dianahsieh

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Ari Armstrong recently sent the following on religion in America to FRODO (Front Range Objectivism's discussion list). I thought it worth reproducing here, as it contains some interesting facts and figures. (I've slightly reformatted the plain text e-mail for HTML.) Ari writes: Leonard Peikoff stated: "In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power. Socialism -- a fad of the last few centuries -- has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast -- the destroyer of man since time immemorial -- is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government." Peikoff's claim, and his related exhortation to vote Democratic as a way to oppose the rise of the religious right, has been criticized by some Objectivists. However, Peikoff is exactly right. The evidence is overwhelming. As but one example, consider a recent article by TIME magazine. Be sure to check out the related links, " How We View God" and " Denomination Nation." Here are some findings from a survey from Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR): "The film The Passion of the Christ was viewed by 44.3% of those polled... The Left Behind books, very pious and very popular also, only [ONLY!] reached 19%." "Between 57% and 68% of respondents -- among all four God types -- include 'take care of the sick and needy' in their criteria for being a 'good person'..." Examine the contents of this link. 31% of the population believes in an "Authoritarian God." Of those, 23% think "abortion is always wrong." 91% think "government should allow prayer in school." 57% think "government should redistribute wealth more evenly." For EVERY SINGLE category of belief, a majority thinks that "government should redistribute wealth more evenly." Here's the breakdown by belief type: Authoritarian God: 31% Benevolent God: 23% Critical God [who "will exact divine judgement"]: 16% Distant God: 24% And atheists? About 5%. (This is mentioned in the magazine but not online, as far as I found.) Here's the document from Baylor [on which the TIME magazine article is based]. Here are some additional findings: "Barely one in ten Americans (10.8%) is NOT affiliated with a congregation, denomination, or other religious group." "Fully a third of Americans (33.6%), roughly 100 million people, are Evangelical Protestant by affiliation." 54% of Evangelical Protestants spend "more than $50 a month on religious products." Among all four god-types, a majority wants the federal government to "regulate businesses more closely" (page 33). "Only" 47.2% of those who believe in an "Authoritarian God" want the federal government to "fund faith-based organizations." A strong majority of all four types wants the federal government to "protect the environment better." From page 34: 21.% of those who believe in an "Authoritarian God" think that "to be a good person it is very important to... convert others to your religious faith." Between 14.3% and 19.1% believe that a good person needs to "consume or use fewer goods." There is a bit of relatively less-bad news for our region [i.e. Colorado]: "The West has the highest percentages of religiously unaffiliated people (17.6%) and people in other religious traditions (10.3%) of any U.S. region." (Here are some other "fun" tidbits about the paranormal (page 45): 28.2% of the population believes, "It is possible to influence the world through the mind alone (Telekinesis)." 19.9% believe, "It is possible to communicate with the dead..." 37.2% believe, "Places can be haunted...") Or, as Peikoff said: "Religion... is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government." Also of interest, Ari wrote the following letter to the editor regarding the gubernatorial election in Colorado: Dear Editor, I have decided to vote for Democrat Bill Ritter for Governor to help preserve the separation of church and state. Republican Bob Beauprez has aggressively injected religion into the politics of abortion and welfare. More disturbingly, his running mate has rejected the separation of church and state. Ritter also pushes religion into politics, yet to a considerably lesser degree. My vote for Ritter should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any of his policies. Ritter poses a serious threat to our rights to control our income, purchase medical services on an open market, and acquire and use tools for self-defense. Yet Beauprez poses the larger threat of breaking down the separation of church and state, the necessary precondition for freedom of conscience and the choice to adopt and support a particular religion or no religion. Sincerely, Ari Armstrong http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002083.html

I sent the following in a PM to Stephen Speicher this morning, after some back-and-forth with him about a particular post attacking me on The Forum. "I've been far too disturbed by your moderation of The Forum during this debate to wish to post again. From what I've seen, you've permitted grossly unjust moral attacks on Dr. Peikoff while silencing his reasonable and polite defenders. You've crushed your opposition -- not by good argument, but by insults, attacks, and unfair moderation. "So please delete my account on The Forum. As I've said, my respect for Dr. Peikoff actually means something to me." Since the debate has cooled down a bit here, let me mention that genuine debate continues to rage in multiple threads of the NoodleFood comments, as folks can see from the page of most recent.

