Lemuel

Pretty cool, David ... I'll have to come back when there's some activity.

You certainly don't have time to refute all the points made in the excerpt you provided, not by Monday, but I can offer a couple of tips. 1. Rational egoism, as defined by Objectivist philosophy, is dependent on epistomology and metaphysics. They are the foundation of egoism. If you have a copy, you should read through many of the points Leonard Piekoff makes about the subject in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It's a good condensation of the idea of rational egoism, and will give you the tools necessary to refute arguments for altruist ethics. 2. The author of the article seems to take a view of egoism as "pure self-interest." While he does acknowledge that "there are often good self-interested reasons for acting morally", he states this as an exception to the position that selfishness is generally immoral. Objectivism holds that self interest is the prime mover in ethics, not an exception or ancillary benefit to "moral" action. 3. Andrew Bernstein describes "cynical egoism" in The Capitalist Manifesto. If I may be so bold, I'll summarize a disctinction between "cynical" and "rational" egoism. Essentailly, cynical egoism is a snatch-as-you-can approach to ethics - whatever benefits the individual regardless of the rights or property of others. It's a "me first" morality, which regards all others as competitors, even those one chooses to trade with. Rational egoism recognizes the rights and property of others, and guides one to self-interested action within those limitations. It regards trading partners as most profitable when they are honest and fair with one another, putting long-term interests ahead of short-term gains. People who accept an altruist philosophy, or ideas with altruist roots, regard all selfishness in this cynical sense, believing that it's only okay to profit from an exchange if it's a secondary benefit of providing for the happiness and profit of the other person. Egoist ethics begins with selfish motives, and the rights of others provide the moral limitations to action. 4. If possible, avoid concrete issues in your debate about the idea. It's a testy area, ethics, and you'll be flying in the face of opposing principles all around you. If you're on solid ground, though, you can introduce (simple) examples that help you illustrate your point. Keep examples simple, and avoid complex issues that can introduce "grey area," such as crisis (life boat) scenarios. Use simple business transactions as examples: it's selfish to profit from a sale, and the customer receives the secondary benefits of customer service, warranty support, money-back guaruntees, etc. (not to mention the product itself). Businesses that don't selfishly pursue a rational profit margin die a quick death.

That's the most succinct explanation for a very complex subject that I think I've ever read. I'd ask if I could use that, but I fear I'd have to elaborate, then that's where the tripping-over-my-brain begins ...

You kind of answered your own question here, however let me put this through a masculine perspective. The type of woman a hero is attracted to is one that embodies his ideal of another person. Naturally, the man wants to conquer the object of his desire, a woman he considers a "spiritual" equal. It does not mean that he is morally or intellectually superior. According to Robert Mayhew, Rand "regarded the male, by nature of his anatomy, as the prime mover in the act of sex." * No rational man is attracted - on any meaningful level - to a woman he has little or no respect for. It means nothing to conquer some drunken spring break tramp, or even indulge in a mutual, anonymous encounter performed just to "scratch an itch." To "conquer" a woman, romatically and sexually, a man must first be deserving of her. He will not exclude her desires from his, because her fulfillment - in the contect of a romantic partnership - is reciprocated. Recommended reading: "About a Woman President" from The Voice of Reason establishes a framework of Rand's views on masculine and feminine roles, and these views are elaborated a bit in Ayn Rand Answers, a collection of responses given at verious lecture Q&A sessions. (The latter is the work from which the above quote * was referenced; I am 80% sure the context is relevant ... )

From The Fountainhead ...

Not to disrupt the flow of the thread, but how about a simple answer. Any time you take something which was not freely given to you by its rightful owner (whether it's the band or the record company they sold the songs to), you're stealing. Am I missing something? Is not the action of gaining a value with nothing offered as a trade in question?

According to Leonard Peikoff's website, a DIM Hypothesis book has been in progress. Does anyone know what the status of this work is? I would like to take the ARI audio course, but it's a little outside the budget at the moment ... perhaps when I nail the next bonus at work ... I listened to the Ford Hall Forum lecture, and am very anxious to hear more.

