Unconquered

A much more radical and principled approach is to chuck out *all* of the stupid immigration restrictions. Every, single, solitary last one of them, with the exception of the very few that the U.S. government has any legitimate interest at all in: protecting the rights of Americans by excluding those with dangerous contagious diseases, and known criminals/terrorists. Making it retroactive, which is logical, would automatically "grant amnesty". I haven't run the numbers but Harry Binswanger indicated that he'd calculated that if the ENTIRE population of the earth were to immigrate to America, its population density would still be less than England. Anybody who has ever driven across the U.S.A. (I have many times) has no trouble understanding why. Leave out the major cities and this country is practically a vacuum compared to much of the rest of the world. Immigration restrictions are - to be charitable - utterly, absolutely, boneheaded, without a shred of rational justification or redeeming value. In the name of keeping out "undesirables", which is laughably impossible, it has kept out many of the best and brightest from the rest of the world, or made it impossible for them to stay.

I should emphasize that being a philosopher was not her primary goal, it arose out of her desire to better write her kind of fiction - the portrayal of heroes, the ideal man at his best. Thus her unique position of being not only a great philosopher but one of the greatest writers in history.

If you are really interested, I strongly suggest that you take the time to read Atlas Shrugged (or at least Galt's Speech but then you're shortchanging yourself of a great novel), and OPAR, and go from there. Ayn Rand's approach was not fundamentally deductive - it was inductive. She was a student of history before becoming a philosopher, and she carefully observed many instances of human action throughout history and in her lifetime, before arriving at the principles of her philosophy. Again, I can't repeat everything in the corpus of Objectivism (and if you want to have practically everything that she wrote, plus OPAR, I sell a CDROM of her works for about $60 at www.Objectivism.net - it has the virtue of having a search engine as well.) But to touch on the point of ethics: She saw that, to even *have* an ethics, somebody has to be alive. So life is a basic precondition of an ethics, and in her philosophy, it is the *goal* of a rational man, to pursue life and the best life possible to him.

As I recall, Leonard Peikoff likes some Beethoven and so stated to Ayn Rand. Liking or disliking a particular composer (assuming it's real music) is not exactly like disagreeing on a core philosophic principle. Personally there's a lot of Beethoven that I like as well.

It's crazy to live anywhere, if the conditions are such that you aren't prepared to rationally handle known, constant threats to the existence of your property and your life. That would classify New Orleans as plenty crazy.

It is philosophy itself that poses and answers the question: What is the good? In the philosophy of Objectivism, (from OPAR, p. 219): For *any* reasoning to be good, by the above-named standard (which is not just a floating assertion but integrated with the rest of Objectivism), it must be both valid and true. As you are no doubt aware, one can perform a "valid" deduction from false premises, and arrive at a valid but false conclusion. (e.g. a simple syllogism: "All moons are made of green cheese. Earth has a moon. Therefore earth's moon is made of green cheese." A valid deduction that is false because based on a false major premise.) So any philosophic system that is nothing more than "valid" deductions based on false premises, is not a good philosophy. Ayn Rand frequently said "Check your premises" - check them against reality and make sure they're true. So to answer your question: By the above standard (i.e. the standard of rational life, of Objectivism), a philosophy is good if it helps rational beings to live, and it is evil if it acts against their lives. Objectivism does recognize 3 basic axioms: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. From Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged: And for identity: This is covered in OPAR, 1. Reality.

