Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

Regulars
  • Posts

    2634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Easy Truth in Viable Values by Tara Smith; Life as Standard and Reward   
    In ordinary everyday existence, the choice to live or not to live doesn't usually come up explicitly. It is not as if we wake up each morning and make an explicit choice to live or die, we get up and go through our morning routine. However, I think this would be the choice to live one's life and to pursue the day and the values of the day. In some extreme cases, however, the choice is explicit. If one suffers some horrible illness and cannot enjoy one's life one can say, "I'd rather die than go through this." In fact, people do say that, though without full seriousness for getting things like a very bad case of the flu, for example, or surviving the death of a loved one that is so painful one doesn't know how to go on living with that pain uppermost in one's mind.

    In other threads on other forums, I have made the case that like the choice to focus one's mind or not, our fundamental choice, that this *is* the choice to live, since living rationally requires one to focus on the facts of reality with our full mind on the ready. However, in this type of case, one doesn't deliberate, because one cannot deliberate until one's mind is focused. So,like I said, the choice to focus or not or the choice to live or not comes before one will reason about anything. In Tara's view about rationality, it is always purpose driven, and she states that without purpose there is no rationality -- that one cannot focus on the facts of reality with one's full alertness without having some specific purpose in mind. I do think she is correct about this, that rationality has to do with effectiveness (taking the facts into account or not), though taking the facts into account requires a huge context that comes about due to what one wants to pursue -- i.e. purpose. Otherwise the facts are there but so what? She is saying is that we cannot have a purpose until we decide to live and to pursue our lives; and without purpose, there is no rationality. This is the fuller meaning of what she means by "pre-rational" -- there is not necessarily an explicit deliberation about the issue, and we are not taking the facts into account because we cannot do this until we are focused on living purposefully.
  2. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Craig24 in Why is the Initiation of Force Immoral?   
    It is immoral to initiate force for the reason given in the Ayn Rand quotes given earlier. If you want to act like an uncivilized aggressor who decides to deal in threats, force, fraud, etc., then any rational man has the option of treating you in kind -- i.e. we would thereby gain the choice of your premises and can use force to restrain you. So, from the purely egoistic stance, do you want to trade value for value in economic exchange, or do you want to be treated as a brute who, by right, could be forced to do anything by your own premises?

    It is not altruism that is at work in Rand's formulation, but rather egoism, that a rational man would not want to exchange punches in order to gain a value, because then he could have much greater force acted against him by right.

    Therefore to the rational man, force can only be used to deal with force, and that if the brute wants to use force as his means of "exchange" then the rest of us could comply at any time and take the brute out with force, either by restraining him or by killing him. If that is the terms under which you want to live, then tell us your real name and your address so we can send the police your way.
  3. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from dream_weaver in The Morality of Copyrights and Patents   
    It is very important to realize that the action of filing for or declaring a copyright or a patent is NOT a declaration that one cannot think about the ideas behind the products nor can prevent you from you yourself making an improvement on the application of the ideas behind the product. There are absolutely no restrictions of thinking or what you do with ideas in your own mind. The restriction is strictly on the fact that the innovator was the one who brought the idea to physical fruition, made a product based upon an idea, which would not exist without him doing so, and he retains the rights to the **product** not the idea behind it. Henry Food cannot prevent you from thinking about the Model T; he cannot prevent you from coming up with a different type of automobile; he cannot prevent you from using mass production techniques. What he can prevent you from doing is making unauthorized copies of his product because by declaring and receiving a patent for the Model T, he is placing a restriction on what you can do with his product -- namely that you cannot reproduce it without his permission, and by buying a Model T you, at least implicitly, agree to those terms and conditions.
     
    Likewise with buying a movie or going to a movie theater to watch a movie. The creator of that movie has placed a restriction on you watching that movie, and the restriction is that you cannot copy it or distribute it without his permission. This is the root of having a copyright.
     