I agree with you, although a bit of clarification is necessary. The premise of my speculation was centered on sexually-influential events which predate a person's conceptual development, specifically children. The notion that homosexuality is the result of traumatic sexual experiences is untrue, and my clumsy paragraph was meant to reject that notion. Maybe I didn't clearly state the premise of my speculation. I certainly don't think homosexuality is a result of genetics. I don't think that it's solely the result of "nurture" either, as if a person's psychology is determined only by unchosen environmental conditions. However, a child who has been not been taught sexual identity, who has faced confusing sexual situations without a conceptual framework to identify them properly, and who has evaded - possibly by habit - the necessity to define what their attracted to later in life, is probably more likely to develop homosexual tendencies. Certainly this is (on a surface level) evident in people who consistently get into over-dependent relationships, abusive partnerships, etc. Ask any gay person, and they'll give you their story of the event that led to their self-realization. Only a phychologist could discover them, but I'll bet there are chains of both strong external influences and incorrect (and unchecked) personal choices before it.

I'm not a psychologist, and I'm way not qualfied to discuss the psychologies of sexuality, but I disagree with the mental illness position. I have known several homosexual men who one could described as "down to earth" or "well-balanced". Sexuality is too complex a psychological subject to dismiss this form of it as "mental illness". Sexuality - like many facets of a person's psychology - is the result of choice. But, in my opinion, it is not the classic "wake up one morning and decide to be gay" argument. Nobody wakes up and says "well, what do you know, I'm straight! How 'bout that!" Many things can influence or inspire homosexuality, and they do not necessarily have to be negative scenarios [child molestation; rape or sexual abuse; or having an authoritarian, unaffectionate mother and a wormy, spineless father. It can be the result of a close friendship, isolation from the opposite sex in formative years (such as boarding schools), strong male influences in the absence of a father figure (for males), etc.]. It could be simply that a boy with more "sensitive" interests is accepted more by female friends, grows up viewing all women as sisters, then adopts by association their desires for men. There are a million scenarios and conditions that can gravitationally pull someone into a homosexual lifestyle. They build up over time, and instead of being identified correctly - the professor as just a concerned mentor, the colleague as a heroic career idol, the best friend as someone "emotionally supportive" in times of tragedy, etc. Without such identification, wrong premises are formed, and wrong conclusions reached. Sadly, if this is true, then these misidentifications predate a child's understanding of sexual roles, if they're taught those roles at all. So, imho, I think the "I've always known it" argument is an untruth. Maybe not a conscious lie, but a conclusion reached on false premises. I also disagree with the "I can't help it" argument as well. Only an animal is a slave to its urges - a man makes everything a conscious choice.

It could be a more practical issue, though. Usually "official" campus clubs' sponsors must be somewhat acive in club meetings, activities, and take some measure of responsibility for the clubs' activities. Or, perhaps he's only interested in a club that would be run by one of his grad students, or at least a favored, talented undergraduate major in philosophy. Maybe he's comfortable with his tenure, and wants no other distractions. Then again, he could indeed have philosophical objections to your idea for an Objectivist club. Try your school's business faculty. Perhaps there's a capitalist or two that would be willing to help ...

NAS, In addition to JMeganSnow's recommendation of Rand's The Romantic Manifesto, I'd like to recommend another book that would shed some light on how people understand music: Music, the Brain, and Ecstacy, by Robert Jourdain He discusses physiology, musical mechanics, music theory, perception, and a host of other musical issues, and it's quite thorough. The nice thing is that it's not too advanced for non-musicians, ie you don't need to have musical training to grasp his concepts. It's not an integrated philosophy of musical esthetics, but it's fact-based, scientific, and introduces no prejudices regarding musical taste. I haven't read it in a while, so I do not remember if there's any objectionable commentary in the book, but I do remember enjoying it greatly, and wishing it had been written (and I had read it) before I studied music in college. It certainly inspired me to pull out some of my old study materials ...

What about the second-hander argument? Sure, eventually variations will come out after an innovative poduct hits the market. I don't think anyone can accuse the multitude of MP3-player manufacturers of "second-handing" Apple, just because the iPod went big quick. But if I had made an almost identical product to the iPod, which looks the same but lacks the Apple logo, is made of cheaper components, and called an "aPod", am I not guilty of being a second-hander? Is there not a moral argument to be made against this kind of practice?

