, full-spectrum romance with an objectivist recently and having had to let it go for logistical reasons makes me question the idea of a rational man not being affected by such things. I am passionate about my music and that will always be the foundation of my happiness, but for me to say that I am just as happy now as I was when I was with her would just be straight-up bunk. Perhaps this is something irrational I've internalized unknowingly. I think sometimes that even Objectivists can sometimes create an either-or dichotomy between work and love, but it seems that this quote: ..points to a continuity between the two where one can see the passion for work and for romance as part of the same whole. I will always find happiness in my work regardless of who appreciates it, but having known what it is to have that passion (or the fidelity to that passion) reflected romantically in an equal... let's just say it's extremely motivating

Kendall- I thought I would post my response that I had originally posted on your blog, and suggest you put up your well-reasoned and sourced responses so all in the thread can discuss.. I should have time to pick this back up tomorrow morning.. Scott

Simply brilliant. Easily one of the best Objectivist-flavored pieces of satire I've ever read.

What scares me about this article is in considering how much intelligence, diligence and talent it takes to get all this stuff right. Precisely the stuff that socialized medicine will breed out of the system. If the incidence of infections for lines is 4% under a partially for-profit system, consider what it will be when profit is basically outlawed. Not a pretty picture.

I think someone came up with a name for this system at some point.. What was it? Oh yes, Democracy!! No doubt, witness the myriad ways in which leftists and enviros are getting all excited about The World Without Us, a book which to any sane person would seem bleak and disturbing.

I don't think anyone is saying that a society that doesn't practice 100% LF capitalism is doomed. No more than an otherwise healthy individual can host an internal parasite indefinitely without it leading to his death (indeed, the nature of the parasite is generally not to tax the host to the point that there is nothing to left to live off). The mixed economy functions despite the socialist and right-violating practices it entails, because of the massive wealth-generating power of free trade. The other issue you raise is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. You also used the word "power", which in my experience is a smear word whose ambiguity is often exploited by leftists. Notice that you rarely see "power" in discussions of capitalism broken down into economic and political power. The thing to bear in mind is that from a standpoint of justice, these are two completely different types of power. Economic power simply means an individual has created something that is highly in demand. There is no coercion inherent in the concept of economic power. Political power on the other hand, is purely coercive, without the coercion, politicians are just a bunch of whiny windbags we can ignore with impunity. Now in a mixed economy, the concepts of economic power and political power can become confused, when things like cronyism, subsidies, pork, publicly funded propoganda, etc. are brought into the equation. But that is not a fault attributable to capitalism, it is an issue of not having proper separation of economics and state. If you believe that an extreme concentration of wealth and economic power is inherently unjust or undesirable, I would question why you believe this from a philosophical or moral standpoint. From an economic standpoint, it seems pretty clear that millions of individuals have freely deemed it to be in their interest to trade with Bill Gates for example. They have all decided that he deserves to have billions of dollars, by definition (since one assumes that a free and rational individual would never give anyone something unless they believed that person deserved it). The issue of monopolies has been shown to be a characteristic of government intrusion in business; it is simply impossible for any business to completely rid itself of competitors without the coercive political power of government. Same goes for depressions, and the assumption that before the Great Depression that there was no government intrusion on business or economics is demonstrably a false one. In fact there is ample evidence that government regulation and tweaking of the money supply and lending policy directly caused the '29 crash. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you mention "unchecked capitalism" leading to unrest and uncertainty. The period in US history that saw the most economic freedom also saw a huge increase in wealth and a higher living standard for the vast majority of people. Of course no system can magically lift everyone out of poverty and I don't deny that some people in the US lived in miserable conditions during the Industrial Revolution. But again, the waves of immigration did not happen without the assumption of better life than that of the motherland in the US. The problem with calling that period "unchecked capitalism" was that it was neither completely unchecked- there was always some level of government intrusion in economics- nor was it purely capitalism, since capitalism requires the protection of individual rights and property. As mentioned earlier by fletch and adrock, we do not have any real test case for pure capitalism or pure marxism, so we can only look at the ratio of these ingredients and what the outcomes are. It seems pretty clear that the freer the economy and the less government concerns itself with enforcing equality and "stability" (as defined by the government of course), the more wealth is created.