    By declaring that all of my work is copyrighted, I am placing a restriction on what you can do with my essays. You are quite free to read them insofar as I have made them available to you at no charge now (though maybe charging for longer essays in the future), and the only restriction I make by declaring a copyright is that you do not have my permission to distribute them without my permission. I cannot prevent you from thinking through the issues. I cannot prevent you from understanding the ideas behind intellectual property rights. I cannot prevent you from writing your own essay on the topic, pro or con. I cannot prevent you from having an idea in any way whatsoever. What I can prevent you from doing is taking my essay without my permission and putting it somewhere I would rather it not be. That is my right by creating those essays that go from my mind to a blank sheet of paper (digital or otherwise).
  4. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from tadmjones in Induction and anarchism as an Ideal   
    Induction and Anarchism as an Ideal
    By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
    06/02/2012

    I’ve come to a realization recently after having discussions with several anarchists, and the realization is that some of them are not being rationalistic (thinking of principles divorced from the facts), but rather they are making an inductive generalization based upon their own experience of dealing with various governments who insist on getting in their way of leading their lives in a rational, independent, and productive manner. What generally happens is that they seek to do something – like opening up a business in a convenient location – and the government steps in and tells them they cannot do that without specific permission from the government (local, regional, or national). For example, I once had a boss who decided to move his picture framing gallery across the street to a smaller venue. No problem getting the lease and the business name and signage and all that stuff, but the trouble was that the venue did not have a rear entrance to be used in case of emergencies, so the local government would not let him move in until they had an investigation. Said investigation took over eight months to come up with a legal solution, so he lost revenue for all of that time. Fortunately for him, he had a second location that was doing OK, but can you imagine not getting paid for eight months due to a government technicality? I’ve heard of similar stories, and while not all of the victims turn to anarchism, some definitely do, stating that it would be better if we had no government at all, which they think would solve the problem.

    According to The Logical Leap by David Harriman, it does not take a lot of the same types of facts to be aware of to come to an inductive generalization. Turning on several light switches in a house can get even a young child to come up with the generalization, “Flipping the light switch will turn on the lights.” So, even a few times of dealing with a government can lead one to realize the generalization that, “The government is preventing me from living my life!” Is this a valid generalization? One based on the facts in terms of causation? And what should one do about it? An Objectivist would say to advocate for better government based upon upholding individual rights in such a way that the individual is free to live his life as he sees fit so long as he does not initiate force against others. To many people who turn towards anarchism (no government), this seems like a very far-fetched way of getting rid of entrenched governments who violate individual rights. However, a contextual research into the early decades of the United States (the first 150 years) will show that just such a government did indeed exist (sans slavery and taxes). That is, a government geared towards an extension of self-defense in an institutionalized manner did exist, and was lost over the years. But what made that loss possible; and, indeed, what made the United States possible in the first place?

    Basically, it was the ideas of The Enlightenment that made such a free country possible, as the individual became sovereign in all walks of life due to the rational influence of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who advocated that each man’s individual mind was capable of knowing reality unaided by Divine Intervention or government edicts. Prior to that, with the possible exception of Ancient Athens, there was a top-down approach to government whereby the government would set the terms for the life of the individual in that society – of the individual being the servant of the State instead of the opposite idea that the government ought to be the servant / protector of the individual. It was the Founding Fathers of the United States and the political theories they understood and advocated that led to the individual protection type of government. Unfortunately, these ideas really required a more philosophical approach – basically a new rational philosophy and a rational morality – to ideally translate into a politics that would stand the test of time and not become eroded as reason and individualism wavered due to bad philosophies (primarily Kant and his collectivism). Without that fully rational basis, the Founders presented the case of rights as being self-evident – as it states in The Declaration of Independence – whereas the concept of individual rights does require a whole host of more fundamental ideas to be completely validated. Lacking such a base, the political ideals of the Founders became chipped away almost from the beginning, but especially after the ideas of Kant swamped the field of philosophy.