Exactly. (Whoever said there's no humor in Rand's fiction?) - - - Well said, EC.

There have been several cases like this, and each one has its individual merits. Furthermore, each state in the US treats these cases differently (as a matter of law). But in this scenario, with your twist, no, B can't claim his rights were violated because the residence being searched wasn't his. But the landlord definitely could, and possibly so could G. By law, a search warrant in the US is supposed to identify specifically the property being searched, and what the police are looking for. However, this requirement is circumvented constantly on "fishing expedition" searches, where the police get a deliberately vague warrant signed. Many people think a claim of "probable cause" is enough to let the cops in, and many states will defend the police's questionable search if drugs, child porn, etc. are found. And, not to get too off-topic, but the Patriot Act actually allows police to search your home without your knowledge or consent - "sneak and peek" searches - so long as they let you know in 4-6 weeks after they invade your property. While such power is "supposed" to be used to gather intel on "domestic terrorist cells", simply granting that power to gov't agents violates the principles on which the 4th Amendment was written. Back to your posit, one could sue the government for abridging 4th Amendment rights, however it would be impossibly difficult in our system. You would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending yourself, potentially appealing the case all the way to the Supreme Court ... and the best you'd get is a decision finding the government did indeed violate your 4th Amendment rights. The penalty to the government? The gov't comes to you and says, "Oops; won't happen again." But, if the cops did find drugs, fat chance buddy. (Then again there was a story I read about a guy in MN or somewhere who got pulled over for not having a front license plate on his car. The guy was nervous, so the cops got suspicious and found his trunk full of cocaine. He was eventually acquitted of the charge because, in that state, one is not required to have a front license plate on their car. WTF?) But under no circumstance, in any state (I imagine), would you get your confiscated property back if that property was illegal, even if it was illegally siezed by law enforcement.

Time out. Am I missing something? I take "faith" to mean empirical knowledge based on feeling, revelation, "intuition", instinct, assumption, wishing, or otherwise on some extra-sensory faculty. Essentially, an invalid epistomology. "Reason" (as I understand and practice it) is a means of knowledge based on the logical identification of facts, and integrating them into the proper context. Observable evidence, consistent logical thought, and an understanding of what are variables and what are facts within a certain situation give rise to rational thought. Do you really mean "faith", or do you mean "trust"? Because there's a world of difference between those two words. (I trust the weather man because he's educated in climatology, and he's been in the ballpark enough to keep his job at Channel 9 for several years. I have no faith in people who say it's going to rain, because they "just feel it in their bones.") Or am I looking at this wrong? I'm not challenging, simply asking ... could you elaborate a bit on that, Felipe, given the context of my confusion?

Good question, and the answer probably has something to do with the needs of the story. I mean, Rand could have had all the antagonists killed when Stadler's sonic bomb went off. She could have ended the story right after Galt's speech, having wrapped up all the other plotlines ahead of time. But she chose otherwise. I haven't read Rand's major works on the art of fiction - only the off-the-shelf introduction sold in retail - but I imagine there are many clues to the answers you seek there. I can only guess at this point. I assume that, among other reasons, she had Galt captured and tortured to demonstrate how far a Man goes to defend his life, his choices and freedom ... his values. Furthermore, it demostrates the lengths to which the looters will go to pillage the product of someone else's mind - they'd rather engage in sadism than think. I think a lot of this is plot-device-oriented (after all, what more glaring an example of military patriotism could be provided than having the main character of a war story captured and tortured by the enemy?), but Rand never wrote anything without a good reason for it, so I'm sure there are far better explanations than mine available. Those "bogus policies" would have been enforced by the government at the point of a gun. While the rest of the nation may not have been especially moral or rational, there's no moral or rational justification for making someone do anything at the point of a gun, regardless of long-term or short-term intent. Given the context of the story, the consequences of that action (while potentially moral) may have done more harm than good. We'll never really know, of course. Rand may have considered that option, but may have devised a better way to make her point, end a story arc appropriately, or simply preserve the consistency of Galt's character. He wasn't a sneaky man, someone who used manipulation to defend himself from harm - he faced it head on, as is the most heroic way to challenge an obstacle., even personal injury and threat of death. ... and that's about all I can offer. I need to read AS again ... it's been a while.

