dan_edge

Someone might want to write this crazy bitch a letter. I'd sign it. Volunteers? --Dan Edge

This issue was discussed at great length in a earlier thread, Legal Foundation for Public Decency. The first few pages are good, though I didn't participate in all 22(!) pages of it. In general I agree with Rand's view, though I think the way she expresses herself on this issue in unclear. --Dan Edge

DragonMagi, For some reason, your posts on this topic did not show up on my screen until recently. In any case, I appreciate your criticisms. I dealt with many of your criticisms in the article, and in my other responses on this forum, so I will let it stand at that. --Dan Edge

Hello Dr. Radiaki, Thanks for taking the time to offer feedback. My comments on your post follow. I believe you are misapplying the principal you raised. My long-term romantic relationship is clearly an "actual" value. A potential friendship with another woman is a "potential" value. My article argues that, if I pursue the potential value of an intimate opposite-sex friendship, it could damage the actual value that is my primary love relationship. You could counter-argue that pursuing an opposite-sex friendship would not in fact affect my love relationship. But the principle you raised does not disprove my argument -- it supports it. I think I see how one could draw this implication from my argument, but I disagree. Aequalsa pointed at a flaw in your terminology, and I will expand on that. Man is a rational animal, meaning reason is his essential characteristic. But this does not mean that his rational faculty can trump every other aspect of his nature. A man with a broken arm cannot just decide that his arm is healed. He must take into account his body's nature, part of which is that the arm must take weeks to heal. And even then, his arm will only heal properly if he takes certain actions like wearing a cast, being careful not to stress the arm, etc. Man's consciousness also has a nature, and one cannot just decide to go against it. For instance, emotions are not under one's direct volitional control. One cannot decide which emotional reactions he will have in any given situation. Emotions are responses to automatized value-judgments, and in that respect they are partially, indirectly volitional. But one cannot choose which of his judgments an emotion will respond to. His subconscious makes its own lightning evaluation based on the sum of automatized judgments stored in his mind, and responds accordingly. For instance, if one is afraid of heights, he cannot just turn that emotion off the first time he is at the top of a rappelling tower. He may learn to ignore his fear, set it aside, or even use it positively for adrenaline, but if one knows he is afraid of heights, he would be a fool not to acknowledge this fact before he climbs up the rappelling tower. Consider another example: Why would a former alcoholic avoid hanging out in bars? Assuming that he has friends who hang out in bars, that it is a significant part of his social life, he would be "sacrificing" some of his values if he decided not to go any more. If he has decided that he will never drink again, then he has nothing to worry about, right? But he acknowledges that, even though his reason has renounced alcohol use, his emotions may not yet follow suit. While he can overcome his desire to drink through force of will, this can be difficult and uncomfortable. He chooses instead not to put himself in that position. He avoids the bars, and the temptation, altogether. The case of an opposite-sex friendship is more complex, because an intimate friendship is a potential value (unlike getting drunk). But the same generalization applies: one must acknowledge the nature of his subconscious and how it will react in certain situations. It is not as though one can simply decide, "I will love Kelly, now and for always," and then one's subconscious will automatically follow suit. Love is the response to a countless number of automatized judgments about another person, all rolled into one emotion. It is one's subconscious, not his volition, that is directly responsible for this emotional response. So what, precisely, is the subconscious responding to? It responds to the values one sees in another person: her intelligence, her body, her sense of humor, her charm, and other things. One's emotional response to a person can become more pronounced over time -- with repeated exposure to the concrete values present in the person. His subconscious also takes his conscious decisions into account in its lighting evaluation of a woman. But one's conscious decisions are not the only factor taken into account. You can't just decide not to respond to the other evaluations. You can't tell your subconscious, in effect, "I realize that Kate is attractive, funny, intelligent, and compatible with me in a variety of ways. And I realize that I have concretized her value by spending a lot of time with her. But I have decided that Kelly is my life-long love, so I do not want you to respond with any romantic feelings for Kate. You are only allowed to respond with platonic feelings for Kate." The subconscious will not process this sort of command. While you may not realize it, Dr. Radiaki, this is exactly what you imply by insisting that my article defies man qua rational animal -- that one can give his subconscious explicit instructions about which automatized value-judgments it is allowed to take into consideration. In other words, that one's emotions are under his direct volitional control. But this conclusion ignores the nature of man's consciousness. Do you have a reference for Rand on this topic? I don't recall Rand taking this position on soulmates. In any case, if she does take the position you ascribe to her, then she was wrong. Saying that there is only one person who is the best possible value to you is like saying there is only one greatest book, only one greatest movie, only one greatest work of art. What does it even mean in this context to claim that someone is the "best possible value to you"? If you mean that it's the "best possible" because you only meet a limited number of people in life, and that you only have a limited amount of time to spend seeking and nurturing romantic love, and that you try to find the best woman you can to spend the rest of your life with -- then OK, that makes some sense. But that is not the implication of your statement. The implication is that there is only one woman in the universe who is perfect for me, the Ideal Form of Dan's Perfect Woman, and that is the person I must find if I am to have the Perfect Ideal Romantic Relationship. But this is a Platonic, rationalistic view. I am planning to write an article in the near future on "soulmates," in which I will offer a rational definition of the term. I'm still working it out though, so until then... Thanks, --Dan Edge

