Jim Austin

My argument is that the willful suspension of consciousness is immoral. I personally choose not to drink because even a small quantity affects my perception and judgment. Others, of course, have higher thresholds and perhaps there is a human who can imbibe the strong stuff with his faculties completely unimpaired. However, I'd like to see a clinical trial before conceding his claim. He claimed that because I took Ayn Rand at her word regaring the immorality of suspending consciousness, my apporach was dogmatic. My response simply challenged him to show proof that Rand was not rigorously consistent on this point. If he can, then I would have to acknowledge that Rand was tolerant of those who willfully suspend their consciousness.

If you know of a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that is demoralizing to Muslims, then I would all in favor of placing it on the uniforms of our troops in Iraq. I also agree that no soldier should be forced to wear a uniform he didn't like -- just as no soldier should be forced to salute an officer, march in formation or make up his bunk in the morning. Those who don't like serving should be kicked out and shipped home pronto. If anybody is going to get upset over a silly little cartoon, then they are already extremist. As far as I'm concerned, any dope that prays to Allah is a nut job of the most extreme variety. But to start rioting over a few lines scribbed in a paper takes the cake. All those guys yelling their heads off in the streets -- that's your enemy right there, Jack. Lock and load.

Agreeing with Ayn Rand about smoking is no more dogmatic than sharing her opinion about modern architecture, Victor Hugo -- or tiddlywink music. Fine. The next time you get snake bit, you have my permission take a swig of Jim Beam. Let me know when you come across a work of Ayn Rand's that says it's okay to get carried away every now and then and have a few too many. Or when you find a passage in her writing that tolerates "the willful suspension of one's consciousness" on occasion. If I were trying to prove something about British intelligence, I wouldn't cite The Spy Who Loved Me as a source.

If that is the way you feel, then wouldn't it make sense for you to discourage all cartoons of the Prophet --including those promoted by the Italian minister? And if the Italian minister is helping "the terrorist cause and recruiting," maybe our Dept. of Defense should look into it. As for me, I agree with ARI's Alex Epstein who favors demoralizing our enemies. Currently our fiercest and most visible enemies are in Iraq. And the Americans who are closest to them are our soldiers. Showing Muhammad as a terrorist is not a joke. It is reality. And showing his true nature to our enemies and to the populations that support them is bound to have a demoralizing effect. And if a cartoon on a soldier's helmut makes someone angry enough to pick up a rifle or a bomb, I say bring 'em on. Those guys need to be exterminated anyway. Hooray for Italy!

Everything depends on context. If a man drives a prototype car on a raceway to determine the power of the motor or the efficiency of its steering, then he has a productive purpose and his happiness is deserved. But going fast just for the "kicks" is mindless thrill-seeking, no different than smoking pot or swilling gin.

Sure, if Ayn Rand were alive today, she might want to take back some of the things she said and wrote. But she's not. And so we will just have to rely on what she left behind. Now I know there are those who call themselves Objectivists and then proceed to pick and choose which parts of Ayn Rand's philosophy they wish to take to heart. (I've even encountered "anarcho-Objectivists" -- if you can imagine such a monstrosity.) However, I don't see how these second-handers can be comfortable with themselves. Objectivism is the Philosophy of Ayn Rand -- not Joe Six Pack. Or, as the Objectivism Wiki puts it, "Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter)." http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.ph..._is_Objectivism So when Ayn Rand condemns "the willful suspension of one's consciousness," she isn't just horsing around. As she says in the "About the Author" section of Atlas Shrugged, "And I mean it." If some clown thinks he can get stinking drunk and still be an Objectivist -- he's entitled to his self-delusion. That's doesn't mean that I have to be tolerant of his irrational behavior or contradictions. As for those daggers, if they were fictional, then it wouldn't matter what was rubbed on them to make them "poisonous." Heck, it could be fairy dust.

I don't see why recipes should be treated any differently than song lyrics. Both are products of man's mind, and the purpose of a civilized society is to protect such achievements from second-handers -- for a limited period of time, that is. What burns me up is seeing people go into a book store and reading stuff on the shelves for an hour or so -- and then walking out without paying a red cent. That's the same as shoplifting. I always pay for a book or magazine before I read it.

Alcohol, caffeine and nicotine are quite different. For instance, I don't know of anyone who has been arrested for driving under the influence of Marlboros. And I've never heard of a date rape occurring after a girl had one too many Starbucks. Unlike booze, which is an escape from reality, cigarettes help one focus and are a symbol of man's achievement. From Atlas Shrugged: "When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression." As for poisoned daggers, I think that retaliation is a matter best left to the police.

By that statement you have boldly declared yourself to be an adversary of Ayn Rand's stance against mind-altering substances. I shall report you to the moderators and have you removed from future posting.

http://www3.district125.k12.il.us/chemmatt...2_t/850208t.pdf That is what is known in the rigorous discipline of logic as a "red herring." Can you cite any credible anti-drinking advocate making such a claim? The fundamental evil of alcohol is what I've previously stated: Alcohol, like all other substances that impair our ability to grasp reality, is immoral. There are innumerable scientific studies that support my claim, which by the way, is implicitly endorsed by John Galt ("Man's basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness." Atlas Shrugged, p. 935) For the record: Alcohol depresses certain inhibitory centers in the cerebrum, leading the drinker to feel free of social constraints and self-restrictions. The drinker may feel more competent and skillful than usual when, in fact, he or she is less competent. The alcohol also depresses the ability to perform physical tasks, especially those that require conditioned reflexes. Tasks for which people have tested poorly under the influence of alcohol include target shooting, typing, mountain climbing, and driving. http://www3.district125.k12.il.us/chemmatt...2_t/850208t.pdf And should you choose to partake in the evil of consciousness suspension, please do not suppose that on this Ayn Rand forum it will not go unrebuked.

Agreed. Alcohol, like all other substances that impair our ability to grasp reality, is immoral. As Ayn Rand wrote, man's "basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 935) In the years since I first encountered Objectivism, not one ounce of alcohol has passed my lips.

According to Ayn Rand, happiness "is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist—or self-torture, like a masochist—or life beyond the grave, like a mystic—or mindless 'kicks,' like the driver of a hotrod car—his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction." ("The Objectivist Ethics") For the record, there can be no such thing as a "prudent predator." A predator is by definition destructive, and happiness qua happiness can only attained by productive work. The "prudence" of the predator is thus a stolen concept. Thieves and mystics and drivers of hotrods are only faking happiness. Ask them the source of their happiness. Blank out. By contrast, those who follow the Objectivist philosophy experience intensely gratifying happiness throughout their conscious hours on this earth. [The discussion on driving hotrods -- and whether this is a fake thrill or a legitimate pursuit -- has been split into a separate thread.]

Hooray! I wish we had political leaders like Calderoli in the United States. The proper response to the crazed Islamic mobs in the Middle East is to show our contempt for their silly religious notions. As a demonstration of their courage, patriotic Americans should start wearing T-shirts, hats and thongs with the Mohammad cartoon on them. Better yet, our troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. should have the Mohammad cartoon proudly displayed on their uniforms. The only way we're going to win the war against the Arabs is to show we don't give a damn about Islam or anything else they worship. As Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote, "The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies--and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them--especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1021 The more they see how much we dislike their ridiculous Prophet, the more demoralized they'll become, and the sooner they'll give up fighting us.