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Tired of the election? Disgruntled? In the depths of despair over our choices at the polls? Need to be inspired? Up-lifted? Want some fun in your weekend? Enjoy an enthusiastic, inspirational evening learning about science and scientific heroes. John McCaskey is an engaging, interesting, and thoughtful speaker with insights into the history and philosophy of science. If you who have not yet made reservations to come and hear John McCaskey on November 4, this is your last opportunity. An added benefit is spending time socializing with other rational, interested people. Call or e-mail by November 2 at 4:30 pm. For much of the twentieth century, it was believed that the Scientific Revolution that began with Copernicus and Vesalius was the result of the rejection of Aristotle's methods and the adoption of Plato's. But historians are now discovering that it was the opposite. In this talk, Dr. John McCaskey will explore the foundations of the great age of scientific discovery that ran from Copernicus to Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, and Newton, all the way to Charles Darwin. In particular, Dr. McCaskey will show how historians are coming to better understand the methods that these great thinkers used. Why what you learned about Copernicus's discovery in high school is wrong (and how you yourself could have known it). How we know that Galileo really performed the experiments that some have doubted. (We'll try one using water and wine and you'll see.) The truth about Isaac Newton's interest in alchemy. That Charles Darwin's ideas weren't rejected by the clergy (as any tourist to London should suspect). Date: November 4th, 2006 Alert: Special time and event -- two talks for the price of one! Time: 4:30 pm -- Social Half Hour 5:00 pm -- Into the Historian's Workshop: How Historians are Finding the True Foundations of the Scientific Revolution -- with Q&A 6:30 pm -- Social forty-five minutes 7:15 pm -- Buffet Dinner Location: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado Cost: $50 per person, $35 for students RSVP: Please RSVP to Lin Zinser ([email protected]) by November 2. Send your check to FROST, 8700 Dover Court, Arvada, CO 80005. Or register via PayPal -- $50, student price $35. Or e-mail and pay at the door. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002077.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Given the ongoing debate on Dr. Peikoff's statement about the election, this announcement from ARI offering free access to his DIM Hypothesis course couldn't be more perfectly timed. Leonard Peikoff's The DIM Hypothesis available FREE at aynrand.org! Next summer, Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 will present a new lecture series by Leonard Peikoff, presenting a detailed examination of his forthcoming book, The DIM Hypothesis. For a limited time, as a prelude to this event, we are able to present to you, free of charge, a streaming audio recording of the original lecture series, delivered in 2004, in which Dr. Peikoff gave the first detailed presentation of his exciting new theory. Listeners are invited to experience this course as a document of the early development of Dr. Peikoff's latest work. Streaming audio links for the course can be found online at the Ayn Rand Institute's Registered User Page. (If you aren't yet registered, registration is fast, free and easy--just click to register now!) Audio streams are available in both RealMedia and Windows Media formats. LISTEN NOW: http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=iiaa_pV9ufTws1U7BfjLzA.. FREE REGISTRATION: http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=VwUIJ2nKQqhyQbZypTpVcw.. COURSE DESCRIPTION: This 15-session course--part lecture, part discussion--was presented live to a worldwide audience by phone and on the Internet. It is based on Dr. Peikoff's "The DIM Hypothesis" (book-in-progress), in which he looks at the role of integration in the culture and in practical life. This course explains and explores Dr. Peikoff's new DIM hypothesis, applying it to ten different cultural areas, as listed in the course outline. The hypothesis identifies and distinguishes three types of mind: the mind characterized by I (Integration); by D (Disintegration); or by M (Misintegration). In the sessions Dr. Peikoff points out how all of the influential movements in the areas included reflect--and could only have been created by--one or another of these three mind sets. If enhancing your understanding of today's world and of where we are heading is an important concern of yours, Dr. Peikoff believes that you will find a DIM perspective on events to be of significant value. As Dr. Peikoff recently explained: "[M]y thesis is that the dominant trends in every key area can be defined by their leaders' policy toward integration: they are against it (Disintegration, D); they are for it, if it conforms to reality (Integration, I); they are for it, if it conforms to a superior reality (Misintegration, M)." Please don't comment upon the election in response to this post. I have a fairly long essay on that topic that I'll be posting later today. I'd rather that all hell break loose after I've said my part. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002073.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Dr. Leonard Peikoff recently posted the following Q&A on the upcoming election on his web site. Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall. A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power. Socialism--a fad of the last few centuries--has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast--the destroyer of man since time immemorial--is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor. The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a "good" Republican. In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world. If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner. I fully support Dr. Peikoff's statement. I am acutely aware of the concrete evils of voting for the Democrats: high taxes, environmentalism, welfare programs, socialized medicine, and gun control. Nonetheless, I will vote for Democrats as long as necessary, even for Hillary Clinton in 2008. That is a substantial change for me, as some of you might recall. In the 2004 election, I was hopelessly torn by the choice between Bush and Kerry. While I knew that both were evil, I could not say Bush was apocalyptically evil while Kerry was merely ordinary evil. (Frankly, that middle ground was progress for me, as I'd been pro-Republican in the general vein of TIA Daily for many years beforehand.) I continued to pursue the matter after the election: I knew I needed to understand the relevant principles much better than I did. Listening to Dr. Peikoff's excellent DIM Hypothesis course made the most difference to me: upon hearing the whole course, I finally understood the real meaning of the posted excerpt on the 2004 election. Of course, I still had much more thinking to do. Dr. Peikoff's Religion Versus America and America Versus Americans lectures were illuminating, as was Dr. Yaron Brook's lecture The Morality of War and Dr. John Lewis' Ideas and the Fall of Rome. Dr. Brad Thompson's recent article The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism is also a must-read. I mention those sources for a very specific reason: It's hard to understand the depth and power of Dr. Peikoff's position unless familiar with them, particularly his DIM Hypothesis course. Dr. Peikoff's position is not based on any casual survey of recent events; it is well-grounded in fundamental principles, particularly the essential factors governing philosophic change in cultures over the course of centuries. The Objectivist view of the role of philosophy in shaping individual lives, politics, culture, and history is a massive integration. While most professed Objectivists could summarize it, they do not genuinely understand it for themselves, i.e. based upon their own induction from the concretes. Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course makes that induction so much more clear. It helps a person cut through the confusing sea of today's concretes, so as to see the essential trends. (Note: The Ayn Rand Institute has made Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course available for free to registered users!) As regards the election, the past two years of the Bush Administration and its Republican Congress have displayed the true philosophic commitments of today's conservatives more starkly than ever. In their domestic policies, the Republicans fully support socialism and statism. They simply so do in craftier ways than the Democrats. Most obviously, the Bush Administration successfully pushed its prescription drug plan -- a massive new entitlement -- through a Republican-dominated House and Senate. Even with his Democratic Congress, Clinton was unable to match that feat of welfare statism. As a general matter, the Bush Administration is not even slightly concerned with controlling spending or the growth of government. Consider these "hard facts" from Dr. Thompson's The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism: Government spending has increased faster under George Bush and his Republican Congress than it did under Bill Clinton, and more people work for the federal government today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. During Bush's first term, total government spending skyrocketed from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, an increase of 33 percent (almost $23,000 per household, the highest level since World War II). The federal budget grew by $616.4 billion during Bush's first term in office. If post 9/11 defense spending is taken off the table, domestic spending has ballooned by 23 percent since Bush took office. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, federal spending equaled 18.5 percent of the gross domestic product, but by the end of the first Bush administration, government outlays had increased to 20.3 percent of the GDP. The annualized growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland-security outlays has more than doubled from 2.1 percent under Clinton to 4.8 percent under Bush. Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite President Bush's much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton's last year in office. The 2006 annual report from Americans for Tax Reform, titled "Cost of Government Day," sums up rather nicely the intrusive role played by Republican government in the lives of ordinary Americans. The report says that Americans had to work 86.5 days just to pay their federal taxes, as compared to 78.5 days in 2000 under Bill Clinton. In other words, the average American has worked 10.2 percent more for the federal government under George Bush than under Bill Clinton. When state and local taxes (controlled in the majority of places by Republicans) are added to federal taxes, Americans worked for the government eight hours a day, five days a week, from January 1 until July 12, meaning they worked full-time for the government for more than half the year. As Tom Feeney, a congressional Republican put it: "I remember growing up and reading in some school textbooks that if more than half your paycheck went to the government, then you were living in a socialist society." Just so, Mr. Feeney. The profligate spending of President Bush and the Republican Congress is thoroughly consistent with current Republican principles. In fact, Bush's massively expensive prescription drug plan was based upon the very same model of a "conservative welfare state" as his failed attempt to reform Social Security, his support for school vouchers, and his tax cuts. As Dr. Thompson explains: How does a conservative welfare state work? And how does it differ from a liberal welfare state? The neocons advocate a strong central government that provides welfare services to all people who need them while, at the same time, giving people choice about how they want those services delivered. That is what makes it "conservative," they argue. That is how the neocons reconcile Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Hayek and Trotsky. In practice, this means that the coercive force of the state is used to provide for all of the people's needs--from universal social security to health and child care to education--but the people choose their own "private" social security accounts; they choose their own "private" health and child-care providers; and parents receive vouchers and choose which schools their children will attend. The choices, of course, are not the wide-open choices of a free market; rather, the people are permitted to choose from among a handful of pre-authorized providers. The neocons call this scheme a free-market reform of the welfare state. As economic "supply-siders," the neocons occasionally support tax cuts--but not because they want to return to taxpayers money that is rightfully theirs. Instead, they advocate lowering the marginal tax rate because it will provide an incentive for people to work harder, earn more money, spur economic growth--and, thereby, generate more tax revenue that will be used to fund the conservative welfare state. In other words, President Bush's occasional vaguely free-market rhetoric means nothing. The guiding ideal of his administration is that of total government control over our lives, albeit with some nominal choices sanctioned and regulated by that government. That's the kind of "freedom" that today's Republicans support -- and that TIA Daily routinely praises. It's worse than a farce: it's a dangerous illusion. Due to the apparent choices still available to them, Americans might not recognize the ever-tightening vise of government control until it's too powerful to effectively resist. To put the point somewhat crudely, the Republicans want Americans to indulge their power-lusting fantasy that their kinder, gentler form of rape is actually consensual sex, i.e. that their form of statism is actually freedom. It's not. If Objectivists can't see that, then America's prospects are very bleak. Even more alarming, Republicans at the local, state, and federal levels are actively intertwining religion and politics. Republican candidates clearly display their Christian credentials in their campaign literature and declare their intention to govern by Christian principles. They claim that America was founded upon Christian principles -- and advocate a return thereto. They actively promote religion with state power and taxpayer dollars via faith-based initiatives. Many now openly reject the very idea of secular government, i.e. of separation of church and state. For example, Janet Rowland, the woman Colorado's Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez selected as his running mate, openly advocates teaching creationism in public schools, wholeheartedly supports faith-based initiatives, and denies any Constitutional support for separation of church and state. She claims that "we should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Based upon recent threads on Objectivist discussion boards, many Objectivists seem to think that the meaning of Christian government in America is limited to marginal issues like abortion, stem-cell research, evolution, euthanasia, and the like. That's completely false. Christianity is an all-embracing worldview: otherwordly, mystical, altruistic, and authoritarian. Its holy scriptures are explicitly and unequivocally opposed to all the values of this world: success, wealth, pleasure, science, justice, love, reason, pride, independence, and even long-range planning. It demands poverty, incompetence, misery, suffering, mercy, humility, submission, miracles, faith, and death. In recent decades, ever-growing millions of American Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, have embraced an ever-truer faith. They are committed to living in obedience to God. They are rediscovering the actual meaning of the teachings of the New Testament. They are rejecting the common sense worldliness that has long tempered American Christianity; they are embracing the blind emotionalism of faith. Ominously, they are raising an even more radical generation of Christians, teaching them to be "sons of God" rather than "children of the world," just as Augustine demanded. This new Christianity is a whole new animal. Unsurprisingly, these millions of serious Christians want to live in a society that reflects and supports their Christian values. Also unsurprisingly, they are perfectly willing to use the coercive power of the state to achieve that end. They fight to implement and/or retain laws criminalizing homosexual sex, forbidding the co-habitation of unmarried couples, and requiring modest clothing. They support the Bush Administration's vigorous prosecution of obscenity and heavy fines for indecency in the name of "family values." They demand that religious nonsense (i.e. "intelligent design") be taught as science in public schools. They demand the removal of un-Christian books from public and school libraries. Significantly, serious Christians will not be satisfied with success on those limited issues. They will demand strict divorce laws, limit access to birth control, prosecute adultery, and demand religious instruction in schools. To set a proper moral example for the children, they will force everyone to live a Christian life. They will silence critics of religion, whether by actively denying the right to offend religious believers or by passively permitting the intimidation of speakers. (Sadly, that's not much of a stretch in light of Bush the Father's response to the fatwa Salman Rushdie and Bush the Son's response to the Muslim jihad against the Danish cartoons.) Meanwhile, these Christians will continue to support socialism for the simple reason that the New Testament commands it. It demands total collectivization of property and distribution according to need. In passage after passage, it inculcates vicious hostility to wealth, in part on the grounds that the wealthy exploit the poor. Marxism collapsed as an ideological force with the Soviet Union, but Christianity can and will give socialism a new lease on life. The utter misery created by Christian socialism will not be a