Howdy, Yes, there are contexts in which my "Opposite Sex Friendships Rule of Thumb" would not apply. For instance, I am becoming very close to Kelly's parents, and I often hang out with her mother Lynn while Kelly and her Dad are out doing something together. Clearly, I am not concerned with developing a romantic attachment in that case. As for vast age differences generally, I would think that it would make a significant difference, but I've never had a close friendship with a non-family member who was a lot older than me. And yes, I have had lesbian friends in the past who I was comfortable getting close to because I knew the sex-thing would never be a factor. As I wrote in the article, the generalizations I present are rules of thumb that need to be properly contextualized in different situations. Thanks! --Dan Edge

Hi Inspector, Yes, I've actually listened to that lecture in the past few months. I don't recall hearing an argument similar to mine, but he discusses a lot of topics, so maybe it just didn't stand out to me at the time. If you recall, listening to Peikoff's tape inspired the "Demoting" a Relationship Article from last year. --Dan Edge

Matus, Actually, my soon-to-be-father-in-law (Todd) had a similar reaction to my argument. He and his wife are both life-long Objectivists, and they have been together for more than 35 happy years. He said that after so long, he couldn't even imagine having a romance with anyone else. I see that perspective, but Todd also said that during his marriage he has never had a close friendship with another woman he was attracted to. He has had several close male friends during that time. Which begs the question: why is it that all of his close friends over the years have been men? Why haven't any of them been women? A few general questions for everyone: Is there anyone here who has been in a committed relationship for a long time, who also has a close, intimate, independent friendship with a member of the opposite sex? I admit that such relationships can be healthy in some contexts, but I think there's a reason it is relatively rare. --Dan Edge

Right, Tenure. But keep in mind, I'm writing from my own experiences. When you're Dan Edge, you just have to learn to live with the fact that all your female friends want a piece. And half of your male friends. Yes, sometimes it's a curse to be Dan Edge. --Dan Edge

As usual, Peter (mrocktor) and I are at odds on relationship issues. All I can say, Peter, is that my thoughts are based on my own romantic experiences over the years. I think you are too quick to label people as "dishonest." The kinds of errors I described in my article are very easy to make, and are often the result of ignorance, not dishonesty. Also, I challenge your provocative charge that I restrain myself from developing intimate opposite-sex friendships because I am "scared." Joy, not fear, is my motivation for conducting friendships the way I do. As usual, I appreciate your feedback, even though I think you're totally wrong. --Dan Edge

I personally think it's natural and good to experiment with dating, romance, and sex in one's formative years (late teens to early/mid 20's), but it's not absolutely necessary. I know of a several wonderful couples who lost their virginity to each other and stayed together. Some people are lucky like that. But for most, it takes years of experimenting with different lovers to figure out what they want in a long-term partner. On a related note, I would say that it's not a good idea to marry someone you haven't had sex with. Sex is such an important part of a romantic relationship, and introduces a completely different level of intimacy, I can't imagine committing to someone for life if I haven't first shared a bed and an apartment with her for at least a little while. --Dan Edge

