Evangelical Capitalist

While she despised Nietzsche as a philosopher, Rand did admire him, occasionally, as a poet. I'd have to go back and read the introduction to the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead, but I believe she admired his sense-of-life. That he may have written things which seem to be in line with Objectivism is not surprising.

What it would result in are reasonable, objective standards that don't totally disregard the costs involved in meeting them, which is generally the case when those standards are set by government. (Just try to build something, anything, in California. See this article for an example.) The inspector has to consider the value of his certification to the end consumer, governments don't. When the standard is set unreasonably high, whether by government or a private inspector, the cost of meeting it exceeds the value added. The difference is that the private inspector can't force everyone to abide by his standards. It's a good thing that an inspector will relax his standards, or perhaps create varying grades of standards, to meet the needs of his clients.

I can't disagree with what you say, but it's clearly not interpreted to mean that. How many times have we had a draft since that was ratified? And "compulsory volunteerism" is already a part of the curriculum in many high schools, and we have a presidential candidate who wants to make it national. I don't think the need for a more direct statement can be denied. One problem pointed out by this is the fact that nobody views the constitution as a limitation on government. Properly applied to government as well as private individuals, as it certainly should be, the thriteenth amendment does cover such instances.

The thread on what changes we all might want to make to the U.S. Constitution got me thinking. Instead of sitting around blowing smoke where the sun don't shine, so to speak, I'd like to start a petition for the addition of a "non-conscription" amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The following is my current draft of such a petition. (Think of it as a very early, and very rough draft.) (The section numbers are included for reference only, and will not be in the final petition.) So, why this particular type of amendment? First, let's answer the question: Why a petition campaign at all? Most people don't deal well with abstractions. They are reluctant to listen to an abstract discussion about politics or about philosophy. If it's not something they hear about, they don't want to think about it and won't think about it. It's much easier to discuss such things with them when there is a popular issue at stake. (By popular, I mean one in common discussion, such as gay marriage is currently. I don't mean to imply general approval.) Thus, we need an issue out there that is in our favor to make our arguments. So, with the necessity of an issue established, why this one? There are hundreds of issues out there every day that we could discuss, but no one listens anyway. One reason is that such an attitude entails always reacting to what is already being discussed. Such issues are rarely suited to making arguments whose bases differ so radically from common thinking. What we need is an issue tailored to the arguments we need to make, and that means one tailored to the foundations of our convictions. Politically, the right of each individual to his own life is that foundation. The above amendment rests directly and explicitly on that right. It can be explained and understood without the need to delve deeply into all the corollary rights of property and so forth. Also, it makes explicit the exact meaning of that right: namely, that an individual's life is not at anyone else's disposal. No more, no less. Also, it does pertain to issues already under discussion, namely the reinstatement of a military draft and the initiation of some kind of compulsory national service program (which this amendment would be correctly interpreted as prohibiting.) Both of these are actions which objectivists oppose, and this deals with both in a principled manner. From an activism standpoint, I would consider this effort a complete success if it got any kind of widespread discussion at all. (Actual passage and ratification of such an amendment is almost beyond my wildest dreams at the moment.) A popular discussion would be interesting to see who opposed this, in part or in whole, and for what reasons. It would be very revealing. For instance, I fully expect that a liberal would support the permanent elimination of a military draft, but might balk at the notion of prohibiting some sort of compulsory civil service. A conservative might have precisely the opposite reaction. Some might object to the "sovereignty" issue, claiming that only God is sovereign, or some such thing. (How they would go about making the leap from that to "The government is the agent of God," would even more entertaining.) This action has one goal: making the right to life, as we understand it, the center of political debate in this country. With that established, we could move on to other issues. If this effort is at all successful, I'd like to see it followed up, perhaps with a "Freedom of Contract" petition. Now to my purpose: (took me long enough, huh?) I'd like comments from the members of this board on how to proceed with this. First, comments, suggestions or revisions to the petition or to the actual amendment text as I have posted it. (I've never tried to write anything like this before.) Second, any suggestions/recommendations/experience concerning where to post this for collecting signatures and how to promote it once it's posted. Third, those of you involved with campus organizations, whether objectivist in nature or some other group that might be interested in supporting such a campaign, can I count on your assistance in promoting this when it's posted, not just to members of your organization, but to the campus community at large? Lastly, any ideas on who to send this to when the signatures have been collected. Obviously members of congress would be the primary target, but I was thinking in terms of also sending it to some of the major news organizations, preferably to individuals within those organizations who might be sympathetic to this cause. Thank you in advance for your comments. P.S. Any suggestions on a name for this thing aside from "non-conscription"? I'm not too crazy about it, but it's the best I can do for now.