    And I think it is because the ideas of individual rights and proper government are not self-evident that collectivism on the one hand or anarchism on the other hand begin to take precedent in people’s mind. They tend to think that we need either more government (total socialism) or get rid of government altogether (anarchism) to solve the current problems. I have written elsewhere why I do not think that anarchism or competing governments will work, but I do think the anarchists just cannot conceive of a proper government or say that it has been tried and has always failed. Due to this, I think their initial inductive generalization is a false one, that the alternative is not Socialism versus Anarchism, but rather upholding individual rights in a fully institutionalized manner (Constitutional Republic) or dispensing with them in fully institutionalized manner (Communism). The idea of institutionalized protection for the individual is very difficult for the confirmed anarchist to accept, as individualist as some of them are, but anarchism is not the solution. A government dedicating to protecting the legitimate rights of the individual would leave one free to live one’s own life according to one’s own ideals while preventing others from interfering with said decisions with force (as this would be illegal and punishable by law). Anarchism, on the other hand, would not provide for such protection. Some anarchist claim to have thought it all through and have come up with solutions based on market principles, but I have yet to see a worked out solution that would not eventually lead to outright violence in the streets as one segment of individuals attempts to protect themselves from other individuals in an effort to protect their rights, which they claim were violated (real or imagined). With a Constitutional Republic and institutionalized systems of protecting the individual (police force, military, and courts for resolving disputes peacefully), I don’t see how one can protect oneself for large-scale enterprises, like a corporation that exists, say, in all states of the United States; nor for one’s own individual life as these competing agencies of force vie for protecting the individual without any sort of institutionalized system of resolving disputes (the court system). So, both myself and fellow Objectivists are for a clearly limited Constitutional Republic rather than anarchy.
  5. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from freestyle in Paul Ryan as Vice Presidential candidate   
    I haven't read this whole thread, but here's my take on Paul Ryan as VP with Romney:

    http://www.meetup.co...925312#80683292



    There is a very interesting story about Paul Ryan and Objectivism now that Ryan has been chosen to be the Vice-Presidential candidate along side Mitt Romney for President come this November election cycle. In the story, it is claimed that Ryan has rejected Ayn Rand in favor of Thomas Aquinas to be his intellectual guidance for national policy. When Ryan first announced that he liked Ayn Rand, the Marxist / Leftist jumped all over him trying to get him to drop her in favor of the policies of the Left -- which is more Socialism and a government run economy. Looks like to some extend they succeeded in that Ryan has explicitly dropped Rand as an intellectual guidance position. However, Ayn Rand still had some influence on him and he has spoken out in favor of capitalism due to this influence.

    That Ryan has chosen Thomas Aquinas as his new intellectual leader is also encouraging, in that it was Thomas Aquinas who brought mankind out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance, where reason was held in high esteem for the first time since Ancient Greece and Athens. I'm not really sure if Aquinas would have been in favor of capitalism or not, but he was most definitely in favor of reason as an absolute, bringing forth the argument that God gave you a mind and that it is important to use it to understand His Creation based upon the evidence of the senses which give us a direct connection to the Beauty and Rational Operations of God's Universe. And Aquinas helped to re-introduce Aristotle to the West, thereby setting up the grounds for a rational culture based upon reason and reality. These positions did eventually lead to The Age of Reason and The Enlightenment, and to the founding of the United States of America and the full recognition of individual rights. So, Ryan is in great company to defend capitalism and man's rights qua individual against the collectivism and unreason of the Marxist Left, even though he will waver a bit here and there due to his dropping of Ayn Rand as an explicit guide.

    But even if Ryan does waver in his support of individual rights and capitalism, the very fact that he was once in support of Ayn Rand will help to bring the ideas of Objectivism to the forefront of intellectual debates this election cycle. The Leftist will bring it up against Romney and Ryan in order to throw selfishness into their face, but they will bring it up. This will give Objectivist intellectual activists a great setting for exposing more people to Ayn Rand and to hit upon key issues that might be made more explicit due to the mud slinging. And I certain encourage admirers and followers of Ayn Rand and Objectivism to take full advantage of the intellectual debate that will ensue due to this attempt to cower Romney and Ryan into dropping capitalism in favor of socialism.

    Added on Edit: In this context, it is worth noting that The University of Dallas, my Alma Matter, and a staunch Catholic university, has a pretty decent Masters of Business degree program. While I was living in the Dallas area, I often thought about joining that degree / career course, and my career would have been entirely different had I done so, but the costs and the fact that I thought getting a degree in Physics and Philosophy might get me into management without an MBA prevented me from taking advantage of this course. Besides, I didn't really want to get an MBA from a Catholic perspective, but the point is that at least they do have a business oriented degree program.
  6. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from SD26 in Induction and anarchism as an Ideal   
    Induction and Anarchism as an Ideal
    By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
    06/02/2012