For good measure, here is Kendall's comment and my reply: --------------------- Kendall J said... I think this is a great defense of a rational idea. I have many people I know, especially ones who have never been married, who think that a principle like this (limiting opposite sex friendships) is arbitrary and limiting. Having seen the results in action, your characterization of the reasons this is valid are spot on in my experience. Do you think that in the context of both partners explicitly agreeing that such relationships are ok, that this principles could change? ---------------------- Dan Edge said... Hi Kendall, As I wrote in the article, there are situations in which opposite-sex friendships are appropriate, for instance if the friendship predates one's marriage. But of course one's wife should know about the friendship and approve (I can't think of a reason the wife would object). However, as in other examples I used in the article, even if both parties in a relationship agree to adopt a certain label, their subconscious minds will be confused if their actions do not match the label. For instance, say you and your wife agree that it's OK to have sex with other people. Then you go out and start having sex with your friend Jenny every night. You and your wife will not be "OK" with situation, even if you agreed you would. Your relationship would be a marriage in label only. That's an extreme example to make the point, but the same principle applies to other, less extreme situations. There is some leeway in this, but on some level you and your wife cannot arbitrarily decide what constitutes an intimate relationship. If you spend a lot of time with another woman who you are attracted to, romantic feelings may develop, no matter what you and your wife have decided. You are not in direct control of these emotional reactions. I'm really glad you liked the article! --Dan Edge

Almost 80 reads, and no comments? Someone's got to have an opinion about this! --Dan Edge

My hair is pretty freakin' short. Does that make me the sexiest of all?