I've been skimming this topic, so I may have missed something, but I'll try to add my own thoughts. Knowledge is hierarchically dependent on consciousness. Consciousness, in all cases and for humans in particular, is of a certain nature. The consciousness of a bat is of a different nature than that of humans. By asking "What is it like to be a bat?" you're asking a human consciousness to pretend that it's a bat consciousness. It cannot do so. A is A. The question is detatched from the possibility of thought, detached from reason, detached from consciousness. It doesn't fall into the realm of knowledge. In short, it is arbitrary.

RadCap is right on the money: Liberty is not an imposition.

I'm amazed you could even get through the quiz. I'm working on it now, and some of these questions are so stupid, I just want to throw up. EDIT: Here's my result: MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 02 (0-4): above-average. A mixed bag of genuine wisdom and deeply ingrained taboos & irrational hangups. The domain of either conservative or politically correct (armchair) philosophers and people who can't make up their frickin' minds (oh, and let's not forget the puerile LAMERS who hit 'score it' without changing/reading anything; you know who you are...). Limbo. Assuming a perfect score would be to choose 'Yes' on all 35 statements, THAT would be the true "mixed-bag". Some of those statements were self-contradictory, contradicted other statements, or were simply unanswerable as arbitrary. I think my favorite was "The statements 'Knowledge is power' and 'Power comes from the barrel of a gun' are both correct." Yes, they're both correct, but they're also talking about two different senses of the term Power.

How about these: (please excuse the plagarism) "Reason: It Does a Body Good" "Got Reason?" "This is your brain on Reason; this is your brain on Faith; Any questions?" As far as the "pie" slogan for capitalism, I think RH's point is that it represents a utilitarian viewpoint: the greatest good for the greatest number. This justification hasn't been able to stop the encroachment of the government on the free market. Sure, capitalism's good, they say, but couldn't it be just a little better if we: a) helped these people, regulated this activity just a little bit, or c) gave tax breaks for that sort of activity. The untilitarian viewpoint can't refute these encroachments, only a moral justification for capitalism can. The fact that there's never been mainstream support for capitalism on anything more than a utilitarian basis is why we have a mixed economy. Perpetuating it doesn't help.

I happened to see "Citizen Kane", which is literally based on Hearst's life, for the first time about the same time I read "The Fountainhead". After that, there was no doubt in my mind that Wynand was based, at least in his professional life, on Hearst.

I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I was confusing a concept's definition with the concept itself. The fundamental issue I was addressing was whether the essential characteristic(s) of a concept are dependent upon the context in which it is used. After further consideration, I'm inclined to say no. If they were dependent upon context, they wouldn't be essential. Therefore, you're correct: "the body of philosophical thought espoused by Ayn Rand" and "the body of philosophical thought based on reality and reason" do not define the same concept. (I'm aware that a concept refers to all its properties essential and non-essential, known and unknown. I haven't read IOE, but I have read OPAR.) If I were to define a concept denoting my system of values and ethics, I could not call it "Objectivism" using the generally accepted definition of that term. My system of values would be more accurately, more essentially, described by the latter of teh above definitions. As GC pointed out, I cannot then apply the term Objectivism to it. The same would seem to apply to any application of Objectivist principles. Ironically, it would seem that Objectivism cannot be applied as such. Once its principles are taken out of the academic realm and into that of the practical world, they must become something else. (I'm treading dangerously close to making A into non-A here. Since it's in different respects however, I'll assume for the moment that I'm not yet on thin ice.) If, as it would seem, Objectivism is a concept limited to the academic realm, what concepts denote its applications? Rand herself called the application of her principles to literature romantic realism. In ethics we would call it rational or enlightened self-interest, to borrow an older term. In politics the best description, even though it bristles many of those on this board, is libertarianism or classical liberalism. I'm not sure there's a term for the application of Objectivism's epistemological principles to, for instance, science, but surely that too is deserving of a designation.