There are several issues here. First, the actual productive years of an adult person are not all that long, particularly if you're talking about requiring an advanced degree to even start working on a serious scale. The disintegration prior to actually dying certainly detracts from quality of life, and with modern medicine, there can be years at the "back end" where somebody can't work as they used to, or at all, but still be alive. What anti-aging technology should be able to accomplish is *at least* to extend useful, happy adult lifespan to more than the mere 40 +/- average years that it is now. I have to respectfully disagree about the going crazy part. Assuming my brain could continue to function well, I would *love* to see what's going to happen over the next 500 years and to be a part of it. That proviso will be the hard part (brain functioning well). If the brain literally has the capacity, it would be possible again to be a true Renaissance man and to have time to actually do something with all of that knowledge, in a way that is now metaphysically impossible. I can easily imagine research projects, or developments (e.g. settling the solar system, experimenting with starship technology) that will, by the nature of them, require more than a current human lifetime or even several of them. One cannot expect that one's descendents will carry on such a project, but a man who lived 500 years and was smart enough to build a lasting, growing business, could embark on projects that would be impossible without such continuity. Such a man would also have the ability to personally accumulate working capital directly at his disposal on a scale that would be unprecedented, for such projects. I also think there would be great value in a culture to have people with a mature perspective of a life lived across centuries, who could directly attest to the successes (and problems/failures) across their own personal historical observations. It is precisely our conceptual nature and ability to continually expand our knowledge and minds that argues for greatly extending a lifespan. Centuries are *wasted* on the mindless tortoise (or, a mindless person), only a thinking human being could really make use of them. Another way to look at it is this: with biological immortality (should that happen), death (barring accidents or murder) would be optional and up to the choice of a person, not the inevitable endpoint of a failing body. I don't see any virtue to being at the mercy of evolutionary processes rather than my own desire to continue living or not.

You might be interested in one of Heinlein's novels, Time Enough for Love, which is about Lazarus Long, a biologically almost-immortal man and the oldest man in the galaxy. After thousands of years he's had it with life and even his body is wearing out, but he's unwittingly found by a group of people (some of his descendents, as are most in the galaxy at this point) and rejuvenated without his permission, leaving him with a fresh body but a stale perspective on life. How he gets interested again is one part of the book. Overall a very interesting story, though he does cover many aspects of sex, so this is not a "G rated" story. This is not strictly on your topic, but I've considered the example of Ayn Rand's immortal robot, and I'm not sure I agree with her conclusion, for reasons that would apply to a biologically immortal man who can still die if he isn't careful (which is exactly the case of Lazarus Long.) The real issue is quality of life. Some people are bored with all of their prematurely short lives. But there are people who are very intellectually active who - assuming that the brain can continue to acquire information and the body overall could be maintained at a youthful state indefinietly - could profitably and enjoyably live for many thousands of years. To take a man who is as mortal as the rest of us, Bill Gates - he has fantastic riches and could have retired many years ago, which is what many would have done with his wealth. But he goes to work every day - not because his physical survival depends on it, but because of his mental survival, the stimulus of dealing with difficult business and software issues (presumably - one can argue about Microsoft's quality lately but that's a side issue ...) In modern civilization it is very easy to attain the level of just physical survival. It is much harder to attain the level of ongoing intellectual interest, but I argue that that kind of interest could drive a person for an indefinite period of time, far longer than current human lifetimes, and that the motivation to live would not fundamentally be earning a living, but to keep on driving to improve one's knowledge and creativity. I think the contrast is not fundamentally between life and death in that case, but between: boring and exciting, and levels of excitement, in life. Note that all of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged are not motivated by their effects on the rest of the world - it's exactly their joy of working that the altruists have viciously harnessed in order to be parasites from the byproducts of their creativity.

I greatly preferred the original, myself, in practically every area. Gene Wilder's portrayal was witty, humorous, enigmatic, and intelligent overall. He was a likeable character. Depp's character was completely neurotic, disintegrated, and definitely modernized. There is no way I could look at that character and think that he was a brilliant businessman and inventor. As you note the original songs were far better as well. This was one re-make that shouldn't have happened.

This occured in 1st grade. Basically I attended an elementary school in southern Indiana, which is rife with religiosity. There was at least one kid that I couldn't stand who was constantly haranguing other kids about "God". I listened to some of his preaching (no doubt from his parents), which, at least as I recall, went like this: There's only one God. And, God is in the heart. God is in everyone. yada yada. What occured to me was one of the logical contradictions of these statements, taken together. e.g.: Premise 1: There's only one God. Premise 2: God is in the heart. And a further premise 3: There are many people, each with one heart. Conclusion: If so then there must be as many Gods as there are hearts, obviously many more than one - so, this is all a load of made-up hogwash. Not an advanced chain of reasoning, but not too bad for a 6 year old. On top of that I was really getting in to science, starting a lifelong love for it, and it was very clear to me early on that natural law is what explained the world.