(First, let me say that this post is not intented as any sort of advertisement.) I represent a line of keyboards and synthesizers imported from Sweden (Clavia DMI's Nord line), and among my many responsibilities, I have the pleasure of arranging artist endorsements. I'm really proud to say that we have chosen to grant an endorsement to Hiromi Uehara, a fantastic jazz pianist whose music (I think) displays a wonderfull happy sense of life. I think anyone who's a fan of musical ability, and of jazz, would enjoy listening to her playing. She's the featured story in this month's Keyboard Magazine, and there are some clips of her music on her website ... "Kung Fu World Champion" is probably my favorite. Check her out at www.hiromimusic.com.

No, it would have been a direct violation of his principles. - No one man, let alone an entire beauracracy, can control an economy. Even temporarily. And even if it is possible, all men then are trading on Galt's terms, not theirs. - Freedom is not given, but claimed. You don't give people the right to trade freely. You stay out of their way. - Speculation: had Galt accepted the offer, he would have been as much under the gun while writing economic policy as he was when he was being led around the hotel room he was confined to. Rand writes that this is the beginning of evil: evading reality. And it would not have been in Galt's self-interest to evade capture, not just for the reasons stated above, but because his goal, the one worth being torured and dying for (and, most importantly, living for) was to live as a free, rational, productive individual. Had he side-stepped capture and torture he would have subjectively placed the value of immediate comfort over the long-term value of Galt's Gulch. Furthermore, he might have led the authorities back to the valley, one way or another, placing the heroes he philosophically defended in physical danger. He would have betrayed himself, the best productive minds in the world, and all of the reality he stood for, all in one simple act of evasion.

I agree with David: I don't think ownership has been transferred. Given the specific language of the issue, G gave her boyfriend control of the drawer and permitted him to use it for what he wanted. You can't permit someone to control their own property; that's not "ownership", it's dictatorship, fascism. She didn't hand him the detached drawer, then say "you can keep it in the chest, or take it home, I don't care what you do with it." Her allowance was no more a tranfer of ownership than allowing him to sit on the couch affords him ownership of the cushion. Had she truly given him the drawer, then it could be construed as a type of verbal contract that he could keep it in the chest, in her apartment; and it would be just as equal an act of ownership for him to take it home, paint it, burn it, or do whatever he wanted with it. But, the drawer remains her property. It's a semantic distinction for sure, but not one that will get her out of hot water when the cops find contraband on her premises (or, rather, premises to which she's been contractually granted temporary custody by her landlord.) If the apartment is indeed rented, then not only is she responsible for the contraband's presence (in the view of the landlord who forbids the materials), but so is the landlord. Ultimately it's his property, and the police will leverage the landlord against G. If they are really looking for B, they'll leverage G against him. In the end, someone's going to jail ... and Mr. Roper ain't going to the big house for Jack Tripper, Chrissy, or Janet. This is the "rationale" behind local "crack-house laws", and the Rave Act at the Federal level (which couldn't pass on it's own, but could as an attachment to the Amber Alert legislation). The idea is that low-rent landlords, concert promoters, bar and club proprieters, and other property owners can be prosecuted for posession and distribution of illegal substances found on the premises, even if the property owner is completely unaware of them. "If they're afraid to lose their freedom and have their property confiscated, the owners do everything in their power to keep the druggies away." This, of course, is a highly aggregious extension of the "war on drugs", and is clear evidence that corrupt officials will stop at nothing to inhibit personal freedom - even that of innocent bystanders - in the pursuit of more power.