    I’ve come to a realization recently after having discussions with several anarchists, and the realization is that some of them are not being rationalistic (thinking of principles divorced from the facts), but rather they are making an inductive generalization based upon their own experience of dealing with various governments who insist on getting in their way of leading their lives in a rational, independent, and productive manner. What generally happens is that they seek to do something – like opening up a business in a convenient location – and the government steps in and tells them they cannot do that without specific permission from the government (local, regional, or national). For example, I once had a boss who decided to move his picture framing gallery across the street to a smaller venue. No problem getting the lease and the business name and signage and all that stuff, but the trouble was that the venue did not have a rear entrance to be used in case of emergencies, so the local government would not let him move in until they had an investigation. Said investigation took over eight months to come up with a legal solution, so he lost revenue for all of that time. Fortunately for him, he had a second location that was doing OK, but can you imagine not getting paid for eight months due to a government technicality? I’ve heard of similar stories, and while not all of the victims turn to anarchism, some definitely do, stating that it would be better if we had no government at all, which they think would solve the problem.

    According to The Logical Leap by David Harriman, it does not take a lot of the same types of facts to be aware of to come to an inductive generalization. Turning on several light switches in a house can get even a young child to come up with the generalization, “Flipping the light switch will turn on the lights.” So, even a few times of dealing with a government can lead one to realize the generalization that, “The government is preventing me from living my life!” Is this a valid generalization? One based on the facts in terms of causation? And what should one do about it? An Objectivist would say to advocate for better government based upon upholding individual rights in such a way that the individual is free to live his life as he sees fit so long as he does not initiate force against others. To many people who turn towards anarchism (no government), this seems like a very far-fetched way of getting rid of entrenched governments who violate individual rights. However, a contextual research into the early decades of the United States (the first 150 years) will show that just such a government did indeed exist (sans slavery and taxes). That is, a government geared towards an extension of self-defense in an institutionalized manner did exist, and was lost over the years. But what made that loss possible; and, indeed, what made the United States possible in the first place?

    Basically, it was the ideas of The Enlightenment that made such a free country possible, as the individual became sovereign in all walks of life due to the rational influence of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who advocated that each man’s individual mind was capable of knowing reality unaided by Divine Intervention or government edicts. Prior to that, with the possible exception of Ancient Athens, there was a top-down approach to government whereby the government would set the terms for the life of the individual in that society – of the individual being the servant of the State instead of the opposite idea that the government ought to be the servant / protector of the individual. It was the Founding Fathers of the United States and the political theories they understood and advocated that led to the individual protection type of government. Unfortunately, these ideas really required a more philosophical approach – basically a new rational philosophy and a rational morality – to ideally translate into a politics that would stand the test of time and not become eroded as reason and individualism wavered due to bad philosophies (primarily Kant and his collectivism). Without that fully rational basis, the Founders presented the case of rights as being self-evident – as it states in The Declaration of Independence – whereas the concept of individual rights does require a whole host of more fundamental ideas to be completely validated. Lacking such a base, the political ideals of the Founders became chipped away almost from the beginning, but especially after the ideas of Kant swamped the field of philosophy.

    And I think it is because the ideas of individual rights and proper government are not self-evident that collectivism on the one hand or anarchism on the other hand begin to take precedent in people’s mind. They tend to think that we need either more government (total socialism) or get rid of government altogether (anarchism) to solve the current problems. I have written elsewhere why I do not think that anarchism or competing governments will work, but I do think the anarchists just cannot conceive of a proper government or say that it has been tried and has always failed. Due to this, I think their initial inductive generalization is a false one, that the alternative is not Socialism versus Anarchism, but rather upholding individual rights in a fully institutionalized manner (Constitutional Republic) or dispensing with them in fully institutionalized manner (Communism). The idea of institutionalized protection for the individual is very difficult for the confirmed anarchist to accept, as individualist as some of them are, but anarchism is not the solution. A government dedicating to protecting the legitimate rights of the individual would leave one free to live one’s own life according to one’s own ideals while preventing others from interfering with said decisions with force (as this would be illegal and punishable by law). Anarchism, on the other hand, would not provide for such protection. Some anarchist claim to have thought it all through and have come up with solutions based on market principles, but I have yet to see a worked out solution that would not eventually lead to outright violence in the streets as one segment of individuals attempts to protect themselves from other individuals in an effort to protect their rights, which they claim were violated (real or imagined). With a Constitutional Republic and institutionalized systems of protecting the individual (police force, military, and courts for resolving disputes peacefully), I don’t see how one can protect oneself for large-scale enterprises, like a corporation that exists, say, in all states of the United States; nor for one’s own individual life as these competing agencies of force vie for protecting the individual without any sort of institutionalized system of resolving disputes (the court system). So, both myself and fellow Objectivists are for a clearly limited Constitutional Republic rather than anarchy.
  7. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from whYNOT in Induction and anarchism as an Ideal   
    Induction and Anarchism as an Ideal
    By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
    06/02/2012