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog I have an unwritten policy about opposite-sex friendships. This issue came up recently in a discussion with friends, and it got me to thinking about why I conduct my friendships the way that I do. My general policy is this: When I am in a committed relationship with a woman (as I will be with Kelly for the rest of my life), I avoid developing intimate friendships with other women. When Kelly and I hang out with another couple, I do make friends with the woman in that couple. But in general I don't develop an intimate friendship with the woman independent of Kelly, or independent of the other woman's man. On the other hand, I am very willing to develop an independent, intimate friendship with the man in the couple. I'd have no problem inviting just the guy to a sports bar to watch football, but I wouldn't do the same with his girlfriend. Some could (and have) argued that this policy is sexist. After all, a woman can be every bit as good a friend as a man. Continuing the couples example above: If both couples are in a committed, happy relationship, then why would there be any reason to hold back on developing friendships? After all, if I am fully dedicated to Kelly, there's no reason for either one of us to be jealous -- I'm not romantically interested in any other woman besides her. Neither one of us would ever cheat. So, acknowledging that I could have an enriching, totally platonic relationship with another woman, why would I avoid it? My answer to this question is grounded in two key points: 1) Emotions respond to how one acts in a relationship, not how he labels the relationship, and 2) There can be more than one soulmate for any given person. 1) Most everyone has heard of situations like this: A man meets a girl he really likes, and she feels the same way. They start hanging out a lot, and the relationship quickly becomes intimate, both physically and emotionally. They decide to be exclusive. There's only one problem -- The woman says that she doesn't want to be his "girlfriend," she just wants to be friends without the pressure of that label. Why, she asks, can't they just be very intimate, sexually exclusive friends-with-benefits? He is confused, but reluctantly agrees. When he finally confesses his deep love for her, she is surprised and uncomfortable. Or: A man and woman who were romantically involved decide to end their relationship due to incompatibility. They both still care about each other very much, but one or both acknowledges that it's not going to work out for the long term. So they decide to be just friends. But starting the day after the break-up, they still hang out with each other every day. Even though they no longer have sex, and even though both have decided that the relationship is over, both continue to harbor romantic and sexual feelings for one another. When one of them finally decides to start dating someone else, the other is surprised at how badly it hurts. Or: A couple is having a lot of problems, but the man insists that he wants them to stay together. Though he is rude to her, never shows her affection, never buys her flowers any more, and never initiates sex -- he insists that he still loves her and wants them to remain a couple. She is confused because her man's words and actions seem to contradict. Eventually, one or both of them are tempted to look outside the relationship to fulfill their romantic needs. A common thread in each of these examples is that the label placed on the relationship does not match the actions of those in the relationship. In the first example, the woman wants to be "just friends," but in every practical sense, they are acting like they are in an exclusive, romantic relationship. They are acting like boyfriend and girlfriend, but they don't want to acknowledge that the label applies. Even though the man may agree to withholding the label, and consciously believes that his decision is rational, his emotions disagree with him. Though he tells himself not to fall in love, that it is just a friendship, he falls hard anyway. The not-quite-broken-up couple also have a label/action dichotomy in their relationship. Both consciously acknowledge that the relationship is over, and that they made the right decision in breaking up, but they are still acting like they are in a romance. Even though they stop having sex, in every other respect their relationship is as intimate as it was when their love was in full bloom. So both remain romantically and emotionally invested. Their emotions respond to their actions, not to the "friendship" label they have loosely pasted on. In the last example, both the man and woman want to label their relationship a "committed romance," but the man is not treating her like his lover. He's treating her more like an annoying roommate. As a consequence, their love is dying, even though both may honestly want to stay together. Again, their emotions respond to the way they act in the relationship, not their conscious intentions. 2) This is a shorter point, but equally important: I do believe in soulmates, but I think that there is more than one potential soulmate out there for me. Though I hate to even consider the thought -- if Kelly died tomorrow, I believe I could find someone else and live a happy life. There are very few such women out there for me, but they do exist. Saying this takes nothing away from my love for Kelly. I simply acknowledge that there are many exceptional woman out there, and that I could be compatible with at least a few of them. Kelly and I tend to make friends with people who are compatible with us in a variety of ways. Most of our friends are attractive, fit, intelligent, active, humorous, and fun. And most of them are also Objectivists. What this means is that several of our female friends are the kind of women I would be seeking if I were single, and similarly, some of our male friends are Kelly's type. One of these friends could be a potential soulmate for me. This does not mean that either of us are open to finding someone else. We are perfect for each other, we have a history together, and we have decided to get married and have a family together. Those choices mean everything. However, consider what might happen if I started hanging out with Kelly's attractive, fun, intelligent friend Kate (a made-up person) on a regular basis. Kate and I develop a friendship independent of Kelly. As time goes on, the friendship becomes more intimate, and we share all of our deepest thoughts and dreams, as one would with any close friend. Neither of us are at all interested in a romance. But the fact is, we are acting as if we were feeling each other out for a potential romance. Think about it -- if you are single and you meet a woman you like, how do you test the waters to see if the relationship can go further? You begin to hang out with the woman independently, on a regular basis, and get to know her more intimately. It's possible that Kate and I could begin to develop romantic feelings for each other, even though it is not our intention. Emotions are an automatized response to value judgments stored in the subconscious. Love is the emotional response to the integration of many values in another person, along with the reciprocated recognition of those values in oneself. If you throw in frequent intimate (even non-physical) contact -- and mutual physical attraction -- then romantic feelings are often the result. While one's conscious decisions about how he labels a relationship are taken into account by his subconscious, the way he acts in that relationship is also registered. The emotional result can be a confusing mixture, but most often one's actions are weighed more heavily than his conscious labels, especially if they are in stark opposition. I don't develop independent, exclusive friendships with other women because I am dedicated to Kelly, and I would not want to inadvertently develop romantic feelings for another woman. Even though I would never act on those feelings, I don't want to take any focus off of the woman I love. I choose to funnel 100% of my romantic and sexual energy into one person, into one relationship. I choose to do this because I believe that this kind of monogamous, long-term romance is the greatest possible adventure in life (see my articles on The Morality of Monogamy and The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality for more details). While I stand by the generalizations I have outlined above, I want to stress that I do not treat my opposite-sex friendship policy as a set of Commandments. Commandments are for religion, not for a rational mind. The ideas I have outlined must be considered within a context, and applied contextually to any particular situation. Think of it like a healthy diet. A man can have a healthy diet and eat hot dogs or pizza every now and then. Maybe his body burns up calories very fast and he has more flexibility about what he can eat without gaining unhealthy weight. Or maybe his metabolism is very slow, and he must be more watchful of his diet than others. My point is that, while I think it's a good tendency not to develop intimate, independent friendships with members of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean that one must draw a line the sand and never deviate from it. For example, I retain close friendships with several of my ex-girlfriends, and I still keep in touch with them on a regular basis. All the women I have loved in my life are very special, else I wouldn't have dated them in the first place (see my article "Demoting" a Relationship). Kelly knows about them, but she isn't close friends with any of them. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by staying in touch with these women, and I've never had a problem with developing romantic feelings for them. However, my friendships with these girls are all long-distance. We chat on the phone once every few weeks, and our discussions are very intimate (in the non-sexual sense), but that is the limit of it. If one of them moved to the area, I would probably invite her to have dinner with me and Kelly, and even go out with her alone for coffee every now and then. But I would be much more careful about how much time I spent with her. There are many different kind of friendships -- everyone is different -- but keeping in mind some rational generalizations about conducting opposite-sex friendships can help one avoid confusion and focus on the one that matters most. I love you, baby! --Dan Edge View the full article