Agreed, I don't think this premise is very well thought out. It definitely requires ignoring the fact that the stupid, while clearly more likely to procreate due to their stupidity, are infinitely less likely to survive without the ability to benefit from their more intelligent contemporaries (whether through trade or through parasitism). Even as apocalyptic and depressing as Idiocracy is, I think it assumes a level of social and capital inertia that simply wouldn't exist in a world where our mediocre hero is the smartest person on the planet. I think the exponential spread of destruction and eventual implosion of society in Atlas Shrugged is much more credible and realistic. The rate at which abject panic and desperation would set in is much faster IMO than most people seem to think, which is consistent with how most people seem to take the lifestyle made possible by capitalism largely for granted. I think in no time at all the hardcore environmentalists could all be celebrating the return to agrarian society by dancing naked in their own waste while eating tree bark.

OMG I love this movie!!!! I chanced across it on HBO recently and laughed until tears streamed down my face. I actually thought of posting something here, but I figured no one else would have seen it. I could go on and on about all the parts made me spit my brawndo all over myself, but I also noticed that there was a decidedly promethean (not to say Roarkian) theme in the plot, where he is put on trial for being smart (perhaps oversimplifying a bit). But instead of turning the public around with his impassioned speech as Roark does in the Fountainhead, he is described by a reporter as "faggy" and mocked for his whiny voice. I would put this in the same category as Ricky Gervais' (British version of The Office, Extras) comedy, namely the kind that makes you laugh while making you squirm with discomfort and/or disgust at the same time.

Excellent responses software nerd and adrock, I have honestly never seen that "markets are perfect" statement so eloquently dissected. I think the full statement might be "completely free markets are a perfect reflection of what individuals are producing and what it is worth to other individuals". Of course that gets to the heart of the matter, that the altruists are disgusted by the concept of putting a quantifiable value on anyone's work- they prefer to recognize the "inherent value of every individual" as if that statement could have any meaning at all. This is fascinating too: Again, this goes back to the idea that markets are a "cure for society's ills". If that is your assumption then yes, you will be frustrated when reality doesn't conform. No system can magically fill everyone's stomach if those who are producing stand nothing to gain. This has been proven over and over again throughout history. I guess what the esteemed author wants is a mixed economy, though heaven forbid we call it a "system". Someone might fall in love with it. Agree, and to put this in a reductio ad absurdum, no one argued that the American South should return to slavery when the economy stagnated after the Reconstruction. Should the economic failure of the South be used as evidence that abolition "doesn't work" or "isn't perfect"? Clearly the important task is to emphasize capitalism as a political system and not simply an economic one.

This made me chuckle bitterly today (from a Starbuck coffee cup): This just captures so perfectly the arrogant self-righteousness of environmentalists. It's as if they're saying, "C'mon, all we want to do is make your life better (just ignore the fact that we'll destroy your economy and hobble your technological progress in the process of achieving this nirvana)".

I'm going to be in Albuquerque from Jan 23rd-28th, just wondering if anyone from the forum is in the area. I'm visiting an Objectivist friend I met on myspace, and he's set me up with a gig at a local club on that Friday (the 25th). I would love to meet up with anyone in the area, or if you know the area, feel free to let me know what's worth seeing. thanks!

+1 and I agree that under "want to meet" there should be a "for what" and a "whom" (ie, what gender). I actually tend to think the chances of meeting a great single objectivist here are much better than on that "Ayn Rand Admirers" site. (superior sneer emoticon unavailable for comment)

My comment as posted on GVS's blog: I think an entire book could be dedicated to issues like this one dealing with the conflict between free speech and public property. From the sidewalk and public transportation to the airwaves and public schools, there will never be anything resembling free speech as long as the right to property is subject to the whim of voters.