I obviously don't know about your son in particular, but it's possible that you don't give him enough credit for reasoning (and that most parents don't, in general) - and therefore it might be worthwhile trying to upgrade the discussion rather than just saying "God doesn't exist" by trying to explain what's logically wrong with the whole idea, in different ways. I say this because I was consciously an atheist at around his age, from my own logical reasoning. I still remember the exact context if anybody is interested in hearing about it.

But your idea of "work" is advocating conventional QM, which is acausal and purports to link events "instantaneously" across, potentially, millions of light years via "quantum entanglement"?

If you're interested in quantum mechanics you would do well to read about Dr. Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves, here: http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/

Is this person of legal adult age? Children have a right to be taken care of by their parents. If an adult, then all they can do in a rational society is to either work for a living, or live off of their existing resources, or depend on *voluntary* charity. He would not have a right to stick a gun in somebody's face to get money or other valuables. You should take such examples with a boulder of salt. There are very few, relatively speaking, adults in today's world that cannot do anything to earn a living. I am disgusted by able bodied people who whine about not being able to find any job at all (this is distinct from finding a job you *want*) when there are genuinely crippled people who heroically acquire skills needed to partially or entirely sustain their lives. Ultimately, nobody has the right to force another to pay for their existence (unless they're a legal dependent, in which case they do have the right to demand at least basic food and shelter and safety.) The simple fact is that, in a rational society, an adult incapable (or unwilling) to pay for their own lives is at the mercy of charity. If they're so unappealing that nobody is willing to help them out, they die, without being given some supposed right to stick a gun in other peoples' faces for their wealth.

There you have *what*? You continue to quote from second hand, modern sources with their predigested conclusions and biases. A real authority on history, Objectivist history professor John Ridpath, took note of Ellis in an April 20, 2005 post on the HBL list. Dr. Ridpath references an article in the July 2002 issue of TIA, by Patrick Mullin, which evidently analyzes Ellis' smear campaign against the founding fathers - which includes George Washington, a purported biography titled "His Excellency" which attempts to show that Washington wanted to be regarded as something of a king. (I am paraphrasing because I don't want to verbatim copy material from HBL.)

I don't really want to be a big part of this thread but I will note a few things. 1) On his blog, Felipe indicates this: (Note: All quotes from the Pulitzer Prize winning Founding Brothers, Ellis, Joseph J., First Vintage Books Edition, February 2002.) And indeed there is extensive quoting from this book. Frankly, it is utterly ridiculous to base *any* assessment of any major historical figure from a single book written in 2002. The only fair approach is a firsthand analysis of primary source documents, i.e., documents written by Jefferson himself and his contemporaries, taken in context and integrated properly. There are many pre-digested conclusions from that single book that Felipe is offering as supposed facts. This is akin to reading something by the Brandens to determine something about Ayn Rand's character, without reference to her own writings and other views. 2) Felipe blows off the major contributions made by Jefferson in the founding of America - in Jefferson's own assessment, it would be as the author of the Declaration of Independence; the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which established the first wall between Church and State; and founder of the University of Virginia. This is not exhaustive by any means. As an indication of the scope of Jefferson's intellectual interests, note that after the British burned down Washington, including the then-3,000 volumes of the Library of Congress, Jefferson sold his own library to replace the volumes - a total of 6,487 books, considered to be the best library in existence in America, and an astonishing number even for today for a private library. Jefferson was behind the greatest expansion of American territory, with the Lousiana purchase resulting from his diplomatic and political efforts. After the purchase he sent Lewis and Clarke to explore the western territories, a journey of extreme historical importance to the future of the country by helping Americans to gauge the real extent of the new country. etc. For actual primary source documents, and much else related to Jefferson, see here: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/

I'm not entirely sure why, in conceptual terms, but I think (as do many other men apparently, I've noticed over the years) that Audrey Hepburn was perhaps the ultimate in female beauty.