The Beatles are my favorite Rock n' Roll band. I don't like some of their trippy stuff (Revolution No. 9 comes to mind), but they've made some truly great albums (Revolver, Abbey Road, Rubber Soul, Help!, etc.) Paul's love ballads are especially precious to me. I think they deserve all the praise. --Dan Edge

There are probably hundreds of gay Objectivists out there. I've met a dozen or so personally and have seen dozens more on internet chat forums. Check out Objectivism Online (member search using the Sexual Orientation filter), The Atlasphere, the SOLO Passion website, Rebirth of Reason, and other forums. There are a number of publicly gay folks at SOLO Passion, in part because the website's owner is gay (though I would steer clear of him because he's an asshole). Best of Luck. --Dan Edge

Our gym (Planet Fitness) has several good Ab machines. I started using a new one lately, and for the first time in a long time my abs got sore from working out! Here is a picture of this very simple machine. You hold yourself up with your arms and let your legs hang, then lift your legs to 90 degrees. Alternately, you can pull your knees to your chest (that's what I do). Pulling your knees to the left or right works on the love handles. I did 30 of these on Thursday and I was still feeling it Saturday! Regarding getting the 6-pack back, it may be much more difficult to do when you get older. Diet plays a greater role than I thought when I was younger. When I was 17, I wrestled in the 145 lb weight class (at 6' tall). I never worked out during the off-season and all I ate was garbage, but I always had a six-pack. These days, I do cardio and weights three times a week, and I have a moderately healthy diet. But the six-pack is long gone. I was doing 100 sit-ups a day at one point, but it just makes my stomach muscles bigger and stronger while the belly remains. The difference is, I turn 30 this year. I'm now 185 lbs, strong, and possibly in the best shape of my life, but the six-pack may be gone forever. I could probably get ripped again, but it may take a dedication to fitness that I'm not willing to make. Two hours of my time (including travel time) three times a week is a big chunk of my schedule. --Dan Edge

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Undercurrent blog is now going full steam. There have been three excellent posts in the past week and a half. The first was my article about the Super Bowl, and why it is so popular in America. Next, The Undercurrent editorial staff published an article on the silly Saudis outlawing the color red for Valentine's day. Finally, Eric Brunner just posted an article on the inane beliefs of some religious people. Eric notes that some people are crazy enough to believe in "a Jewish zombie who can walk on water." So check out The Undercurrent blog! Comments on the blogs are welcome, and are an excellent form of spiritual support. Also, if you are interested in writing for The Undercurrent (or helping out in some other capacity), you can reach the staff at [email protected]. --Dan Edge View the full article