reason to abandon it; Christianity is explicitly opposed to worldy values like happiness and prosperity. It lauds the silent endurance of suffering and misery as a virtue -- and Christians will force you to be virtuous. The size and power of the evangelical Christian subculture in America should not be underestimated. It is millions strong, generously funded, and growing quickly, often below the radar of the mainstream media. (See the excerpt from the DIM Hypothesis course for details.) Moreover, consider the slew of large Christian organizations seeking to influence American politics, such as American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition of America, Pro-Family Law Center, and Family Research Council. All were created in the last 30 years. In addition, Christian conservatives are successfully infiltrating academia, filling the vacuum created by the ideological death of the left. (To head off a likely objection: Yes, Democrats are increasingly appealing to religion. However, they're doing so because they've seen the great success of the religious Republicans. For now, it's just opportunistic me-too-ism. If religious Republicans are rejected by the American people sooner rather than later, it will disappear. If not, Christian Democrats will gain power over their party and thereby eliminate the possibility of secular government.) For those who understand the awesome power of philosophy in human life, the grave threat posed by this virulent new strain of Christianity is obvious. If America embraces the Christian government of the Republicans, the anti-reason and anti-life ideals Christianity will soon permeate every aspect of American life: politics, business, foreign policy, art, science, criminal and civil law, medicine, education, child-rearing, and more. Of all people, Objectivists ought to see that, precisely because Objectivism recognizes that philosophy is the fundamental driving force of human life and society. Yet many of Dr. Peikoff's critics dismiss the reinvigorated Christianity spreading throughout Republican Party as irrelevant or marginal, focusing only upon superficial issues of policy. They are utterly missing the point. As if the prospect of Christian government in America isn't bad enough, the foreign policy of the Republicans is even more dangerous. The Bush Administration is not fighting a half-war against Islamic totalitarianism, as its Objectivist apologists claim. It is fighting an altruistic pseudo-war in which the lives of thousands of American soldiers and billions of taxpayer dollars are openly sacrificed for the good of the enemy. To take the most telling example, President Bush has embroiled the American military in years of fruitless war in Iraq -- with no end in sight. On the present course, American can only leave Iraq in defeat, i.e. by withdrawing troops as the country sinks further into chaos. When that happens, Iraqis will be free to do as they please, namely to slaughter each other in religious and civil war culminating in the establishment of a repressive Islamic theocracy. That new Iraq will be far more dangerous to America than Saddam's regime ever was; it will be another Iran. Notably, Bush's lofty plan for Iraq diverges only slightly from that grim reality: he wants Iraqis to democratically vote themselves some new government, any new government. Since his basic goal is promote democracy rather than secure America, he's willing to accept an Islamic theocracy hostile to America, so long as Iraqis vote for it. That's what our soldiers in Iraq are fighting and dying to protect in President Bush's "war on terror." The fact that they have killed some jihadists is wholly irrelevant: militant Islamists are not in short supply in the Middle East. America's bloody self-sacrifice in Iraq is the concrete reality of President Bush's "Forward Strategy of Freedom." According to that doctrine, the root cause of the "stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export" common to almost all countries in the Middle East is the absence of democracy. So the solution to Islamist terrorism is to allow Islamists the power of the vote. By implication, Islam is fundamentally unrelated to terrorism. As a "religion of peace," Islam cannot inspire or motivate terrorism, whatever the terrorists might say. Notably, Bush explicitly connected his Forward Strategy of Freedom to his own religious faith. He declared the spread of democracy to be America's "calling," a task to be accomplished with God's assistance and American sacrifice. Iraq was supposed to be the first major step: "the establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." In fact, the only significant outcome has been an explosion of Islamism in Iraq. President Bush's much-lauded Forward Strategy of Freedom has worked equally well elsewhere. The Bush Administration has vigorously promoted government by democratic vote in Muslim countries, even when that elevates violent Islamic totalitarians to power. Democracy brought Hamas to power over the Palestinian Authority, injected Hezbollah into the Lebanese government, and enshrined Islam as the law of the land in Afghanistan. Yet Bush continues to push for full-blown elections Egypt and Jordan, even though that would undermine the efforts of those semi-friendly countries to suppress militant Islam. By promoting democracy, President Bush is aiding our enemies, openly helping them gain political power that otherwise would have been out of reach. Yet he has not been deterred from his God-given mission by the ever-growing political power of the Islamists around the Middle East. Like any good Christian, he is impervious to the facts of this world. The Bush Administration's foreign policy is influenced by Christianity in more than just this "love your enemies" plan for Islamists. In his recent talk, "Nothing Less Than Victory," Dr. John Lewis rightly argued that America ought to demand that the Muslim world wholly separate mosque and state. As in Shinto Japan after World War II, Muslims would be free to pray to Allah in their private lives, but Islam would be barred from public life and politics, including education. Muslims could rationalize that public secularism however they pleased -- or abandon Islam entirely. Such secular government in Muslim countries is required to eliminate their threat to the West. Yet President Bush is completely incapable of demanding anything of the sort. He does not believe in the separation of church and state; he's actively intermingling religion and politics in America. So he has no principled objection to states governed by Islamic law. He regards religion as a positive force in human life and in the state. He merely prefers Christianity to Islam. In essence, by the very nature of his guiding philosophy of life, President Bush is incapable of defeating Islamic totalitarianism. He lacks the capacity to identify the enemy as Islam and to demand the separation of mosque and state. The result is not some half-good measures against Islamic totalitarianism. He's actively sacrificing American lives, dollars, and security in order promote Islamists to political power. Even worse, by so doing while posing as a tough defender of America, the Bush Administration has substantially destroyed the critical ingredient in the battle for Western civilization against the Muslim barbarians, namely our will to fight. America's military might is awe-inspiring. If victory was the goal, America's military could probably crush Islamic totalitarianism in mere months, if not sooner. The only question is whether America has the moral confidence to use that awesome military power in the service of its own defense. In the weeks and months after 9/11, most Americans were eager to terminate the deadly ambitions of the Islamists. The Bush Administration bled dry that fighting spirit with years of war in Iraq, not to mention the ongoing appeasement of terrorists and the states that sponsor them. The cultural and political power of the Islamists in the Middle East has only grown since 9/11, so much so that many Americans now regard victory against the Islamists as impossible and self-defense as slow suicide. They do not think we can win; they aren't certain we deserve to win; they don't even know what "winning" would mean. That's obscene. In concrete terms, the loss of moral confidence means that America will not confront Iran or Saudi Arabia, even though they are the two ideological and financial fountainheads of terrorism against the West. Our government will continue to appease Iran with diplomacy while it openly pursues nuclear weapons. It will continue to pretend that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Of course, I cannot imagine that the Democrats will wage anything like proper war against the Islamic totalitarians determined to destroy America. However, I can reasonably hope that their fearful cowardice will protect us from self-sacrificial wars. They will not sap America's will to fight, but perhaps even reinvigorate it by their inaction. For example, by pulling out of Somalia in disgrace, the Clinton Administration saved us from the self-sacrifice of Bush the Elder's humanitarian "war" to protect and serve a hostile population. Americans were not sapped of their will to fight thereby: most understood that we could and should have retaliated -- even though we shouldn't have embroiled ourselves in that mess of a country in the first place. In contrast, if Bush the Younger were in charge, American soldiers would probably still be dying senselessly in Somalia, just as in Iraq today, on the premise that Somalis really want freedom too. The world would be a safer place today if President Bush refused to take any action in response to the 9/11 attacks. Fewer Islamists would be in positions of political power in the Middle East. Americans might be frustrated by the inaction rather than cowed by improvised roadside bombs. Objectivists ought to recognize the total failure of Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in light of the slew of articles and lectures on the topic in recent years by Dr. Lewis and Dr. Brook. Yet many seem utterly blind to the disaster, focusing only upon insignificant concretes. The fact is that the Bush Administration is not fighting a war against Islamic totalitarianism: as a matter of deliberate policy, it is promoting their political and cultural domination of the Middle East. Yet that's the Administration that TIA Daily praises, supports, and urges you to vote for -- precisely on the grounds of its "war on terror." It's appalling. Those are my basic reasons for regarding today's Republicans as far, far more dangerous than today's Democrats. The problem is not some few individual Republicans but the whole Republican Party, including its leadership. It must be told in no uncertain terms to reverse course. It will only do so if punished by voters for injecting religion into politics and promoting Islamism in the Middle East. Yes, the Democrats are awful. Yes, it will be painful to vote for them. However, the alternative of Christian government is so much more dangerous to our liberties. The fundamental philosophic principles required to clearly understand the nature of our choice in this election are not self-evident. They can be difficult to understand, even for someone long familiar with Objectivism. An honest Objectivist could be confused by the flood of irrelevant concretes and misleading analyses, particularly if attentive to the seemingly Objectivist defenses of the Bush Administration published in almost every TIA Daily and commonly posted on HBL (based on what I saw during my trial membership this spring). However, I think such confusion is possible only to a person without anything like a firm grasp of the relevant philosophic principles. That's why I agree with Dr. Peikoff's claim that "anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world." Sadly, that assessment has been confirmed by the flurry of concrete-bound objections to Dr. Peikoff's statement posted on various Objectivist forums. More particularly, most critics of Dr. Peikoff dismiss as insignificant (or even deny) the rise of a new form of Christianity among millions of Americans over the last three decades. They treat Christianity as relevant to little more than birth and death, i.e. to abortion and euthanasia, even though millions of Christians are determined to live by the actual teachings of the New Testament. They claim that America's sense of life makes theocracy impossible, as if the sense of life of a nation is independent of and impervious to massive changes in explicit philosophy. In essence, they do not recognize that Christianity is an all-encompassing philosophy with the power to drag America into a second Dark Ages if unchecked. In other words, they fail to grasp "the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life." In response to Dr. Peikoff's claim, some argue that a person's vote reveals nothing about his understanding of Objectivism. In fact, a person's concrete actions often do reveal failures of understanding--particularly when the choices are stark. An Objectivist who occasionally shoplifts doesn't understand property rights (and more); an Objectivist who stumps for the Libertarian Party doesn't understand the role of fundamental philosophy in politics (and more); an Objectivist who admires Kant's philosophy doesn't understand much of anything. Similarly, an Objectivist who thinks that today's Republicans are less evil or as evil as today's Democrats fails to grasp the fundamental ideological commitments of the Republicans and the real life meaning thereof, particularly the totalistic crushing oppression of life in a Christian culture and under Christian government. Moreover, I'm glad that Dr. Peikoff was so blunt, even though some were insulted. Many Objectivists needed to hear those shocking words. They needed to be told in no uncertain terms by the foremost expert on Objectivism that their understanding of the philosophy is seriously deficient. If Dr. Peikoff had stated his views in less stark terms, most pro-Republican Objectivists would have dismissed them without much consideration. Others would have remained oblivious to the enormous differences underlying the positions advocated by Yaron Brook, John Lewis, Craig Biddle, and Leonard Peikoff on one hand and Robert Tracinksi, Jack Wakeland, and Harry Binswanger (at least in 2004) on the other. A wake-up call was needed. Yes, it's blaring -- probably because the softer alarms weren't often heeded. Obviously, a person who fails to properly understand Objectivism is not thereby dishonest or immoral. However, some of Dr. Peikoff's most vehement critics have interpreted him as saying just that -- wrongly, I think. Dr. Peikoff wrote: Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad." In my judgment, that claim of immorality presumes that a person understands the choice in question basically as stated, i.e. between an ever-weaker killer and an ever-stronger killer. If a person fails to understand that despite serious and honest effort, then his failure to vote for the Democrats would not be a moral failing, although still a serious mistake. More generally, the identification of a certain act as immoral doesn't imply that everyone performing it is immoral. For example, it's immoral for a husband to lie to his wife to spare her feelings, but if he's accepted the standard view of honesty, he might reasonably think that some "white lies" are proper. Such a husband has done something wrong by lying, even though he's not acted immorally in the sense of evading his knowledge. Hopefully, someone will tell him that he's doing wrong, that lying to his wife is immoral, and that he doesn't understand honesty. That's what Dr. Peikoff has done for Objectivists. (Of course, some pro-Republicans Objectivists are probably dishonest in their views. However, my point is simply that Dr. Peikoff didn't say that all were.) Finally, I must comment upon some of the vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff posted to the ObjectivismOnline and The Forum threads on his statement. To be blunt, I'm appalled by them, particularly by the many accusations of intimidation, bullying, dogmatism, and the like. (For example, Jack Wakeland began this post with "Thank you, [name omitted], for so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff's attempt to bully.") Such charges are absurd: a person does not dogmatically impose himself upon anyone else by expressing strong epistemological and moral judgments. (That's David Kelley's "tolerationist" view; it's not Objectivism.) Dr. Peikoff is certainly not obliged to sugarcoat his negative judgments for the sake of spineless cowards fearful of his disapproval, particularly not on such weighty issues like the fate of America. More generally, Dr. Peikoff deserves far better treatment from Objectivists than he's received of late. Apart from Ayn Rand, he's undoubtedly the most knowledgeable and accomplished Objectivist philosopher -- by far. No one else could have so skillfully and clearly systematized Objectivism as he did in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. For that feat alone, he deserves the deep respect and admiration of Objectivists. In action, such respect means that Objectivists ought to give his arguments careful attention and scrutiny, even if ultimately disagreeing with them. That's hardly too much to ask. However, that's not happened in this debate. Dr. Peikoff has been attacked in the very same terms as I often heard in TOC circles, i.e. with the same casual disregard for facts and the same specious arguments about intimidation. Also like at TOC, many people have dismissed his arguments as absurd without any substantial effort to understand them. That's inexcusable. To be perfectly clear, I will not tolerate any such attacks upon Dr. Peikoff in the comments on this post. Disagreement is fine, but I want nothing to do with anyone who treats him with the dismissive contempt I've seen elsewhere. My admiration for Dr. Peikoff and his accomplishments means something to me, something serious and important. So those supposed Objectivists who cannot treat Dr. Peikoff with some minimal respect are kindly invited in advance to remain silent. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002074.html