First, let me agree with dondigitalia's response to these questions. Second, forgive the long post, but I have no one else to talk about this stuff with. Third, I have indeed seen this occur several times. (I could give you stories, but this post is long enough!) I know that successful artist investments are made when the risk/reward is clear. The investor knows who the beneficiary really is (character), what they're bringing to the table (product), that the beneficiary has a solid plan devoid of unknown variables (ambition, ability), and [very importantly] how much it will cost and how soon they can see their investment return. What they don't want is "ifs", nor do they care about your dreams or your potential. What they care about is the actual, that someone has a promising proposal and plan for a successful venture, and the only thing standing in their way is startup capital. In a word, they want numbers. Numbers tell them everything they need to know, and anything else is a distraction. If I were still in a band, I'd be taking my own advice here, but if I could share some random things I've learned from the artists I deal with all the time ... and some speculation: 1. Shameless self-promotion: The first thing anyone needs to know about you is that you're a talented and energetic musician with the ability and ambition to succeed. They must always identify you with that role, so that's how you introduce yourself, what you talk about, and what gets you excited in their presence. Nothing more: to them, you're the confident rock star who will get his big break. 2. Never be without your material: Given the ease of electronic press kits, there's no reason why you shouldn't have a thousand CDROMS with recorded music, live video from shows, photos, bios (all viewable from a bonehead-simple interface) at your immediate disposal. A portable webpage, basically. You need to be Batman with these e-presskits, producing them from thin air if people seem interested. (Don't just write your website down for them; they'll lose interest before they get to the computer. A CDROM gets placed on the computer desk, and eventually gets viewed. The first 30 seconds is your target window of opportunity; that gets you another 5 minutes.) 3. Book gigs in places with regular crowds. To a transient tourist crowd, you're just part of their vacation, as quickly forgotten as the hotel's cable channels. But if you're playing the club closest to, say a hospital or office complex, odds are you're getting a very regular crowd. They're your fan base, and will be part of your show should you ever get a talent scout at your gig. Colleges are okay gigs, but you're not going to meet a potential investor at a frat house. 4. Read the newspaper. Any building projects - housing developments, strip malls, new restaurants - have tons of money behind them, and many times they're just small development companies. The financiers are always in the papers: research these people, and develop a strategy for approaching them with your proposal. 5. Network in clubs. Know the club owners, the bartenders, the barmaids, the bouncers. Know their birthdays and how many kids they have. Develop them as assets - and genuinely treat them well - and they will be a great help to you. 6. Other networking: Local record shops, local music stores, local recording studios. All owned by people who put up their own cash every day to keep their business running. If they aren't interested in taking a financial chance on you, they may run in circles with people who are. 7. Always perform as if Rick Ruben, David Geffen were in the front row. Mistakes should be as intolerable as a lazy performance. 8. Always have a Plan B. If some unknown variable (car crash, drummer has an emotional breakdown and "can't go on", etc.) sabotages your business venture, have a way to work off the debt handy. It's a last-case scenario, but have it in your back pocket, and let your investor know this up front. "In case it doesn't work out - of course, it will - but if not, I'm prepared to do A, B, and C to satisfy your risk." Leave it at that, no more. (This is where your legal training would come in, I think; I imagine that someone with those skills will be valuable, perhaps even to the investor himself.) 9. Get a great insurance policy on all your gear. How many bands are sideswiped when their entire trailer is ganked while they're enjoying a night off at the movies? Too many. You should have a policy where you could walk into a Guitar Center the day after a theft and replace your gear; they are available. 10. Rejection will happen. All it means is that investor isn't the one for you. You want someone to be excited about what you're doing, knowledgable about the business you're in, and someone with some good business sense. The right benefactor will want to protect his investment by helping you in any way; bands (and especially labels) succeed and fail largely on their business sense. 11. If you're bad with names or faces, fix it ... immediately. That's a liability in any industry or endeavor. People may not expect that sort of thing out of rock stars, though. It might surprise them, and you'll earn a few more megabytes of their mental RAM.