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog This article was published on The Undercurrent student newspaper blog. I encourage readers to navigate to The Undercurrent website and check out the other excellent articles. ----------------- Almost everyone loves the Super Bowl. Super Bowl Sunday has been an unofficial holiday in the United States for decades, and the Monday following the Super Bowl is the one day of the year employees are most likely to call in sick. On the list of the top 30 most watched television broadcasts of all time, 16 are Super Bowls. What is it about sporting events in general, and the Super Bowl in particular, that captures the heart of so many Americans? The love of competitive sports has been around in the Western world for milennia. The first Olympics in Ancient Greece was held in 776 B.C. For over 1000 years (until Dark Age Christian rulers outlawed the event), the Olympics captivated tens of thousands in the City-States of Greece every four years — it was their Super Bowl. The Greeks revered the Olympic competitors as shining examples of man’s physical potential. Athletes competed in the nude because the spectators found their muscular figures to be beautiful and heroic. They were giants among men, as close to the gods as humans could come. I believe that this same spirit — this reverence of man’s potential — is part of what makes the Super Bowl so infectious. The Wide Receivers and Defensive Backs are some of the fastest sprinters alive; the Quarterbacks have to be amazing all-around athletes; and the Linemen are literally giants, even when compared to the other players. Each position requires its own combination of strength, speed, agility, and intelligence. Consequently, the men on the field during the Super Bowl are some of fastest and strongest men on the planet. The reverence for man’s potential is especially relevant in America, a nation founded on individualism. The Founding Fathers believed that man could only reach his full potential if left free to pursue his dreams. The result: even an immigrant with no education — an “underdog” — can come to America and make a fortune. Sporting events like the Super Bowl inspire us because they symbolize the pursuit of human excellence. In showing us the great potential of the human body, these spectacles represent the even greater potential of the human spirit. As these giants among men take the field to display their physical skill, they inspire others to charge into life with all the vigor of a professional athlete. --Dan Edge View the full article

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog According to Wikipedia, Meta-communication is "communicating about communication." This is a valid concept, albeit perverted by modern linguistic theorists. Meta-communication is an indispensable tool for developing one's interpersonal relationships. It is important because people communicate on different levels, and one may not be aware of all the messages he is sending. The actual content of what one says is the obvious form of communication, but there are others: the context in which one says something, the tone and volume of his voice, the look in his eyes, and other body language, to name a few. Meta-communication can help one ensure that his messages are consistent. It can also help him better understand the messages sent by others. To illustrate the idea of multiples levels of communication: imagine that, in response to a proposed resolution to a problem, one's lover says, "that's fine." If one considers this response based solely on content, then he will think that his lover his happy with the proposed resolution. But what if the words are said at three times normal speaking volume, interrupting what one is saying, and delivered with a dirty look and a grimace? The message is clearly different. This sort of thing happens all the time. In the above example, the lover is probably intentionally sending the message that "things are not fine." This is not always the case. One may be intending to send the message that "things are fine," but is unintentionally sending contradictory messages. For instance, using the same example, assume that one's lover is truly amenable to resolving the conflict. She says things are OK, and means it, but the words are still delivered with laser eyes and in a sharp tone. Though she does not intend it, she is communicating that things are both "fine" and "not-fine" at the same time. When this sort of miscommunication occurs, people often respond to the message opposite of the one intended. If someone is communicating that things are both "OK" and "not-OK", then the net message is that a problem still exists. Couples can continue fighting, ad infinitum, without ever identifying the source of the miscommunication. That's where meta-communication comes in. If one is confused about contradictory messages sent by his lover, the proper response is not to acknowledge one of those messages and ignore the other. One should ask his lover, "What are you trying to communicate?" (This question is so obvious and so helpful, I have no idea why people fail to use it regularly!) If she responds by identifying her intended message, then one has achieved two victories: 1) he understands what she was actually trying to communicate, and 2) he has identified a possible source of miscommunication, which he can then discuss with her. One can say something like, "when you communicate with me in this way, this is the message I get from you." In this way, two people can hammer out their immediate differences, and also learn to improve the way they communicate with each other in the future. Meta-communication across the life of a relationship is an inductive process. Lovers must consistently maintain an awareness of how they send messages to one another, always looking out for ways to improve. There is no Form of Communication which one can use to translate his messages into the ideal format. There are many optional value judgments regarding the way two people communicate with each other. A distinctive form of communication can become a beautiful part of one's private world with his lover. But this only happens if one puts effort into communicating about communication. --Dan Edge View the full article