I just posted the following essay to NoodleFood. Why I'm Voting for the Democrats Dr. Leonard Peikoff recently posted the following Q&A on the upcoming election on his web site. Q: In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall. A: How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power. Socialism--a fad of the last few centuries--has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast--the destroyer of man since time immemorial--is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor. The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a "good" Republican. In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world. If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner. I fully support Dr. Peikoff's statement. I am acutely aware of the concrete evils of voting for the Democrats: high taxes, environmentalism, welfare programs, socialized medicine, and gun control. Nonetheless, I will vote for Democrats as long as necessary, even for Hillary Clinton in 2008. That is a substantial change for me, as some of you might recall. In the 2004 election, I was hopelessly torn by the choice between Bush and Kerry. While I knew that both were evil, I could not say Bush was apocalyptically evil while Kerry was merely ordinary evil. (Frankly, that middle ground was progress for me, as I'd been pro-Republican in the general vein of TIA Daily for many years beforehand.) I continued to pursue the matter after the election: I knew I needed to understand the relevant principles much better than I did. Listening to Dr. Peikoff's excellent DIM Hypothesis course made the most difference to me: upon hearing the whole course, I finally understood the real meaning of the posted excerpt on the 2004 election. Of course, I still had much more thinking to do. Dr. Peikoff's Religion Versus America and America Versus Americans lectures were illuminating, as was Dr. Yaron Brook's lecture The Morality of War and Dr. John Lewis' Ideas and the Fall of Rome. Dr. Brad Thompson's recent article The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism is also a must-read. I mention those sources for a very specific reason: It's hard to understand the depth and power of Dr. Peikoff's position unless familiar with them, particularly his DIM Hypothesis course. Dr. Peikoff's position is not based on any casual survey of recent events; it is well-grounded in fundamental principles, particularly the essential factors governing philosophic change in cultures over the course of centuries. The Objectivist view of the role of philosophy in shaping individual lives, politics, culture, and history is a massive integration. While most professed Objectivists could summarize it, they do not genuinely understand it for themselves, i.e. based upon their own induction from the concretes. Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course makes that induction so much more clear. It helps a person cut through the confusing sea of today's concretes, so as to see the essential trends. (Note: The Ayn Rand Institute has made Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course available for free to registered users!) As regards the election, the past two years of the Bush Administration and its Republican Congress have displayed the true philosophic commitments of today's conservatives more starkly than ever. In their domestic policies, the Republicans fully support socialism and statism. They simply so do in craftier ways than the Democrats. Most obviously, the Bush Administration successfully pushed its prescription drug plan -- a massive new entitlement -- through a Republican-dominated House and Senate. Even with his Democratic Congress, Clinton was unable to match that feat of welfare statism. As a general matter, the Bush Administration is not even slightly concerned with controlling spending or the growth of government. Consider these "hard facts" from Dr. Thompson's The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism: Government spending has increased faster under George Bush and his Republican Congress than it did under Bill Clinton, and more people work for the federal government today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. During Bush's first term, total government spending skyrocketed from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, an increase of 33 percent (almost $23,000 per household, the highest level since World War II). The federal budget grew by $616.4 billion during Bush's first term in office. If post 9/11 defense spending is taken off the table, domestic spending has ballooned by 23 percent since Bush took office. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, federal spending equaled 18.5 percent of the gross domestic product, but by the end of the first Bush administration, government outlays had increased to 20.3 percent of the GDP. The annualized growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland-security outlays has more than doubled from 2.1 percent under Clinton to 4.8 percent under Bush. Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite President Bush's much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton's last year in office. The 2006 annual report from Americans for Tax Reform, titled "Cost of Government Day," sums up rather nicely the intrusive role played by Republican government in the lives of ordinary Americans. The report says that Americans had to work 86.5 days just to pay their federal taxes, as compared to 78.5 days in 2000 under Bill Clinton. In other words, the average American has worked 10.2 percent more for the federal government under George Bush than under Bill Clinton. When state and local taxes (controlled in the majority of places by Republicans) are added to federal taxes, Americans worked for the government eight hours a day, five days a week, from January 1 until July 12, meaning they worked full-time for the government for more than half the year. As Tom Feeney, a congressional Republican put it: "I remember growing up and reading in some school textbooks that if more than half your paycheck went to the government, then you were living in a socialist society." Just so, Mr. Feeney. The profligate spending of President Bush and the Republican Congress is thoroughly consistent with current Republican principles. In fact, Bush's massively expensive prescription drug plan was based upon the very same model of a "conservative welfare state" as his failed attempt to reform Social Security, his support for school vouchers, and his tax cuts. As Dr. Thompson explains: How does a conservative welfare state work? And how does it differ from a liberal welfare state? The neocons advocate a strong central government that provides welfare services to all people who need them while, at the same time, giving people choice about how they want those services delivered. That is what makes it "conservative," they argue. That is how the neocons reconcile Adam Smith and Karl Marx, Hayek and Trotsky. In practice, this means that the coercive force of the state is used to provide for all of the people's needs--from universal social security to health and child care to education--but the people choose their own "private" social security accounts; they choose their own "private" health and child-care providers; and parents receive vouchers and choose which schools their children will attend. The choices, of course, are not the wide-open choices of a free market; rather, the people are permitted to choose from among a handful of pre-authorized providers. The neocons call this scheme a free-market reform of the welfare state. As economic "supply-siders," the neocons occasionally support tax cuts--but not because they want to return to taxpayers money that is rightfully theirs. Instead, they advocate lowering the marginal tax rate because it will provide an incentive for people to work harder, earn more money, spur economic growth--and, thereby, generate more tax revenue that will be used to fund the conservative welfare state. In other words, President Bush's occasional vaguely free-market rhetoric means nothing. The guiding ideal of his administration is that of total government control over our lives, albeit with some nominal choices sanctioned and regulated by that government. That's the kind of "freedom" that today's Republicans support -- and that TIA Daily routinely praises. It's worse than a farce: it's a dangerous illusion. Due to the apparent choices still available to them, Americans might not recognize the ever-tightening vise of government control until it's too powerful to effectively resist. To put the point somewhat crudely, the Republicans want Americans to indulge their power-lusting fantasy that their kinder, gentler form of rape is actually consensual sex, i.e. that their form of statism is actually freedom. It's not. If Objectivists can't see that, then America's prospects are very bleak. Even more alarming, Republicans at the local, state, and federal levels are actively intertwining religion and politics. Republican candidates clearly display their Christian credentials in their campaign literature and declare their intention to govern by Christian principles. They claim that America was founded upon Christian principles -- and advocate a return thereto. They actively promote religion with state power and taxpayer dollars via faith-based initiatives. Many now openly reject the very idea of secular government, i.e. of separation of church and state. For example, Janet Rowland, the woman Colorado's Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez selected as his running mate, openly advocates teaching creationism in public schools, wholeheartedly supports faith-based initiatives, and denies any Constitutional support for separation of church and state. She claims that "we should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Based upon recent threads on Objectivist discussion boards, many Objectivists seem to think that the meaning of Christian government in America is limited to marginal issues like abortion, stem-cell research, evolution, euthanasia, and the like. That's completely false. Christianity is an all-embracing worldview: otherwordly, mystical, altruistic, and authoritarian. Its holy scriptures are explicitly and unequivocally opposed to all the values of this world: success, wealth, pleasure, science, justice, love, reason, pride, independence, and even long-range planning. It demands poverty, incompetence, misery, suffering, mercy, humility, submission, miracles, faith, and death. In recent decades, ever-growing millions of American Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, have embraced an ever-truer faith. They are committed to living in obedience to God. They are rediscovering the actual meaning of the teachings of the New Testament. They are rejecting the common sense worldliness that has long tempered American Christianity; they are embracing the blind emotionalism of faith. Ominously, they are raising an even more radical generation of Christians, teaching them to be "sons of God" rather than "children of the world," just as Augustine demanded. This new Christianity is a whole new animal. Unsurprisingly, these millions of serious Christians want to live in a society that reflects and supports their Christian values. Also unsurprisingly, they are perfectly willing to use the coercive power of the state to achieve that end. They fight to implement and/or retain laws criminalizing homosexual sex, forbidding the co-habitation of unmarried couples, and requiring modest clothing. They support the Bush Administration's vigorous prosecution of obscenity and heavy fines for indecency in the name of "family values." They demand that religious nonsense (i.e. "intelligent design") be taught as science in public schools. They demand the removal of un-Christian books from public and school libraries. Significantly, serious Christians will not be satisfied with success on those limited issues. They will demand strict divorce laws, limit access to birth control, prosecute adultery, and demand religious instruction in schools. To set a proper moral example for the children, they will force everyone to live a Christian life. They will silence critics of religion, whether by actively denying the right to offend religious believers or by passively permitting the intimidation of speakers. (Sadly, that's not much of a stretch in light of Bush the Father's response to the fatwa Salman Rushdie and Bush the Son's response to the Muslim jihad against the Danish cartoons.) Meanwhile, these Christians will continue to support socialism for the simple reason that the New Testament commands it. It demands total collectivization of property and distribution according to need. In passage after passage, it inculcates vicious hostility to wealth, in part on the grounds that the wealthy exploit the poor. Marxism collapsed as an ideological force with the Soviet Union, but Christianity can and will give socialism a new lease on life. The utter misery created by Christian socialism will not be a reason to abandon it; Christianity is explicitly opposed to worldy values like happiness and prosperity. It lauds the silent endurance of suffering and misery as a virtue -- and Christians will force you to be virtuous. The size and power of the evangelical Christian subculture in America should not be underestimated. It is millions strong, generously funded, and growing quickly, often below the radar of the mainstream media. (See the excerpt from the DIM Hypothesis course for details.) Moreover, consider the slew of large Christian organizations seeking to influence American politics, such as American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition of America, Pro-Family Law Center, and Family Research Council. All were created in the last 30 years. In addition, Christian conservatives are successfully infiltrating academia, filling the vacuum created by the ideological death of the left. (To head off a likely objection: Yes, Democrats are increasingly appealing to religion. However, they're doing so because they've seen the great success of the religious Republicans. For now, it's just opportunistic me-too-ism. If religious Republicans are rejected by the American people sooner rather than later, it will disappear. If not, Christian Democrats will gain power over their party and thereby eliminate the possibility of secular government.) For those who understand the awesome power of philosophy in human life, the grave threat posed by this virulent new strain of Christianity is obvious. If America embraces the Christian government of the Republicans, the anti-reason and anti-life ideals Christianity will soon permeate every aspect of American life: politics, business, foreign policy, art, science, criminal and civil law, medicine, education, child-rearing, and more. Of all people, Objectivists ought to see that, precisely because Objectivism recognizes that philosophy is the fundamental driving force of human life and society. Yet many of Dr. Peikoff's critics dismiss the reinvigorated Christianity spreading throughout Republican Party as irrelevant or marginal, focusing only upon superficial issues of policy. They are utterly missing the point. As if the prospect of Christian government in America isn't bad enough, the foreign policy of the Republicans is even more dangerous. The Bush Administration is not fighting a half-war against Islamic totalitarianism, as its Objectivist apologists claim. It is fighting an altruistic pseudo-war in which the lives of thousands of American soldiers and billions of taxpayer dollars are openly sacrificed for the good of the enemy. To take the most telling example, President Bush has embroiled the American military in years of fruitless war in Iraq -- with no end in sight. On the present course, American can only leave Iraq in defeat, i.e. by withdrawing troops as the country sinks further into chaos. When that happens, Iraqis will be free to do as they please, namely to slaughter each other in religious and civil war culminating in the establishment of a repressive Islamic theocracy. That new Iraq will be far more dangerous to America than Saddam's regime ever was; it will be another Iran. Notably, Bush's lofty plan for Iraq diverges only slightly from that grim reality: he wants Iraqis to democratically vote themselves some new government, any new government. Since his basic goal is promote democracy rather than secure America, he's willing to accept an Islamic theocracy hostile to America, so long as Iraqis vote for it. That's what our soldiers in Iraq are fighting and dying to protect in President Bush's "war on terror." The fact that they have killed some jihadists is wholly irrelevant: militant Islamists are not in short supply in the Middle East. America's bloody self-sacrifice in Iraq is the concrete reality of President Bush's "Forward Strategy of Freedom." According to that doctrine, the root cause of the "stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export" common to almost all countries in the Middle East is the absence of democracy. So the solution to Islamist terrorism is to allow Islamists the power of the vote. By implication, Islam is fundamentally unrelated to terrorism. As a "religion of peace," Islam cannot inspire or motivate terrorism, whatever the terrorists might say. Notably, Bush explicitly connected his Forward Strategy of Freedom to his own religious faith. He declared the spread of democracy to be America's "calling," a task to be accomplished with God's assistance and American sacrifice. Iraq was supposed to be the first major step: "the establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." In fact, the only significant outcome has been an explosion of Islamism in Iraq. President Bush's much-lauded Forward Strategy of Freedom has worked equally well elsewhere. The Bush Administration has vigorously promoted government by democratic vote in Muslim countries, even when that elevates violent Islamic totalitarians to power. Democracy brought Hamas to power over the Palestinian Authority, injected Hezbollah into the Lebanese government, and enshrined Islam as the law of the land in Afghanistan. Yet Bush continues to push for full-blown elections Egypt and Jordan, even though that would undermine the efforts of those semi-friendly countries to suppress militant Islam. By promoting democracy, President Bush is aiding our enemies, openly helping them gain political power that otherwise would have been out of reach. Yet he has not been deterred from his God-given mission by the ever-growing political power of the Islamists around the Middle East. Like any good Christian, he is impervious to the facts of this world. The Bush Administration's foreign policy is influenced by Christianity in more than just this "love your enemies" plan for Islamists. In his recent talk, "Nothing Less Than Victory," Dr. John Lewis rightly argued that America ought to demand that the Muslim world wholly separate mosque and state. As in Shinto Japan after World War II, Muslims would be free to pray to Allah in their private lives, but Islam would be barred from public life and politics, including education. Muslims could rationalize that public secularism however they pleased -- or abandon Islam entirely. Such secular government in Muslim countries is required to eliminate their threat to the West. Yet President Bush is completely incapable of demanding anything of the sort. He does not believe in the separation of church and state; he's actively intermingling religion and politics in America. So he has no principled objection to states governed by Islamic law. He regards religion as a positive force in human life and in the state. He merely prefers Christianity to Islam. In essence, by the very nature of his guiding philosophy of life, President Bush is incapable of defeating Islamic totalitarianism. He lacks the capacity to identify the enemy as Islam and to demand the separation of mosque and state. The result is not some half-good measures against Islamic totalitarianism. He's actively sacrificing American lives, dollars, and security in order promote Islamists to political power. Even worse, by so doing while posing as a tough defender of America, the Bush Administration has substantially destroyed the critical ingredient in the battle for Western civilization against the Muslim barbarians, namely our will to fight. America's military might is awe-inspiring. If victory was the goal, America's military could probably crush Islamic totalitarianism in mere months, if not sooner. The only question is whether America has the moral confidence to use that awesome military power in the service of its own defense. In the weeks and months after 9/11, most Americans were eager to terminate the deadly ambitions of the Islamists. The Bush Administration bled dry that fighting spirit with years of war in Iraq, not to mention the ongoing appeasement of terrorists and the states that sponsor them. The cultural and political power of the Islamists in the Middle East has only grown since 9/11, so much so that many Americans now regard victory against the Islamists as impossible and self-defense as slow suicide. They do not think we can win; they aren't certain we deserve to win; they don't even know what "winning" would mean. That's obscene. In concrete terms, the loss of moral confidence means that America will not confront Iran or Saudi Arabia, even though they are the two ideological and financial fountainheads of terrorism against the West. Our government will continue to appease Iran with diplomacy while it openly pursues nuclear weapons. It will continue to pretend that Saudi Arabia is an ally. Of course, I cannot imagine that the Democrats will wage anything like proper war against the Islamic totalitarians determined to destroy America. However, I can reasonably hope that their fearful cowardice will protect us from self-sacrificial wars. They will not sap America's will to fight, but perhaps even reinvigorate it by their inaction. For example, by pulling out of Somalia in disgrace, the Clinton Administration saved us from the self-sacrifice of Bush the Elder's humanitarian "war" to protect and serve a hostile population. Americans were not sapped of their will to fight thereby: most understood that we could and should have retaliated -- even though we shouldn't have embroiled ourselves in that mess of a country in the first place. In contrast, if Bush the Younger were in charge, American soldiers would probably still be dying senselessly in Somalia, just as in Iraq today, on the premise that Somalis really want freedom too. The world would be a safer place today if President Bush refused to take any action in response to the 9/11 attacks. Fewer Islamists would be in positions of political power in the Middle East. Americans might be frustrated by the inaction rather than cowed by improvised roadside bombs. Objectivists ought to recognize the total failure of Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly in light of the slew of articles and lectures on the topic in recent years by Dr. Lewis and Dr. Brook. Yet many seem utterly blind to the disaster, focusing only upon insignificant concretes. The fact is that the Bush Administration is not fighting a war against Islamic totalitarianism: as a matter of deliberate policy, it is promoting their political and cultural domination of the Middle East. Yet that's the Administration that TIA Daily praises, supports, and urges you to vote for -- precisely on the grounds of its "war on terror." It's appalling. Those are my basic reasons for regarding today's Republicans as far, far more dangerous than today's Democrats. The problem is not some few individual Republicans but the whole Republican Party, including its leadership. It must be told in no uncertain terms to reverse course. It will only do so if punished by voters for injecting religion into politics and promoting Islamism in the Middle East. Yes, the Democrats are awful. Yes, it will be painful to vote for them. However, the alternative of Christian government is so much more dangerous to our liberties. The fundamental philosophic principles required to clearly understand the nature of our choice in this election are not self-evident. They can be difficult to understand, even for someone long familiar with Objectivism. An honest Objectivist could be confused by the flood of irrelevant concretes and misleading analyses, particularly if attentive to the seemingly Objectivist defenses of the Bush Administration published in almost every TIA Daily and commonly posted on HBL (based on what I saw during my trial membership this spring). However, I think such confusion is possible only to a person without anything like a firm grasp of the relevant philosophic principles. That's why I agree with Dr. Peikoff's claim that "anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world." Sadly, that assessment has been confirmed by the flurry of concrete-bound objections to Dr. Peikoff's statement posted on various Objectivist forums. More particularly, most critics of Dr. Peikoff dismiss as insignificant (or even deny) the rise of a new form of Christianity among millions of Americans over the last three decades. They treat Christianity as relevant to little more than birth and death, i.e. to abortion and euthanasia, even though millions of Christians are determined to live by the actual teachings of the New Testament. They claim that America's sense of life makes theocracy impossible, as if the sense of life of a nation is independent of and impervious to massive changes in explicit philosophy. In essence, they do not recognize that Christianity is an all-encompassing philosophy with the power to drag America into a second Dark Ages if unchecked. In other words, they fail to grasp "the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life." In response to Dr. Peikoff's claim, some argue that a person's vote reveals nothing about his understanding of Objectivism. In fact, a person's concrete actions often do reveal failures of understanding--particularly when the choices are stark. An Objectivist who occasionally shoplifts doesn't understand property rights (and more); an Objectivist who stumps for the Libertarian Party doesn't understand the role of fundamental philosophy in politics (and more); an Objectivist who admires Kant's philosophy doesn't understand much of anything. Similarly, an Objectivist who thinks that today's Republicans are less evil or as evil as today's Democrats fails to grasp the fundamental ideological commitments of the Republicans and the real life meaning thereof, particularly the totalistic crushing oppression of life in a Christian culture and under Christian government. Moreover, I'm glad that Dr. Peikoff was so blunt, even though some were insulted. Many Objectivists needed to hear those shocking words. They needed to be told in no uncertain terms by the foremost expert on Objectivism that their understanding of the philosophy is seriously deficient. If Dr. Peikoff had stated his views in less stark terms, most pro-Republican Objectivists would have dismissed them without much consideration. Others would have remained oblivious to the enormous differences underlying the positions advocated by Yaron Brook, John Lewis, Craig Biddle, and Leonard Peikoff on one hand and Robert Tracinksi, Jack Wakeland, and Harry Binswanger (at least in 2004) on the other. A wake-up call was needed. Yes, it's blaring -- probably because the softer alarms weren't often heeded. Obviously, a person who fails to properly understand Objectivism is not thereby dishonest or immoral. However, some of Dr. Peikoff's most vehement critics have interpreted him as saying just that -- wrongly, I think. Dr. Peikoff wrote: Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad." In my judgment, that claim of immorality presumes that a person understands the choice in question basically as stated, i.e. between an ever-weaker killer and an ever-stronger killer. If a person fails to understand that despite serious and honest effort, then his failure to vote for the Democrats would not be a moral failing, although still a serious mistake. More generally, the identification of a certain act as immoral doesn't imply that everyone performing it is immoral. For example, it's immoral for a husband to lie to his wife to spare her feelings, but if he's accepted the standard view of honesty, he might reasonably think that some "white lies" are proper. Such a husband has done something wrong by lying, even though he's not acted immorally in the sense of evading his knowledge. Hopefully, someone will tell him that he's doing wrong, that lying to his wife is immoral, and that he doesn't understand honesty. That's what Dr. Peikoff has done for Objectivists. (Of course, some pro-Republicans Objectivists are probably dishonest in their views. However, my point is simply that Dr. Peikoff didn't say that all were.) Finally, I must comment upon some of the vicious attacks on Dr. Peikoff posted to the ObjectivismOnline and The Forum threads on his statement. To be blunt, I'm appalled by them, particularly by the many accusations of intimidation, bullying, dogmatism, and the like. (For example, Jack Wakeland began this post with "Thank you, [name omitted], for so quickly standing up to Dr. Peikoff's attempt to bully.") Such charges are absurd: a person does not dogmatically impose himself upon anyone else by expressing strong epistemological and moral judgments. (That's David Kelley's "tolerationist" view; it's not Objectivism.) Dr. Peikoff is certainly not obliged to sugarcoat his negative judgments for the sake of spineless cowards fearful of his disapproval, particularly not on such weighty issues like the fate of America. More generally, Dr. Peikoff deserves far better treatment from Objectivists than he's received of late. Apart from Ayn Rand, he's undoubtedly the most knowledgeable and accomplished Objectivist philosopher -- by far. No one else could have so skillfully and clearly systematized Objectivism as he did in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. For that feat alone, he deserves the deep respect and admiration of Objectivists. In action, such respect means that Objectivists ought to give his arguments careful attention and scrutiny, even if ultimately disagreeing with them. That's hardly too much to ask. However, that's not happened in this debate. Dr. Peikoff has been attacked in the very same terms as I often heard in TOC circles, i.e. with the same casual disregard for facts and the same specious arguments about intimidation. Also like at TOC, many people have dismissed his arguments as absurd without any substantial effort to understand them. That's inexcusable. [This final paragraph was obviously written for the NoodleFood version of this post. I've retained it for the sake of completeness, as well as to make my position more clear.] To be perfectly clear, I will not tolerate any such attacks upon Dr. Peikoff in the [NoodleFood] comments on this post. Disagreement is fine, but I want nothing to do with anyone who treats him with the dismissive contempt I've seen elsewhere. My admiration for Dr. Peikoff and his accomplishments means something to me, something serious and important. So those supposed Objectivists who cannot treat Dr. Peikoff with some minimal respect are kindly invited in advance to remain silent.