I have often read on this board, someone proclaiming "Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said, no more and no less," or something to that same effect. Dr. Peikoff has used this definition of Objectivism to suuport his "closed-system" position, at least insofar as I understand his position. (Disclaimer: It is not my intention to discuss the "open-ness" or "closed-ness" of Objectivism, nor to create a microcosm of the ARI/TOC battle.) My question here is in regard to whether such a definition conforms to the Objectivist principle of defining concepts by their essentials. How does one define an entire body of thought? Certainly, it is a difficult proposition. How does one form a useful concept that subsumes an entire range of axioms, principles and concepts? One method would be to define it by its source: The body of philosophical thought espoused by x. This is a perfectly valid concept definition in certain contexts. In academia, for instance, to say, "I'm studying x-ism," is to mean, "I'm studying the body of philosophical thought espoused by x." No problem there. When one moves into the realm of application, however, the problem becomes slightly different. If we maintain the type of definition described above then the statement, "I conduct myself according to x-ism," means, "I conduct myself according to the body of philosophical thought espoused by x." The source remains the essential charateristic. For some systems, this does not pose a problem. A Christian, for instance, conducts himself according to the teachings of Jesus Christ because they are the teachings of Jesus Christ. As Christ himself said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. None shall come to the Father but through me." For those who adopt a philosphy which espouses, among its major virtues, independence, as Objectivism does, this method of definition breaks down. If one says, "I conduct myself accoring to Objectivism," and by that means, "I conduct myself according to the body of philosophical thought espoused by Ayn Rand," one has apparently created a contradiction. One cannot practice an ethical system involving independence while defining that system on the basis of who espoused it, not if one is defining by essentials. Doing so would be the essence of "second-handedness" or "other-directedness," not independence. The essential characteristic of Objectivism, in regard to its application, is that it is grounded in reality and in reason, and its definition, in the context of application, must reflect that essence. I doubt whether "the body of philosphical thought espoused by Ayn Rand" and "the body of philosphical thought based on reality and reason" are sufficiently distinct to merit different terms to describe them. Each refers to the same thing, but which is essential? That question clearly relies on the context in which one is speaking. In certain contexts, the former seems to violate the principle of definition by essentials. Thoughts, anyone?

They were right the first time; couldn't be more wrong in the second statement. It is, in fact, under a socialized system, where everything is owned by everyone and by no one, where every ounce of food one eats or clothing one wears is necessarily at the expense of someone else, that the "dog eat dog" principle applies. A capitalist system, under which everyone must produce the material values required for his survival or trade for them with others, encourages the kind of social existence conducive to human life. It is socialism, where everyone draws his material survival and creature comforts from a common pot, which encourages neighbors to regard each other as threats to be overcome, rather than partners in trade whose superior skills can benefit all.

My favorite would have to be Hank Rearden. We get to see more of his "intellectual journey" than that of any other character, as he discovers the premises on which he has lived his life versus the premises which direct others. Mostly, though, I think it's the speech at his trial: "the public good be damned." Roark is a very close second.

I heard a quote somewhere that I believe was attributed to Jefferson. Maintaining the institution of slavery, he said, was "like holding a wolf by the ears: you don't like it, but you don't dare let go."

There is an accounting principle concerning the reporting of the financial activities and standing of a company called full-disclosure. (I realize this is'nt strictly an accounting issue, but bear with me.) The principle requires that any non-financial information significantly impacting the interpretation of the company's financial statements must be disclosed. An example might be litigation pending against the company. (I'm not talking specifically about SEC rules here, though they do enforce this principle. The principle itself is part of the standards set down by the FASB.) The ethical principle underlying this is that a half-truth is not the truth. A financial statement lacking such information would constitute a deliberate misrepresentation of the state of the company. How does this apply to the situation of insider trading? The important point to make, and where I think I may be misunderstood, is that the issue is not simply a difference of knowledge, but that one party has control of relevant information. They know that the other party's assessment of the situation cannot be accurate, beacuse relevant information was not available by any legitimate means. They are relying on the ignorance of the other party, which they made inevitable by the lack of disclosure. They are responsible for nullifying the other party's reasoning ability by separating their consciousness from reality. That's fraud. The extent to which the other party may have attempted to engage their rational capacity is irrelevant because of that disconnect. This doesn't mean that I support insider trading laws as they currently exist and are applied. They are not based on the ethical principles described above, which constitute a very narrow definition of insider trading, and they are arbitrarily applied. There is no way that a proper law could apply to Martha Stewart, since she had no control over the information in question. feldblum: You're right: your example is arbitrary. Therefore, it illustrates nothing. Joerj: The tendancies of arbitrary power (e.g. the FDA) are available for anyone to observe. You are correct in that the company's future, insofar as it is in the hands of the FDA, may be interpreted by anyone. It amounts to an educated guess, a calculated risk. If there was specific information about a definite FDA decision which had yet to be announced, then the issue is different. I'm not familiar enough with the entriety of the ImClone case to discuss it any further.

