Daedalus

If there is a Hard Line Objectivist Club, put me down as a member.

The great 19th century capitalist William Vanderbilt (who might be the inspiration for Nathaniel Taggart) said, "The public be damned!" I say, "World opinion be damned!"

It is not a matter of necessity but of essence. The issue is what makes a woman distinctively feminine. Experience is the best teacher. This is not a question of ethics. No one has made the claim that it is immoral for a woman to occupy the White House. Understood. Nevertheless, the presidemt is the most powerful man in the country. "Must" implies duty, a concept that is foreign to the Objectivist ethics. Acting in a way that contradicts one's own nature would lead to dire psychological consequences. No rational woman would want to endure that.

As Dr. Leonard Peikoff wrote, "A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess (a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons)." http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635 If Abdul Rahman is executed, what is the case for NOT using nukes against the Muslim fundamentalists?

And the problem with that is . . . ? Are you not aware we all draw life-sustaining values from those who have gone before us, such as Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand? How is offering value-for-value an act of "living off" someone? Your response makes me wonder if you have read or understood Ayn Rand's essay. Sigh. Admiration does not equal hero-worship. Ayn Rand (and I) have made it clear that her comments regarding a woman president do not apply to the non-political realm. They are under his authority as Commander-in-Chief. Read her essay.

This is not the proper forum for an explicit discussion of human sexuality. Ayn Rand addresses it in non-explicit terms in Atlas Shrugged: A man "will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem." (p. 455) Sex is a process of sexual surrender and conquest -- in the very best sense of those words. To say that it is the man whose sex organ penetrates the woman's is simply a matter of recognizing the nature of reality. There, sir, is your "causal connection between the biology and the behavior." If you want to see the direct relationship between femininity and hero-worship, look no further than the novels of Ayn Rand.

Men and women simply do not possess the same equipment. This inevitably shapes how they view one another and how they approach sexual arousal and fulfillment.

The way a woman relates to a man sexually and emotionally constitutes a key and universal difference between the sexes. A second-hander lives off the productive work of other. A hero-worshipper is no more a second-hander, than an advocate of capitalism is a welfare queen. Romantic love and hero-worship are essential components of a rational woman's life.

No single person in U.S. government has the power to impeach a president, just as no single voter has the power to turn him out of office. Furthermore, in contrast to the Judicial and Legislative branches, the authority of the Executive is concentrated in the office of a single man. In this sense, the president is the most powerful man in the country. As Ayn Rand wrote, " Even in a fully free country, with an unbreached constitutional division of powers, a President is the final authority who sets the terms, the goals, the policies of every job in the executive branch of the government."

When one claims a court-awarded benefit, it costs the defendant (Microsoft) more than just the face value of the voucher. They are a number of transaction costs (printing, postage, accounting and other office labor) that add to Microsoft's total financial burden. These transaction costs cannot be recovered even if the voucher is returned to the payer. Wouldn't Microsoft be better off it none of its sympathizers filed a claim?

As Ayn Rand makes clear, the case for a woman not serving as president does not extend to non-political careers. Thus Galt could work for Dagny. Ayn Rand did emphasize the tragedy of Joan of Arc, but perhaps she would not have ruled out all military leadership roles for women. I am certain that when Ayn Rand wrote that a woman president would have "to act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with," she was referring to an acting president, not an impeached and removed president.

Let's have less nation-building and more red-misting.

That is precisely what President Eisenhower did in September, 1957 when he ordered the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce a federal court ruling. See http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/dl/Litt...Sept2357pg1.pdf

I did not claim that something was true because Ayn Rand said it was. I merely cited the essay in The Objectivist so that the reader could consult it and benefit from Ayn Rand's discussion in full. And, perhaps, for the same reasons Ayn Rand provided, women should not serve in the leadership positions of those departments. A brain surgeon cannot order a nurse on a mission that would lead to almost certain death. And who commands the army that enforces the Court's decisions? Not relevant to a rational woman serving as president. Answered above. Admiration and hero-worship are not quite the same thing. The differences you cited were irrelevant to hero-worship as a component of femininity. You missed the point. Hero-worship is no more second-handed than deriving sexual pleasure from another human being.