This announcement from ARI of free access to Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis course couldn't be more perfectly timed: Leonard Peikoff's The DIM Hypothesis available FREE at aynrand.org! Next summer, Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 will present a new lecture series by Leonard Peikoff, presenting a detailed examination of his forthcoming book, The DIM Hypothesis. For a limited time, as a prelude to this event, we are able to present to you, free of charge, a streaming audio recording of the original lecture series, delivered in 2004, in which Dr. Peikoff gave the first detailed presentation of his exciting new theory. Listeners are invited to experience this course as a document of the early development of Dr. Peikoff's latest work. Streaming audio links for the course can be found online at the Ayn Rand Institute's Registered User Page. (If you aren't yet registered, registration is fast, free and easy--just click to register now!) Audio streams are available in both RealMedia and Windows Media formats. LISTEN NOW: http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=iiaa_pV9ufTws1U7BfjLzA.. FREE REGISTRATION: http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=VwUIJ2nKQqhyQbZypTpVcw.. COURSE DESCRIPTION: This 15-session course--part lecture, part discussion--was presented live to a worldwide audience by phone and on the Internet. It is based on Dr. Peikoff's "The DIM Hypothesis" (book-in-progress), in which he looks at the role of integration in the culture and in practical life. This course explains and explores Dr. Peikoff's new DIM hypothesis, applying it to ten different cultural areas, as listed in the course outline. The hypothesis identifies and distinguishes three types of mind: the mind characterized by I (Integration); by D (Disintegration); or by M (Misintegration). In the sessions Dr. Peikoff points out how all of the influential movements in the areas included reflect--and could only have been created by--one or another of these three mind sets. If enhancing your understanding of today's world and of where we are heading is an important concern of yours, Dr. Peikoff believes that you will find a DIM perspective on events to be of significant value. As Dr. Peikoff recently explained: "[M]y thesis is that the dominant trends in every key area can be defined by their leaders' policy toward integration: they are against it (Disintegration, D); they are for it, if it conforms to reality (Integration, I); they are for it, if it conforms to a superior reality (Misintegration, M)."