But what if you posess that information or knowledge by virtue of a priviledged position, i.e. as an executive within the company? Furthermore, what if that information is unavailable to the public because the company has not released it? Acting on that knowledge by selling off stock may well be considered fraud against the buyer(s).

The "impartial observer" and the "objective perspective" are most definitely not the same thing. The impartial observer values nothing. That's what the definition, in this case, means. If the impartial observer valued anything, they wouldn't be impartial. Their argument then becomes, "An observer who values nothing would value all x equally." The "impartial observer" is a floating abstraction; the concept doesn't refer to anything in reality. So any argument which relies on it to prove its case is invalid. This argument divorces the concept of "value" from that which makes it possible: a valuer and a purpose.

I've got an office-mate who thinks the same way. We've had several discussions on such topics, and I've basically given up trying to argue with him. One thing I haven't tried, that might work for you: since objective morality depends on an objective view of value and value judgements, you might pursue a line of argument in that vein. Ask the person in question why he prefers honesty to theft. Chances are that he doesn't "just prefer" it. He probably has reasons for preferring it, such as the fear of legal repercussions if he's caught. This means what? That he disvalues the deprivation of his liberty and/or property. Why? Are these things ends in themselves? He might claim that he "just prefers" them, but in fact, they serve a purpose: they enable him to live in a manner that he chooses. Demonstrate to him that he does, in fact, hold his own life as his standard of value, and in combination with the objective theory of value (i.e. value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep; virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it.) eveything else will flow from there. For a more detailed explanation of how everything else follows from those, I'd recommend reading Dr. Peikoff's Objbectivism: The Philosophy fo Ayn Rand.

Goodness gracious me... that's a lot to cover. First, you are correct: there's no point in trying to argue rationally with people who are disposed to irrationality, or rather, not particularly disposed to reason. Their notions are generally a jumble of stolen concepts and floating abstractions, utterly disconnected from any context or any reality. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by being "rationally rational" or "rational rationality." My best guess is that you mean deliberately rational, which is redundant, since reason is a volitional faculty and must be exercised deliberately. Even valid concepts and true propositions, if arrived at by chance, cannot be said to be rational in the proper sense of the term. As far as rationality needing to be lived in order to be valid, the following is from Galt's Speech:

Actually, space and time are quantized values too. Planck Length and Planck Time

Nothing but rank intrincicism. (And I mean rank in every possible meaning of the term.)

I can think of several reasons that a person or corporate entity might not pay the fee to have their contract legally protected. In the case of credit contracts, which constitute the vast majority of business transactions, it would depend on the amount of the fee versus the amount at stake and the risk involved. A credit card company, for instance, might choose not to pay the fee on accounts held by individuals who have good credit ratings, make regular payments and keep low balances. On the other hand, the company would be foolish not to pay the fee on higher-risk customers. In the case of the customers with good credit, the company is betting that the maintenance of their credit rating will be their "insurance" against default. (This is equivalent to point © in OG's post above.)