Thanks for the heads up, Mimpy. You can email Google's blog here: [email protected]. Here's my letter to the author of that blog post: ------------------- Mr. Drummond, Your blog post of 2/3/08 regarding Microsoft's bid for Yahoo! is a cowardly statement undeserving of a great organization like Google. Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google are all successful companies that have thrived because we live in a society that still values free market capitalism. For you to state that Microsoft's actions imply "illegal" and "unfair" intentions is beyond the pale. Microsoft is a business which competes with other businesses to generate a profit. Your letter makes clear that Google's leadership is afraid of fair (unregulated) competition with Microsoft. Instead, you would encourage the government to force Microsoft out of the search engine market. And this in the name of "openness and innovation." What a cowardly act! In your letter, you are more or less openly advocating government intervention to prevent a strong competitor from entering your market, and you do this in the name of "openness and innovation"? I have to call BULLSHIT on that, Drummond. Google may be an excellent company now, but with leadership like this, it will never succeed in the long term. If Google's answer to competition is to cry "Monopoly!", fall to its knees, and beg for government intervention, then its history of innovation will rapidly become a legacy of incompetent and cowardly corporate leadership. --Dan Edge

I don't see what all the is about. It's not a terrible idea. If you're interested in a semi-private Objectivism-advocacy blog, join it and see what you think. If not, don't. But in any case, I think the guy who created it deserves our good will and the benefit of the doubt. --Dan Edge

Hello All, I agree that a strong understanding of rights theory is a prerequisite for this discussion. There are many challenging issues concerning the application of rights theory: abortion, tragically deformed newborns, and mentally deteriorating elderly are just a few examples. It is true that man's capacity for rationality gives rise to his need for freedom in the social sphere. However, as David indicated, the chain of logic is more complex than "reason --> rights." Rand's theory of rights is an integration of an enormous amount of data: developments in political thought during the Enlightenment, common law, property rights, the history of America, and much more. If one finds that he is having trouble applying a principle to a challenging issue, he might try... - rereading source material on the principle with possible applications of it in mind. - applying the principle to issues that appear more simple to him. Attack the problem from different angles. - looking at what the experts have to say about it. Good Luck! --Dan Edge

One of me and Kelly's engagement photos. --Dan Edge

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog Since first hearing about the Energy Bill provision outlawing incandescent light bulbs by 2014, I have seen an explosion of grumbling on the web about the proposed replacement to the traditional light bulb, the CFB (Compact Fluorescent Bulb). People are complaining that the quality of light is inadequate, that the mercury inside CFBs poses serious health risks if they break, that they can cause migraines or even seizures in some people, that they don't work well with dimmers or three-way lights, etc. While I agree with this assessment of fluorescent light bulbs, I don't see the philosophical justification for all this whining. If we as a nation have sanctioned the altruistic ideology prosthelytized by Greenpeace, Earth First, Al Gore, and the rest of the Greeninites, then we have nothing to complain about. Is one man's personal pleasure at all relevant to ethics or politics? Environmentalists, the church, and altruists around the globe say "No." By what standard can you complain about your own selfish convenience? You have an altruistic duty to serve society, and our Big Brother has determined that CFBs are best for the greater good. One man's quality of life is nothing compared to the good of society, or the good of the earth. We should be grateful that we have this opportunity to exercise our moral agency -- that we have the opportunity to sacrifice. Isn't sacrifice the standard of morality? Consider: what would Jesus do in this situation? Assuming he would lower himself to such earthly pleasures as housing and artificial lighting, we can be certain that he wouldn't lament the necessity to sacrifice his quality of life for the good of the whole. He would embrace such a sacrifice. If people thought that fluorescent bulbs were truly superior to incandescent lighting in most respects, then it wouldn't be a sacrifice to make the switch . Nor would the government have to mandate such a change. If left to their own devices, the free market would choose whichever form of lighting they thought best for their self-interest. It's a good thing we have the State to decide what is in the best interest of society, and then to impose that choice on everyone else. Otherwise, some individuals might refuse to sacrifice their judgment and personal interests to the greater good. My advice to those now complaining about the enforced change to CFBs: go read the bible, or any major newspaper opinion page, or the political platform of any major candidate in this year's election. If you can discern any semblance of a philosophy from these sources, you will find that -- by far -- the dominant ideological trend in our culture is the worship of sacrifice: to the church, to society, and to Mother Earth. If you sanction this cultural trend, if you are a part of it, then I say: stop your whining! Be a good Little Brother, do your duty, screw in your shitty light bulb, and shut the fuck up. And next time, be careful what you wish for... --Dan Edge View the full article