And you'd still be competely wrong to say that. You ought not be shocked by Dr. Peikoff's position. It is the product of careful, longstanding consideration of fundamental principles, not the kind of hash of concretes bandied about here and on The Forum. As I've already indicated, Dr. Peikoff has been speaking in this vein for about two decades. If you wish to know his detailed reasons, you should particularly listen to his "DIM Hypothesis" course -- preferably before any further accusations of "fail[ing] so grossly to consider the evidence." More recently, Objectivist scholars like John Lewis, Craig Biddle, Bradley Thompson, and Yaron Brook have written and lectured in support of Dr. Peikoff's overall position, e.g. showing the utter disaster of Bush's altruistic "war on terror" and "fowward strategy of freedom." If you missed all that, if you thought that Dr. Peikoff et al were basically arguing in the same vein as Dr. Binswanger and particularly Mr. Tracinski, then you've missed the ever-growing elephant in the room. If you respect Dr. Peikoff as you claim, then you ought to investigate his reasons for his views if you don't understand them, not dismiss and condemn them out of hand. That's what I did -- and he changed my mind.

In other words, without the slightest shred of respect at all. I'm in strong agreement with Dr. Peikoff for reasons that I'll articulate on NoodleFood in the next few days. In the meantime, is it really necessary to point out the huge difference between strongly disagreeing with Dr. Peikoff and publicly suggesting that he's going senile or nuts?!? Dr. Peikoff has longstanding reasons for his views going back twenty years. If you listen to his "DIM Hypothesis" course, as well as his lecture on "America Versus Americans," you might glean some slight understanding of them. That's what changed my mind on the matter, as well as reading and listening to Yaron Brook, Craig Biddle, John Lewis, and Bradley Thompson. (Or maybe they're all "losing their grip on reality" too?) In utter disgust, Diana Hsieh

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog John Lewis' new book on Solon is now available for pre-order from Amazon. (Prepare yourself for a hefty price tag, unfortunately.) Dr. Lewis posted the following on Principles in Practice about the book: A new book, Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens (London: Duckworth, 2006) deals with the poetry of perhaps the earliest political thinker in history, Solon of Athens. Selected as Chief Official in Athens in 594 BC, he is often credited with laying the groundwork for the political constitution of Classical Athens, through a set of written laws that protected the freedom of the Athenians through a rational, even if ill-defined, legal process. This book considers, on a specialist's, level, Solon's poetry as the first extant political thought from ancient Greece. About the Book Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens presents the hypothesis that Solon (ca. 640-560 BC) saw his beloved Athens as a self-governing, self-supporting system akin to the early Greek conceptions of the cosmos. Solon's polis (city-state) functions neither by divine intervention nor the force of a tyrant, but by its own natural, self-governing internal energy. An orderly, understandable polis is founded on the intellectual health of its people, depends upon their acceptance of justice and moderation as orderly norms of life, and leads to the rejection of tyranny and slavery in favor of freedom under written laws. Solon is the thinker who conceives this ideal for the Athenians, and the teacher who brings it to them. But Solon's views of order are limited; each person in his own life is subject to the arbitrary foibles of moira, the inscrutable fate that governs human life, and that brings us to an unknowable but inevitable death. Solon represents both the new rational, scientific spirit that was sweeping the Aegean—and a return to the fatalism that permeated Greek cultural life. He deserves credit not only as a poet and a lawgiver, but as a thinker who was at the cutting edge of an intellectual revolution. "John Lewis's Solon the Thinker contains a careful reading of the poetic fragments of Solon—not as poetry, but as political thought. Lewis's interpretation of these poems provides one with a greater understanding and appreciation of the political views of Solon—arguably the first (and only) Presocratic political philosopher—and his place in the history of ideas. Anyone interested in early Greek discussions of the polis, justice, tyranny, slavery, and freedom should find this book worthwhile reading." —Robert Mayhew, Professor of Philosophy, Seton Hall University "In contrast to scholars who treat Solon's political reforms and his poetry in isolation from each other, John Lewis demonstrates that Solon's poetry is in fact a fertile source of important political ideas such as order, wisdom, moderation, justice, and law. Solon conceptualized freedom as a political ideal in opposition to tyranny, and he viewed the polis as a haven for human beings against the ravages of unrelenting destiny. Solon the Thinker is a major contribution to our appreciation of Solon as a poet and to our understanding of his pivotal role in the development of ancient Greek political thought." —Fred D. Miller, Jr., Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University Select Passages from the Book From the Introduction: "The purpose of this book is to examine the poetic fragments of Solon as early Greek political thought. The focus is on Solon's preserved poetry, not on laws or institutional reforms attributed to him by later writers, and not on his place in a literary or historical tradition. What rises out of Solon's verses is an all-embracing way of looking at his world—a way of understanding Athens and the men in it, of grasping the certainty of justice and the arbitrariness of fate, and of judging rulers both bad and good—that is rooted in a new world-view that was sweeping the Aegean world. His preserved verses, even though fragmentary, often cast in epic form, and motivated by an opaque rhetorical purpose, present an enlightened frame of reference, an energetic moral program, and a well-organized set of ideas. His words mark the birth of thought about the polis as a lawful, just community." From Chapter One: 'I brought the people together': Solon's Polis as Kosmos "Such ideas were part and parcel of new forms of thought that were sweeping the Aegean world. In Solon's day, Greek thinkers had begun to search for a singular principle underlying life on earth. This does not mean that they had a cosmology, a systematic view of the earth and the heavens. But their 'world-view' had a meaning more fundamental than cosmology: a basic understanding of how the world operates, and of their place in it. Such a world-view establishes, among other things, whether man is to be a plaything of omnipotent deities, a pawn in a capricious world without consistency, an autonomous being able to control his own fate, or an unstable and ill-defined mixture of these ideas. Such a world-view may be well thought out and explicit, or it may be implicit, unexamined and unconceptualized, expressed as an emotional 'gut feeling' or as an absolute that defies challenge and explanation; it may be riddled with contradictions, but it is implied in any generalization about the nature and purpose of human life in the world. "For a peasant the world may not extend beyond the closest village, and the cycles of life may be no wider than agricultural seasons, religious festivals and wars. But the world-view of an archaic Greek thinker was expanding, encompassing wider ideas about the nature of life and offering answers to its basic questions… The new understanding was growing out of earlier developments, in which the creative acts of individuals added up to a cultural revolution." From Chapter Five: 'Moira brings good and evil': Bios and the Failure of Dikç "There is a searing paradox evident in Solon's claims about the polis, wisdom and human life. On the one hand his verses proclaiming his ability to know the inevitable consequences of human actions in the polis are emboldened with the kind of unalloyed certainty once relegated to the gods alone. As lawgiver he takes over where Dikç [Justice] dare not tread, seeing that which will be and claiming its inevitability in terms that are comprehensive and inescapable. Yet, the inability of any man to see the ultimate end of all things was a common tenet in early Greek thought, and Solon can claim no exception to this rule. Man's noos [mind] is ephemeral, and it is difficult or impossible to know the end of life itself. Solon's verses combine ' Dikç surely comes later' with 'the mind of the immortals is hidden from men', claiming both the ability to know 'what will be', and that 'what will be' is hidden to us. Some readers have argued that a division, or split, exists in his thought, between his revolutionary view of political matters and his traditional view of fate ( Moira], and that his poem 13, the Hymn to the Muses, expresses this split. But what is the mess here: is it in Solon's ideas, or our understanding of him?" From Chapter Seven: 'I set them free': Tyranny, Slavery and Freedom "It is a serious oversight that Solon's first use of these terms ( eleutheros) as political freedom should get so little emphasis. This point cannot be overstressed: Solon's is the first statement of political freedom in all of western thought. His special sense of freedom is its political nature. The word eleutheria exists in texts prior to Solon, but is not understood in distinction from political despotism. The four 'day of freedom' and 'cup of freedom' phrases in the Iliad exhaust Homer's uses of eleuther- forms. The Trojans who cry for eleutheria want to drive off foreign armies, in order to return to despotic rule under their king. Freedom means living under King Priam's rule, and slavery means being taken in personal bondage to work in a far off land. This is not political freedom; it is independence from foreign takeover. Eleuther- terms are otherwise used only rarely in poets before Solon… "For Solon a free man is an Attic-speaking male whose personal autonomy inside the polis is protected from attacks by his fellows. Solon's poem 36 is the first statement in western thought to base a political order on a distinct idea of justice under enforced written laws, promoted by persuasion rather than divine commandment, and legitimated by a claim to have set its inhabitants free." Order Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens from Amazon.com. It looks excellent! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002047.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Your final reminder about next weekend's conference in Boston: Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response What: A series of lectures and a panel discussion examining the threat of Islamic totalitarianism to the West and how best to combat it Sponsored by: Objectivist Conferences (OCON) and the Ayn Rand Institute Who: Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute; Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch; Flemming Rose, Danish editor who commissioned the Muhammad cartoons; Peter Schwartz, author of "The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America"; and John Lewis, assistant professor of history at Ashland University Where: Boston World Trade Center Amphitheater, Boston, MA When: Oct. 21, from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Oct. 22, from 10:00 AM to 12:40 PM Schedule: Saturday, Oct. 21 9:15 AM to 10:30 AM "No Substitute for Victory: Military Offense and the Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism": a lecture by John Lewis explaining the necessity of totally defeating the governments that support Islamic terrorism 10:45 AM to 11:55 AM "Muhammad and His Relevance Today": a lecture by Robert Spencer examining the crucial role of Muhammad's life in the motivation and ideology of Islamic jihadists 1:30 PM to 2:45 PM "Radical Islam and the War on Terror": a lecture by Daniel Pipes explaining why the West must defeat radical Islam and replace it with a moderate form of Islam 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM "Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response": a panel discussion with Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes and Flemming Rose on the Islamic threat to the West and how best to combat it Sunday, Oct. 22 10:00 AM to 11:15 AM "Islam and Europe after the Cartoon Crisis--Clash of Cultures or Coexistence of Civilizations?": a lecture by Flemming Rose on the current encounter between the West and Islam in Europe 11:25 AM to 12:40 PM "Defending Freedom: The Principled vs. the Pragmatic Approach": a lecture by Peter Schwartz criticizing the pragmatic approach to conducting foreign policy and explaining why only the consistent adherence to the right principles can lead to success in defending America. Admission: $55 per lecture [but free for students] For more details on these events, the lectures or the speakers, please e-mail [email protected] or visit http://www.objectivistconferences.com/fordhall06/ http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002048.html