Read "The Objectivist Ethics," the opening essay in The Virtue of Selfishness. It should answer your questions, which stem from a lack of understanding of what a system of ethics is and why it is necessary. Reason and logic are capable of dealing with people and with emotions. The idea that they're not stems from the epistemological notion that emotions are a primary source of knowledge, unconcerned with and entirely independent of the observable facts of reality. Reason and logic are also more than capable of dealing with values, which are of primary concern in the field of ethics, ethics being a system of values. Objectivism holds that value "presupposes an answer to the questions: of value to whom and for what." Value, therefore, is neither intrinsic (an inherent property of the object itself) nor is it subjective (i.e. one individual's assessment of value is not necessarily equally valid with that of another.) It is objective. The choice of holding one's own life as a standard of value, and thus as an objective standard of ethics, is recognized as a "pre-moral" choice. Since life is "a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action," it is, however, a necessary one. It must also be pointed out that choosing one's own life as the highest standard of value, the only value that is an end in itself, is not "to the exclusion of other people's well-being." You've accepted, in that statement, the false dichotomy that everyone is either a self-sacrificing masochist, or a sadist, living off the sacrifices of others. The rationally self-interested person requires others to do the same, both from a practical standpoint, as traders of value for value, and from a moral standpoint, since he or she does not desire to benefit from the sacrifices of others.

Open letter from SCO So, anyway, I was reading the above letters, and they got me to thinking... First of all, they constitute a ridiculous example of what happens when you start from unclear or contradictory premises. In the first half, SCO seems to be advocating that Congress should, for reasons of "the common good," unilaterally invalidate the GPL (Gnu Public License.) When in fact, the same property rights that copyright laws protect give creators the ability to give away their product, if they so please. SCO's current litigation contends that IBM inserted proprietary code, licensed from SCO, into Linux, thus placing it under the GPL. If this is the case, which has been, is and will continue to be the subject of a rather protracted legal battle, then SCO's property rights were violated and they are entitled to damages. But it's not the GPL that's at fault, as they seem to contend. The second half contains a slightly more cogent argument in favor of property rights, but maintains the fallacious conclusion that the GPL somehow violates these rights. It even defends the profit motive, albeit only as a means to "the public good." What I found particularly striking was Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft that the clause empowering congress to enact intellectual property protections "does not exist to provide spcial private benefit, ...but to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. The 'reward' as a means, not an end." The intellectual mess of the altruist ethic. The majority opinion was little better, justifying the "reward" merely as a necessary prerequisite to "artistic creativity for the general public good." If, in fact, FSF and RedHat are lobbying for the abolition of all IP rights in the form of software, then I couldn't disagree more strongly with their position. That doesn't make SCO's opposition to GPL any more valid, for precisely the same reasons. Lost in all of this is the only moral basis on which the discussion must proceed: the protection of private property rights, not for the altruists' standard of "the general public good," but in recognition of the fact that they are a necessary feature of life qua man, that each man must be free to keep or to dispose of (including to trade value-for-value) what he creates as he sees fit. Once that is accepted, the proper course, the right and the wrong, in all of the above arguments becomes clear. Certainly moreso than the current confusion brought on by a lack of any principled basis for argument. Just had to rant.

This is all I have to read. For all the talk about "self-esteem," I am utterly convinced that few people even understand what self-esteem is. The remainder of this article is clearly going to proceed on the premise that popularity and self-esteem are the same thing. Once these are understood to be separate, often unrelated concepts, this sentence becomes a rather ridiculous non-sequitur. You're absolutely right about popularity being a second-hand form of self-esteem. Generally, people have forgotten that self-esteem must necessarily proceed from the self. This is one of the most destructive misconceptions in our culture. We're taught that self-esteem is not something that must be earned from one's self, but that it is a causeless gift from others. Thus, we must return that with indisriminate "brother-love," which leads, in turn, to forced "volunteerism" and self-sacrifice. We're taught that self-esteem derives from an amalgam of the various groups that we belong to (race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc.) and thus any perceived attack on those groups is to be taken personally. This leads to censorship of anything that might be perceived as an attack on certain "disadvantaged" groups. An even more pathological situation is the derivation of "self-esteem" from celebrity, which is not necessarily the same thing as popularity. If you want a concrete example of the sort of destructive behavior this leads to, just watch reality TV for a while. The attitude that a person's worth is directly proportional to the number of people that know their name, regardless of whether that notoriety is for a positive reason or not, is what drives much of the insanity that goes on there. Those who achieve notoriety for negative reasons consider themselves "individualists" for flauting public opinion, despite the fact that what they seek is public recognition, if not public approval. This is precisely the motivation of the killers at Columbine High School, the quest for notoriety without approval. Bullying writ large.