Daedalus

My experiences among the opposite sex. Ayn Rand came to the same conclusion -- from a woman's point of view.

As Ayn Rand explains in her essay, the rationality of any woman who sought the presidency would be doubt.

The rationality of the president is of utmost importance. And it is this criterion that Ayn Rand discusses in her essay. Capitalism Forever goes to the crux of the matter: "The argument is not that a man shouldn't vote for a woman President; it is that a rational woman wouldn't want to be President."

Yes. This is a non-issue. When Ayn Rand wrote, "the essence of femininity is hero-worship," she did not rule out the possibility of hero-worship among men.

I disagree that point b. has been dispensed with. Point a. can be confirmed by logic and the evidence of our senses, just as every line of "The Objectivist Ethics" can be so confirmed. False dilemma. Ayn Rand's observation that "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship" does not beg the question any more than her statement that "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival qua man—i.e., qua rational being" does. Both statements express essential characteristics of the members of our species. These essentials can be confirmed by real world experience.

I agree with it. But then I have yet to discover a work of Ayn Rand's that I disagree with. True. But the president qua president would necessarily be superior to all who officially served him/her. As Ayn Rand explained, this would be an untenable situation for a rational woman.

Ayn Rand identified hero-worship as a characteristic of woman qua woman -- and thereby of rational women as well. Her argument, in brief, is: a) The essence of woman qua woman is hero-worship, the desire to look up to man. A president must be superior to all those who serve him/her. c) For a rational woman, this would be an unbearable situation. It is not necessary to have any statistical data in order to draw these conclusions, any more than one has to conduct demographical research in order to form the conclusion that "'That which is required for the survival of man qua man' is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man." (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 27)

Just as Ayn Rand's opposition to anarchism is both a part of and consistent with her ethical-political philosophy, so is her opposition to having a woman president. Surely we could not legitimately have Anarchist Objectivists and Pro-Draft Objectivists? Ayn Rand's opposition to both is at the heart of her ideal rights-protecting goverment. Ayn Rand was correct in identifying hero-worship as a characteristic of a rational woman. And this identification is both psychological and philosophical -- just her observation that the "two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are thinking and productive work" is both psychological and philosophical.

Ayn Rand did not state that she was delivering a scientific finding. Her approach to the subject was strictly philosophical. When she writes, "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship -- the desire to look up to man," she is addressing the nature of woman. It is an exercise in philosophical thinking no different than her statement that "Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival qua man—i.e., qua rational being." Well, obviously, the presidency is one office Ayn Rand did not believe women should hold.

As Dr. Leonard Peikoff has written, "There is no question more crucial to man than the question: what is man? What kind of being is he? What are his essential attributes?" (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Chapter 6, "Man") He is, of course, referring to our species in general. However, there is no reason why we cannot philosophically inquire into the nature and essential attributes of women -- which is precisely what Ayn Rand does in her essay about a woman president. It is not any more specialized than dealing with such topics as emergencies, racism, the draft, and government financing -- all of which Ayn Rand discussed in a manner that fully integrated those issues with her ethics and politics.

Ayn Rand takes on this issue in her essay and, as usual, provides an insightful response. She explains that the head of a private corporation, while holding the highest position in the concern, does not deal with men on the basis of do-or-die orders. She does not issue commands that, if disobeyed, carry the penalty of death. Regarding women as military leaders, Ayn Rand speaks approvingly of Joan of Arc -- but adds that hers was no ordinary circumstance and that the consequences were deeply tragic. But don't rely on my summary; read it for yourself.

Opposition to a woman president is both an Ayn Rand position and an Objectivist one. Remember: "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 Since the question of a woman serving as president hinges on the proper function of government and the nature of women, the issue is profoundly philosophical and Ayn Rand addresses it so.

Whether or not voting for a woman is ethical, the Objectivist position is unambiguous: a woman should not serve as president. As Ayn Rand put it, for a rational woman, serving as president "would be an unbearable situation. (And if she is not rational, she is unfit for the Presidency or for any important position, anyway.)" ("About A Woman President," The Objectivist, December 1968)

Ayn Rand was simply expecting a woman to behave in accordance with her nature qua woman. Not only is this consistent with Ayn Rand's principles, it follows from the very essence of the Objectivist ethics.