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Columbia University professor was recently awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics. The media is portraying him as a defender of the free market, and a recent essay he wrote for the Wall Street Journal is described by Instapundit as "". But if one looks closer at his essay, there are a lot of problems from the Objectivist perspective. Phelps does correctly contrast the European mixed economies with the American less-mixed economy, and shows that the increased level of statism in the European systems stifles innovation. But when he defends the American version, he says the following: We all feel good to see people freed to pursue their dreams. Yet Hayek and Ayn Rand went too far in taking such freedom to be an absolute, the consequences be damned. In judging whether a nation's economic system is acceptable, its consequences for the prospects of the realization of people's dreams matter, too. Since the economy is a system in which people interact, the endeavors of some may damage the prospects of others. So a persuasive justification of well-functioning capitalism must be grounded on its all its consequences, not just those called freedoms. To argue that the consequences of capitalism are just requires some conception of economic justice. I broadly subscribe to the conception of economic justice in the work by John Rawls. In any organization of the economy, the participants will score unequally in how far they manage to go in their personal growth. An organization that leaves the bottom score lower than it would be under another feasible organization is unjust. So a new organization that raised the scores of some, though at the expense of reducing scores at the bottom, would not be justified. Yet a high score is just if it does not hurt others. "Envy is the vice of mankind," said Kant, whom Rawls greatly admired. In addition to citing egalitarian philosopher John Rawls, he also cites Kant: As Kant also said, persons are not to be made instruments for the gain of others. Suppose the wage of the lowest-paid workers was foreseen to be reduced over the entire future by innovations conceived by entrepreneurs. Are those whose dream is to find personal development through a career as an entrepreneur not to be permitted to pursue their dream? To respond, we have to go outside Rawls's classical model, in which work is all about money. In an economy in which entrepreneurs are forbidden to pursue their self-realization, they have the bottom scores in self-realization -- no matter if they take paying jobs instead -- and that counts whether or not they were born the "least advantaged." So even if their activities did come at the expense of the lowest-paid workers, Rawlsian justice in this extended sense requires that entrepreneurs be accorded enough opportunity to raise their self-realization score up to the level of the lowest-paid workers -- and higher, of course, if workers are not damaged by support for entrepreneurship. In this case, too, then, the introduction of entrepreneurial dynamism serves to raise Rawls's bottom scores. Then there's his mention of the usual purported failures of capitalism, without mentioning how they are actually caused by government interference in capitalism (rather than a problem with capitalism itself): Actual capitalism departs from well-functioning capitalism -- monopolies too big to break up, undetected cartels, regulatory failures and political corruption. Capitalism in its innovations plants the seeds of its own encrustation with entrenched power. These departures weigh heavily on the rewards earned, particularly the wages of the least advantaged, and give a bad name to capitalism. And his conclusion spells out his purported defense quite clearly: I conclude that capitalism is justified -- normally by the expectable benefits to the lowest-paid workers but, failing that, by the injustice of depriving entrepreneurial types (as well as other creative people) of opportunities for their self-expression. So Phelps' moral defense of capitalism rests on two pillars -- the fact that it is the best system for helping the poorest amongst us, and that it helps maximize "self-expression" of creative people. Although these are incidentally true, they are so far removed from what Objectivists would regard as the fundamental moral defense of capitalism, namely man's need to think in order to live, and the corresponding need for freedom from inititation of force in order to use his mind. So if this is a "strong defense of capitalism", I'd hate to see a weak one! But it's always interesting to see what is portrayed as a moral defense of capitalism in the mainstream culture (from a well-respected Nobel laureate in economics no less), because this is an area where Objectivists have a critically important and unique contribution of ideas relative to the libertarians and conservatives. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002041.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I'm delighted to report that Brad Thompson's talk at Boulder last night went very well. Unlike most campus talks, this lecture was primarily aimed at the Boulder community at large rather than at students. Since that was a new kind of endeavor, Bob Pasnau (the organizer) and I had no idea how many people would show up. Particularly since I worked mostly upon promoting the talk, I was completely beside myself with worry about the attendance. (I've never been so nervous about giving a talk as I was about last night's lecture! I don't think I'll be so beside myself with worry ever again though.) Happily, we had just over 100 people attend. The local ABC news station even showed up to record the first few minutes of the lecture, although I'm not sure if any of it was aired. (Since the topic of the lecture was so relevant to recent events, I sent the press release as a news tip to all the local stations.) I should call the channel today to find out. The talk was generally well-received. (If you want to know the general line of argument, you can read this op-ed.) As apparently always happens, a number of students came up to Dr. Thompson after the lecture to tell him that his description of public schooling exactly matched their experience. Personally, the lecture unearthed my mostly-forgotten memories of the utter hell of public middle school in Maryland. Although the academics weren't so terrible -- mostly because I was in all "gifted and talented" classes -- the culture of the school was relentlessly anti-intellectual and senselessly malicious. My parents saved me from that hell by transferring me Garrison Forest School, a private all-girls school in northwest Baltimore, just a few weeks before the start of 8th grade. (Sometime in August, I broke down in tears and begged my mother not to send me back to the public school. My parents somehow managed to send me to Garrison at that 11th hour.) If I'd stayed in public school, I would have lobotomized myself to make school tolerable. The process had already started. Honestly, I'm doubtful that I could have recovered from that (intellectually or emotionally) if I'd stayed in that public school for even just another year. Judging by Dr. Thompson's talk (and various other sources, including my experience with the students I teach), the situation is even worse for many (if not most) students in the supposedly "better" public schools today. That's frightening. So many thanks to Dr. Brad Thompson for the excellent lecture, to Dr. Bob Pasnau for organizing the series, and to the Collins Foundation for funding the series! The next event will be a debate on animal rights on November 16th between David Barnett and Robert Hanna. Mark your calendars now, as it should be interesting! I am determined to attract an audience fairly balanced between supporters and opponents of animal rights. Since animal rights advocates will probably be more motivated to attend, I'd like to particularly encourage opponents to attend too. (Of course, people with unsettled views would be best of all!) As for the two debaters, I'm not familiar with David Barnett's views. However, I did read an interesting paper by Robert Hanna on animal consciousness a few semesters ago; it made a good case that animals are not able to suffer, although they do feel pain. Also, Dr. Hanna is an animated and engaging speaker. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002030.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The quickly-upcoming Boston conference The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response is now free for students. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002031.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I'm helping Boulder's Philosophy Department with its new public philosophy lecture series: Think! The first lecture will be Dr. Brad Thompson speaking on the causes of student violence in public schools this Thursday in Boulder. ** Please forward this information to anyone you think might be interested ** Seven years after the horrifying Columbine High School massacre, America's public schools are still plagued by student violence. This Thursday, October 5th, Dr. C. Bradley Thompson will examine the causes of that violence in the inaugural lecture of "Think!"--a new series of public lectures sponsored by the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder. What: Lecture on "Why Johnny Can't Think or Distinguish Right from Wrong" by C. Bradley Thompson. Where: Old Main Chapel on the campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder. ( Campus Map) When: October 5th from 8:00 to 9:30 p.m. Lecture Description: What's wrong with America's adolescent boys? Why are they so angry, and why are they committing mass murder in America's government schools? How are we to understand and explain what happened at Columbine high school? In this lecture, C. Bradley Thompson rejects the leading theories of conservatives and liberals and instead advances a radical proposition--that the cause of America's epidemic of school shootings is to be found in the schools themselves. He argues that the root cause for all these shootings might very well be found in the destruction of the minds and souls of America's young people by an education establishment bent on using our children as guinea pigs for their experiments in schooling. C. Bradley Thompson is the BB&T Research Professor at Clemson University and the Executive Director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism. "Think!" will also sponsor two events later this fall: Thursday, November 16th. "What We Owe to Animals: A Debate" David Barnett and Robert Hanna (CU/Boulder) Thursday, December 7th. "Integral Ecology" Michael Zimmerman (CU/Boulder) All talks will be held from 8:00-9:30 p.m. at the Old Main Chapel on the CU Campus. They are free and intended for the public. Members of the media are welcome to attend. For more information, visit: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/think.shtml These lectures are funded through the generosity of The Collins Foundation.The topic of this lecture was determined some months ago, so we had no idea that it would be so horribly relevant to recent events. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002023.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Shawn Klein, one of the editors of the Harry Potter and Philosophy volume to which I contributed, has some interesting comments upon the myriad complaints about "consumerism" in education. The problem, he observes, isn't that students regard their education as a service for purchase, since it obviously is just that. Rather, the problem is that students are often confused about what they're purchasing: they're not purchasing the diploma or good grades or even the education. Instead, they're purchasing an opportunity to educate themselves, just as a person who buys a gym membership or personal training sessions is purchasing an opportunity but not a guarantee of getting in shape. If that sounds interesting, I'd recommend reading the whole post. It's interesting enough that I'd love to see the future Dr. Klein publish a revised version as an op-ed in the Chronicle of Higher Education or somesuch. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002019.html

The first wouldn't be a criticism at all, whereas the second is stated too broadly and too weakly to capture the depth and range arguments offered against the project. Just so folks know, I have little desire to argue more about Founders College than I already have in my own blog comments. I just wanted to clearify a few factual points, plus note some reasons for doubt about the viability and wisdom of the endeavor as discussed earlier in some detail.

I don't think I was precise enough in my wording. I was thinking of those who speak at OCON and campus clubs, write op-eds and articles, etc -- particularly academics in the humanities associated with ARI. Perhaps I'm misjudging Dr. Speicher. In any case, I don't wish to imply any kind of universal opinion on this matter. I've just heard lots of strong criticisms of the project but no substantial optimism thereabout from those I know in that group.

The facts: ARI is not involved in Founders College. John Allison is not involved in Founders College. Eric Daniels is no longer involved in Founders College. To my knowledge, no Objectivist intellectual other than Gary Hull is involved with Founders College -- or even supports the endeavor. If you wish to know some of the reasons why, I would look at these two posts by Noumenal Self on Founders College: one and two ... as well as the comments on this NoodleFood post.