This isn't entirely relevant but your post reminded me of an interesting movie with Robin Williams, The Final Cut. ** Spoilers Follow ** The essence of the movie is the idea of parents having a special high density digital chip implanted in their children's heads shortly after birth that records *every* perception that they have, which can be used after their deaths for a "this is your life" kind of video. Because of the obviously sensitive nature of the data, only specially trained individuals are permitted to see and edit this information. A scary idea and not one I'd endorse, but I figured that other science fiction fans could appreciate the irony of it - recording a life pushed to the extreme.

Generally (i.e. for any gift), one principle I've heard that has merit, and which I've used, is: buy something for somebody that they'd really enjoy but would, for whatever reason, be unlikely (or unable) to acquire for themselves. Additionally, for a romantic present, I think the best is something that shows that the giver went to some special effort on the gift - that it was not a one second shopping expedition to Wal-Mart but has, e.g., the receiver's name inscribed. Also, something that is uniquely the product of the giver, unique created for the receiver - that's "special effort" gone one step further. The present does not necessarily have to be expensive. One could easily spend much more on a less satisfying present than one that fits the above criteria. Some thoughts. Phil

It is one thing to not be able to test for a certain genetic problem, and to be unpleasantly surprised at birth (or later, as the child matures and a problem surfaces.) It is quite another to evade the results of a genetic test or to deliberately not test because of a fear of the results. Religious people are chock full of rationalizations about mentally/physically handicapped kids for at least two reasons. First, they are typically anti-abortion and thus consider aborting a fetus with a known major genetic problem to be immoral. Secondly, it's part of their philosophy to *want* the deformed, the crippled, the *needy* (at least in Christianity.) In a rational philosophy however, it would be insane to knowingly have a child with a major genetic problem, especially one affecting the brain. It is hard enough to properly raise a normal child, particularly in today's world. The stress and burden of one with "special needs" is just self-sacrificial. For Objectivists particularly, who are typically above average intelligence (primarily, I think, because it takes above average intelligence to be able to stand back from the cultural crowd and see a different, better philosophy), it would be especially stressful to have a mentally crippled child. Also, note how rationalizations about "it's ok to have a Down's syndrome child knowingly because they *might* achieve an IQ of 90" are contradictory to future technological advances that will be able to actively select for the best genetic combination from both parents. Gattaca aside (a flawed but interesting movie), it would be irrational to *not* want a child that deliberately has no major genetic problems and the best body (including brain) possible. Currently the best that can be done, which is still a huge improvement over the ignorance of the past, is in-utero genetic testing of the fetus. But if you have a rational idea of the status of the fetus, aborting one with a known major problem, is the only rational course. Note as well the painful effects on the child. To want to deliberately create a mentally or physically handicapped baby that will experience a great deal more suffering than a normal child, and a normal adult if they live so long, is just plain malevolent in my view.

What concerns me about China is that they clearly now possess some significant fraction of the world's productive capability. Either that or the massive number of tools, furniture, electronic devices, etc., stamped "Made in China" are lying. It is certainly logical to think that the money and technology behind that productiveness are going to radically scale up and improve the quality of their weaponry, given the nature of the Chinese government. It is also true that the engineering and scientific talent in China is growing at a rapid clip. Intel just funded a major new site in China, with 600 people as I recall, for doing advanced semiconductor work. Just one example of many. I would much rather that Taiwan were getting such resources and attention, but I certainly don't see it in the products I buy or in most of the references I read about new investment and development.

I think it's twofold. First, I think the Israeli government *does* consider it to be their responsibility to defend the settlers, even if the settlers wish to stay. Once the Israeli government has pulled out, the settlers are sitting ducks for the "Palistineans" - I doubt they would live long. Secondly, such a bloodbath would no doubt result as well in "Palistinean" casualties, and that would be seen as more negative PR for Israel. The more primary issue is whether Israel should keep pulling back, inch by inch, until there's no country left. Personally I doubt the viability of the country.