Groovenstein, why not start a record label? You'd have your own label to release your own material, the resources (in time) to represent other artists, and the legal know-how to generate fair and profitable contracts with new talent. You could use your band to promote your label while you tour, then use your label to attract other clients. Once the label gets to the point where you can delegate some responsibility, you can continue with your band (or, using the pool of musicians available, compose and record new music). One supports the other, and both require your two greatest loves, yet they're not so disparate that you have to let one thing atrophy to achieve the other. Start-up is expensive, and if you're willing to find a venture-capitalist benefactor, trust me: they're out there. If you could tolerate a little brain-storm, consider this ... A typical scenario is that a young producer or singer has some talent and wants to make it big. Their friends and family think he's got "the gift", and praise him constantly. One way or another, they come to the attention of someone willing to invest some money in them. Negotiations occur, and a check is written. Six months and several thousands of dollars later, the young artist has changed their mind, having not seen instant success, and being told by professionals that they need more talent development. The investor does the tax write-off shrug, and life goes on. I personally have seen this happen at least a dozen times - with female country singers, hip-hop producers, pop singers, rock bands. It's almost a cliche: some rich dude loses a few thousand on "I guaruntee she's the next Britney!" ... Think about how attractive it would be to an investor to take something other than a homemade CD to the interview, though - your education. You're a lawyer, you actually could run a label and really make it successful. Furthermore, you have the band that can promote the label on the road. While on the road, you can dig up clients. Then it's a real investment for your benefactor, a real chance for him to profit. Your training and current resources show you to be a capable person, and it's less of a risk for the venture capitalist.

I got mostly gift cards, so combined with a hefty sales bonus right before Christmas, I'm still enjoying it! So far I've bought matching dishes for my house (what, am I nesting?), some nice clothes, and a badly-needed external CD/DVD-RW. Of course, the intellectual needs are met as well: I bought copies of Ayn Rand Answers, a replacement ItOE, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, and Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto. I also picked up Dan Simmons' follow-up to Ilium (a futuristic retelling of the Iliad, except Greeks and Trojans discover they've been maniuplated, then unite to wage war against the gods), Olympos.

Oh, yeah, we've got legal protections out the yin-yang. Our company bought an entire division from another manufacturer a year ago, and we had to go through the licenses, trademarks, old parts, technology schematics, and so on. What I'm doing isn't nearly as complicated. But no, I won't go into details until they're in production and legally protected. It's not a tremendously Earth-shattering thing (ie a Galt engine, or Rearden Metal), but it's important enough to me that I keep it to myself for now. Thanks for your comments, Unconquered. Quite insightful and inspirational ... I'm more excited to get this project rolling! Once I get the new Whatchamajigger made, I'll post the news in this forum. If anyone can truly appreciate the process of creating something new, and bringing it to physical fruition ... and hopefully making some nice bank ... it's my friends here at OO.net!

I work for a music instrument manufacturer and distributor. (We're more distribution, actually. All our manufacturing is done in China and we import products from Sweden.) Anyway, I've proposed a small line of products to the boss, and it looks like we may indeed develop them. Now, there's nothing like them on the market, but it's not necessarily new, meaning the simple technology and design specifications can be found in a number of other products, but not all of them at once in a single product. Everyone else that makes products like it makes them cheaply, leaving off (what I see are) essential, practical features. (I suppose an analogy would be an ATV crossed with a jet ski ... making it truly "all-terrain". My idea isn't quote so involved, though.) My question is this: Is my product idea an invention, or simply an adaptation, making the product what it really should be? My thought is that it isn't ...

MightierPen, Heinlein can get really wierd, especially in his later novels. The middle period stuff is good, though. Starship Troopers is great space-military fare. (The movie only barely captured Heinlein's spirit, and was a terrible adaptation of the novel, IMO.) Also, the novella Methuselah's Children follows a group of people who live well into their second centuries, and are persecuted by the rest of mankind ("ephemerals", they're called). The character Lazarus Long is expanded in Time Enough for Love, showing him to be more of an individual than a member of the herd of "methuselahs". Friday is a pretty good scifi spy novel, with some cloning ethics involved. Heinlein's earlier novels are a pretty quick read. I think he intended them for a younger audience, so his ideas were somewhat basic. Later, he did some really good stuff, but his last few books (like The Cat who Walks Through Walls) were really strange in comparison. His philosophical ideas became a bit surreal in those late novels as well. I think that anyone who finds Heinlein a bit preachy, but likes the rationalism in his characters would enjoy Stephen Baxter's novels. His characters aren't so "cartoony" as Heinlein's, but his heroes are very much the right kind of men, as they "should be and ought to be". I'm reading Exultant now; it's basically about an individualistic soldier and an eccentric, wealthy scientist who have a plan to end a quagmired 20,000-year-long war with a superior alien race. So far, pretty good.