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Those of have read Ayn Rand's essay, "The Comprachicos" know that the title refers to a barbaric group of nomads in the 17th century that used to specialize in the deliberate mutilation of children's bodies. Rand goes on to argue that the crippling of a child's mind via progressive education is the 20th century version of this practice. Well, in the 21st century, the comprachicos have returned to crippling the body. According to this recent report on the genetic testing practices in US IVF (in vitro fertilization) clinics, Some prospective parents have sought [preimplantation genetic diagnosis] to select an embryo for the presence of a particular disease or disability, such as deafness, in order that the child would share that characteristic with the parents. Three percent of IVF-PGD clinics report having provided PGD to couples who seek to use PGD in this manner. (Page 5 of the report, page 7 of the PDF file.) Now I can understand why prospective parents might choose to screen their embryos so that their future child won't have a certain crippling disease. But to deliberately select an embryo so that it will seems incomprehensibly monstrous. Or as this Slate article puts it, "Old fear: designer babies. New fear: deformer babies." http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002016.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I recently received the following e-mail. I don't have time to answer it in any kind of detail. However, I thought some NoodleFoodleDoodlers (i.e. commenters) might be interested in doing so. As for my sketchy reply, suffice it to say that I certainly don't reject Christianity on the basis of anything so specific as Calvinism. I find the ideas in the New Testament utterly repugnant all by themselves. More generally, the demand for faith in the supernatural found in all religions is not just unnecessary to understand the world, but outright antithetical to reason. Here's the letter. I've told its author to check the comments. Dear Diana, You have my apologies in advance if any part of this letter offends you in any way as such would never be my intention. You must forgive me if I have overstepped any boundaries in this, but I recently came across a web page about original sin, specifically referring to John Calvin, and it seemed that this particular doctrine solidified your resolve in that you do not think that Christianity is a religion that loves humanity. Strangely enough, I have been doing much research on the concept of election and this is the reason I came across that particular page. If you are not familiar with the doctrine of election, it is a doctrine referring to the manner by which one is saved, or chosen, and so forth, and this definition is by no means conclusively definitive. The first I feel it is imperative to alert you of is this. John Calvin's view of election does not represent Christianity as a whole. While it is true that there are some staunch reformed theologians that hold to this no matter what, not very many people take this view of election. I am one of them and I am particularly saddened to see that it seems to have to done to you what most of its opponents are afraid it would do. This concept of election, by which you have judged all of Christendom, I find to be biblically inaccurate, as do many theologians across the globe. I won't bore you with the details and alternative viewpoints on this, but I do have a request of you. This same page mentioned that you were raised an atheist. I wasn't raised much of anything and only became a Christian later in life, of my own accord, and always find it strange to see Christians that seem to forget who they are. My point is, if you were raised an atheist, I would like to know why you held to this belief, why you rejected any of the major religions, and so forth. In other words, why do you believe you are right? I should inform you that I would expect an answer far more elaborate that just John Calvin's veritable infanticide. I ask completely unbiased, so please, if you see fit to answer, please respond in like manner. The reason I ask is because I have never found an atheist that has been able to defend such a position logically, and I would venture to say that I have done a great deal of looking. Ninety percent of all of them eventually just storm off and get mad when philosophically cornered and eventually just fall back on an 'I just can't believe' attitude. The rest fail to understand the flaws in their own argument. If one can't believe, then it logically follows that there is a reason; a quantitative as well as qualitative reason. I am merely looking for these, what have been to me, very elusive antecedents. If you can, please heed my request or feel free to forward this request to a friend or colleague, or anyone at all, that wishes to voice their opinion on this matter and can defend this position logically. Furthermore, I did notice that this page was made quite a number of years ago. If such a late response proves inconvenient, you have my apologies for this as well. -Daniel Marcus Manifestation Comments? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002014.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The release party for the new CD on which Greg Perkins plays sax is tomorrow! Here's the relevant bits of the e-mail announcement he sent out a few days ago. Hey, guys -- Kevin Kirk & Onomatopoeia are delighted to finally announce that our new Some Assembly Required CD is available! You can listen to a CD "trailer" I put together (4M MP3), check out the full CD artwork, and order the CD online. To celebrate its arrival, we are throwing a free CD Release Party! September 24, Starting at 3:00pm at the Esther Simplot Performing Arts Academy, the band will be hosting a mixer for sponsors, supporters, and fans -- and we will be performing material from the CD there in a more intimate, acoustic setting. What: FREE "Some Assembly Required" CD Release Party When: September 24, 3:00-4:30pm Where: Esther Simplot Performing Arts Academy, 516 S. 9th, Boise Details: Drinks and appetizers available, more info at www.kevinkirk.netI'm hoping that I can buy a CD from Greg at the upcoming conference on the Middle East in Boston in October. That's a good bet, since Greg is an accomodating guy who will be attending the conference. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002009.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, sent out this announcement: The print version of the Fall issue of TOS has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. The contents are: From the Editor Letters and RepliesThe Decline and Fall of American Conservatism by C. Bradley Thompson 19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy by Dianne Durante The Jihad on America by Elan Journo For promotional purposes, the online version of "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism" is accessible to all. If you've not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the time to act. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the inaugural issue. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp'> and we'll mail the first three issues to you right away.Remembering rave reviews of C. Bradley Thompson's lecture at the last OCON, I was eager to see what he would say in his TOS article, "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism." I read it just now. Wow. Wait, let me try that again: freakin' wow! It is eye-opening and jaw-dropping, a stunning analysis that gathers up the oddities we have been seeing in the rise of the Republicans, explains them with some wonderful philosophical detective work, and frames it all in terms of fundamental principles having life and death importance to us all. C. Bradley Thompson brings the goods, and I now understand the cryptic, stammered, rave reviews of his lecture -- along the lines of, "It was amazing: I kept thinking it couldn't get any worse, and then he would reveal a whole new level of badness!" But don't take my word for it: go see for yourself. If this doesn't cement TOS's place on the map, I don't know what will. Thanks and kudos, guys! Update from Diana: Brad Thompson will be speaking in Boulder on October 5th and in Denver (Arvada) on October 7th. Both talks will be on education. For more information, see this page and/or e-mail Lin Zinser. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002010.html

Some thoughts from an Objectivist rider: Training horses is a perfectly respectable and legitimate profession by Objectivist stanards. A good horse trainer offers his clients a genuine and important value, namely that of being able to more fully (and more safely) enjoy their chosen hobby. Personally, my relationship with my mare was totally transformed by the natural horsemanship techniques I learned in a clinic a few years ago with Frank Bell. She went from being a good horse to one of the best horses I've owned. I only wish that I knew such techniques with the fabulous Paint I had in middle and high school, as I think some of his occasional behavior problems (mostly due to past abuse) could have been largely resolved with them. Those techniques make every ride I take with my mare far more enjoyable. That's huge! It makes me more productive in my work! So don't diminish the value of a good horse trainer. Objectivists need to create genuine value in their work, always strive to do it better, and enjoy it immensely -- nothing more. They don't need to do "socially important" work or whatnot. However, you might wonder whether 50 years of horse training would be engaging enough. Any work can be boring if you just do the same old, same old year after year. The enjoyment of any profession requires ambition: perfecting skills, expanding into new areas, working on long range plans, and so on. You'd need to think about how to do that in horse training in a way that interests you. (Personally, I think there's lots of interesting work to be done in the best methods of horse training.) You don't need to have your whole career mapped out, as your interests will surely develop and change over time. However, you do need to have some idea of long-range challenges that you'd like to tackle. Then you're not just riding around in cicles. :-)

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Well, I must admit that I didn't expect Leonard Peikoff to get onto the opinion pages of the New York Times via an "[al] Qaeda intellectual." The opinion essay in question mostly consists of excerpts from Muslim "jihadi" web sites about the anniversary of September 11th. Here's the one relevant to Dr. Peikoff, with the op-ed writers' introduction in italics, then the translated commentary in plain text. Hamid ibn Abdallah al-Ali is a Kuwaiti ideologue of jihadism -- the only Qaeda intellectual to have posted a text specifically for the Sept. 11 anniversary. The sheik cites an article by Leonard Peikoff, heir and executor to Ayn Rand, that appeared as an advertisement in The New York Times shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In his article "End States that Sponsor Terrorism," Leonard Peikoff, one of the leading ideologues of American extremism, concluded that America's policy of appeasement toward the Muslim world led to Sept. 11. For 50 years, he writes, American administrations have relinquished their true ownership rights over Muslim oil resources, which they discovered and developed the technology to extract. The solution, according to Mr. Peikoff, is for the United States to eliminate the states that sponsor terrorism with the most lethal weapons at its disposal. This is exactly the kind of rotten thinking that animates those living in the extreme west of the globe, from where they spread their rot to the rest of the world -- these politicians of underdevelopment, criminality and mass extermination of humanity. This is the arrogance of fascism, of which Bush has accused Muslims recently: in this case it is the fascism of the cross standing on the tribunes of oil. In short, it means that they own our oil that is in our land; they own our blood, which they can shed at will; they own our present and future, and they have the right to change our history and our education!... Hunger, disease, thirst and regional wars instigated by poverty all stem from the greed of the West, its thirst for plunder and desire to control the world's wealth. These in turn lead to a rate of destruction every year that equals the destruction World War II effected over six years. The mercenaries who dominate the World Trade Organization ... the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ...the bloodsuckers of the world's poor, the immiserators of nations and the thieves, murderers, shedders of blood: these are the ones who control the international political system. They are the ones who spread their armies throughout the world, terrorizing and stealing the wealth of nations while enslaving them. They are the ones who are exterminating the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and other places. They are the ones who ally themselves to the despotic rulers in order to suck the blood of the people, using companies that are owned by the leaders of their countries and headed by murderers and criminals. (Via Ray Niles.) Update #1: Dr. Peikoff's article was also discussed at some length in this op-ed in an Egyptian weekly newspaper. Here's the key section: When I was researching for this article, I looked for material that may help me identify any change that may have occurred in recent US foreign policy. I found an article written by Leonard Peikoff, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. What caught my eye was not just the title of his article, "End States Who Sponsor Terrorism", but that it was published first 2 October 2001, right after 9/11 and immediately before the war on Afghanistan. The article was republished 9 September 2005, on the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. This says volumes about the vision of the US rightwing, and its persistence. Peikoff believes that the appeasement policies pursued by successive US administrations towards the Islamic world are responsible for the latter's belligerence, which climaxed on 9/11. Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower's abandonment of oil rights tempted the Muslim world to take its first stabs at freedom. The second stab came from Khomeini's Iran, where US diplomats were held hostage. President Carter, Peikoff goes on, wavered in his response, which encouraged the Muslim world to shed American blood. The first killers were Palestinians who hijacked planes in the late-1960s, before being joined by others eager to get in on the game, Peikoff argues. Successive US administrations saw Muslim crimes as individual crimes that call for legal action against the perpetrators. But Peikoff proposes a more radical solution: the eradication of all countries that sponsor terror. The expression of "ending" countries that sponsor terror is not one that Peikoff invented. He borrowed it from Paul Wolfowitz, currently president of the World Bank. Only reluctantly does Peikoff agree with Donald Rumsfeld that nuclear bombs cannot be used. For Peikoff, Iran is the key source of terror. Not only does he call for the destruction of Iranian military power, but he also advises "the destruction of every branch in its government". It would be inaccurate to claim that Peikoff's article encapsulates the current US administration. I understand that President Bush, in comparison with Peikoff, may look like Mother Theresa. Furthermore, the failure of US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon has given rise to opposition within the ranks of the Republican Party. There is just a slim chance the US administration may learn from its mistakes, but I am not optimistic. This administration is so steeped in its own indoctrination, it is likely to remain as intransigent as ever. The comment that Dr. Peikoff makes President Bush look like Mother Theresa is more accurate than the author realizes, I'm sure. Update #2: Dr. Peikoff's article "End States that Sponsor Terrorism" can be found here. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001998.html