In that post you asked those defending Ayn Rand's position to "establish a concrete, universal difference between men and women, and then explain why that difference is relevant in terms of the duties facing a president." If you had read Ayn Rand's essay and had been paying attention to this thread, you would see that requirement has been satisfied. It is no more second-handed than coitus.

In her discussion of Joan of Arc, Ayn Rand makes it clear that military leadership is not a role any rational woman would seek. She would not be dealing with her speechwriters or diplomats as equals. She would be their absolute superior. The President of the United States does not worship a judo instructor. Yes they are. It is objective. You might as well ask, where is the evidence that a creature's life is its standard of value? The fact that some animals and humans sacrifice themselves to others does not undermine the universality of value being based on one's own life.

The so-called anarcho-"capitalists" claim to be individualist too. "Philosophically, however, anarchism is the opposite of individualism; as its main modern popularizer, Karl Marx, makes clear, anarchism is an expression of Utopian collectivism." (Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 372) My spare time is limited and I guard it jealously. If it is an act of psychological dependence to rely on a review by a trustworthy author, then all my evenings would be spent viewing every single movie in release.

After reading Nicholas Provenzo's review at http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/archives/...286989739726798 I've decided not to see this film on screen or in any other format. I have no desire to have my entertainment dollar end up in the pockets of those who promote anarchism.

I'm here to defend Ayn Rand and her views from those who choose to attack her. I've done this elsewhere in the web; there is no reason not to do it on a site dedicated to Objectivism. I don't in every instance succeed in swaying my adversary away from error. But I win often enough to make it worthwhile. You may now disagree with Ayn Rand's position on the essense of womanhood. Perhaps experience will alter your opinion. Good luck.

As I explained previously, the president as Commander-in-Chief has powers possessed by no other citizen. In his role as supreme military leader he must expect unshakable loyalty from his subordinates and must expect at one point or another to send soldiers to almost certain death. This position would be unbearable for a rational woman.

On this we agree. Done so. Review thread. Ayn Rand submitted her judgment. I find it completely convincing. If you disagree, then you are free to pursue an alternate opinion. As far as I can tell, opinions in disagreement with Ayn Rand's are permitted on this board. Actually, my acceptance of an idea does not depend upon my presentation of the idea to you. Sure. Women qua women would not accept abusive treatment or a reversal of their status as women. You are free to call yourself an admirer of Ayn Rand, but it is obvious that you reject certain parts of her philosophy: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship -- the desire to look up to man." "To look up to" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and "admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments." Yes. Some people in Cuba benefit personally by violating the individual rights of others. By comparison, some people in the United States benefit personally by violating the individual rights of other U.S. citizens. Obviously, in the country that has fewer rights violations there is a) more individual freedom, and more economic prosperity for the whole of the population. Now what conclusion do you wish to draw?

I do not understand why the United States, which supposedly supports individual rights, does not take action against this repressive regime.

This notion reeks of the Maxist insistence that everyone is a product of his class and position in the Great Unfolding of History. To her credit, Ayn Rand, building on the prior work of Jefferson, Locke, and Aristotle, identified certain universal characteristics of homo sapiens and, tangentially, femina sapiens. Her insights are not diminished by her particular position on mankind's timeline.

But why should I or Ayn Rand or anyone who agrees with Ayn Rand on this topic regard your observations and identifications as superior to own own? As John Galt said, "Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it -- that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life." Yes, you are missing the fact that a lifetime of experiences with women cannot be itemized on an internet message board. Why not demand that Ayn Rand or another Objectivist submit "consistent data" that proves that man's nature for his proper survival qua man is observing the individual rights of others? I don't know of any statistics available to suppot "The Objectivist Ethics," but I do not see that as a reason not to embrace the truth of Ayn Rand's ethical system.

Acquaintances and relationships with the opposite sex confirm Ayn Rand's insight that woman qua woman is a hero-worshipper and that the object of her worship is masculinity. I will spare the reader any further detail.