What went on in Abu Ghraib is a trade secret. Would Coke want Pepsi to see how it manufactures its syrup?

Agreed. But if all images were protected intellectual property, then those who took unfair advantage of such property would belong in the same Guantánamo cages as the Islamic terrorists. If it's in the theatre of war, we have the right to protect it from distribution. Bring down the long arm of the US Attorney General on all violators.

No real Objectivist could support such a nomination. As Ayn Rand said, a woman "never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader." (Ayn Rand, "About A Woman President," The Objectivist, January 1969) Condi Rice could not, in the Objectivist sense, treat men as if she were their leader. And where would that leave us?

I agree with Moose's proposal for "Tactical control over the information received by the media." Does anyone realistically think that in a theatre of war we should read people their Miranda rights, or get a judicial warrant before searching a house, or give enemy populations an eviction notice before deploying ordnance? The purpose of a war is not to protect the rights of the enemy population, but to protect the rights of the invading country's citizens. As Ayn Rand and others have observed, if the enemy's subjects had really been interested in their rights they would have overthrown their rulers or left the dictatorship for greener pastures. Protecting the flow of wartime information is simple, moral, rational and essential. Bad news can be distorted by liberals to make it appear that the greatest country on earth is a helpless giant when confronted by foreign insects. This makes our own population irrationally suspicious of the competence of our government to achieve its stated goals. Let's put an end to this. When the U.S. invades a country, all it has to do is declare exclusive intellectual property rights over all of its operations there. Just as a film production company can legally control the distribution of images from its shooting location, so the United States of America should be entitled to forbid any unauthorized images from its shooting location. If this war had been run in a logical, self-interested way, any media or internet outlet that showed negative (i.e. officially unapproved) images of the war zone would soon find its employees in Guantánamo.

If we were pursuing a rational, self-interested foreign policy, we would invade Syria and Lebanon, defeat their armies, clean out all the pockets of insurgents and terrorists, seize the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and impose pro-Western, pro-individual rights governments on those nations. We also need to take military action against Russia for its role in supplying weapons to Saddam and assisting in concealing WMDs from our forces. President Bush has said, "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them." Russia has now been proven to be our enemy. And in a war you do not appease your enemy. Instead you seek his complete destruction.

You bear responsibility for your own life and liberty. If you are unwilling or unable to remove those who violate your rights, then you must suffer the consequences. Leftists, like Objectivists and everyone else, bear responsibility for their own lives. If leftists want to force their beliefs on America but are unable to do so, they must put up with the system imposed by their enemies. If you wish to rely on the statists to free you, good luck. I'd rather rely on myself and those I can trust. You are conflating "blame" and "responsibility."

It is possible to defend a nation without conscription and taxation. It may not be possible to defend an individual's life if we have to worry about hurting someone that a predator is using as a shield. And that word "shield" applies to hostages, innocent bystanders and reluctant witnesses. "Being a witness could get you killed"? Not testifying against a murderer could get a lot of people killed.

I don't see how you can compare giving up an hour of one's time to give testimony with two years of military slavery.

Precisely. Which in a nutshell is Menger's theory of money.

That is because we have unsound money, an artificially expanded money supply which encourages people to pay back the dollars they borrow in the present with cheaper dollars they have in the future. On a more fundamental level, if, as you claim, there is never enough money to go around to pay back that debt, then how do bankers put their daughters through college? And that is why most advocates of laissez faire favor a gold-backed currency. The pre-eminent Austrian, Ludwig von Mises, wrote, "The excellence of the gold standard is to be seen in the fact that it renders the determination of the monetary unit's purchasing power independent of the policies of governments and political parties." (The Theory of Money and Credit) Then you are woefully misinformed about Austrian theory, as you should be if you are unfamiliar with the work of Carl Menger, the father of the Austrian School. It was Carl Menger's 1871 Principles of Economics that formulated a theory of money that is widely accepted in the economics profession today. See http://www.econlib.org/library/enc/bios/Menger.html Get back to us when you figure it out.

Serial killers roaming the streets are not part of the normal functioning of a society. If it is moral to fire at a threatening gunman and thereby bring injury or death to those standing behind him (as Ayn Rand said it was), then it is just as moral to make a witness take off work one day to give testimony against a murderer.