    I’ve come to a realization recently after having discussions with several anarchists, and the realization is that some of them are not being rationalistic (thinking of principles divorced from the facts), but rather they are making an inductive generalization based upon their own experience of dealing with various governments who insist on getting in their way of leading their lives in a rational, independent, and productive manner. What generally happens is that they seek to do something – like opening up a business in a convenient location – and the government steps in and tells them they cannot do that without specific permission from the government (local, regional, or national). For example, I once had a boss who decided to move his picture framing gallery across the street to a smaller venue. No problem getting the lease and the business name and signage and all that stuff, but the trouble was that the venue did not have a rear entrance to be used in case of emergencies, so the local government would not let him move in until they had an investigation. Said investigation took over eight months to come up with a legal solution, so he lost revenue for all of that time. Fortunately for him, he had a second location that was doing OK, but can you imagine not getting paid for eight months due to a government technicality? I’ve heard of similar stories, and while not all of the victims turn to anarchism, some definitely do, stating that it would be better if we had no government at all, which they think would solve the problem.

    According to The Logical Leap by David Harriman, it does not take a lot of the same types of facts to be aware of to come to an inductive generalization. Turning on several light switches in a house can get even a young child to come up with the generalization, “Flipping the light switch will turn on the lights.” So, even a few times of dealing with a government can lead one to realize the generalization that, “The government is preventing me from living my life!” Is this a valid generalization? One based on the facts in terms of causation? And what should one do about it? An Objectivist would say to advocate for better government based upon upholding individual rights in such a way that the individual is free to live his life as he sees fit so long as he does not initiate force against others. To many people who turn towards anarchism (no government), this seems like a very far-fetched way of getting rid of entrenched governments who violate individual rights. However, a contextual research into the early decades of the United States (the first 150 years) will show that just such a government did indeed exist (sans slavery and taxes). That is, a government geared towards an extension of self-defense in an institutionalized manner did exist, and was lost over the years. But what made that loss possible; and, indeed, what made the United States possible in the first place?

    Basically, it was the ideas of The Enlightenment that made such a free country possible, as the individual became sovereign in all walks of life due to the rational influence of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who advocated that each man’s individual mind was capable of knowing reality unaided by Divine Intervention or government edicts. Prior to that, with the possible exception of Ancient Athens, there was a top-down approach to government whereby the government would set the terms for the life of the individual in that society – of the individual being the servant of the State instead of the opposite idea that the government ought to be the servant / protector of the individual. It was the Founding Fathers of the United States and the political theories they understood and advocated that led to the individual protection type of government. Unfortunately, these ideas really required a more philosophical approach – basically a new rational philosophy and a rational morality – to ideally translate into a politics that would stand the test of time and not become eroded as reason and individualism wavered due to bad philosophies (primarily Kant and his collectivism). Without that fully rational basis, the Founders presented the case of rights as being self-evident – as it states in The Declaration of Independence – whereas the concept of individual rights does require a whole host of more fundamental ideas to be completely validated. Lacking such a base, the political ideals of the Founders became chipped away almost from the beginning, but especially after the ideas of Kant swamped the field of philosophy.

    And I think it is because the ideas of individual rights and proper government are not self-evident that collectivism on the one hand or anarchism on the other hand begin to take precedent in people’s mind. They tend to think that we need either more government (total socialism) or get rid of government altogether (anarchism) to solve the current problems. I have written elsewhere why I do not think that anarchism or competing governments will work, but I do think the anarchists just cannot conceive of a proper government or say that it has been tried and has always failed. Due to this, I think their initial inductive generalization is a false one, that the alternative is not Socialism versus Anarchism, but rather upholding individual rights in a fully institutionalized manner (Constitutional Republic) or dispensing with them in fully institutionalized manner (Communism). The idea of institutionalized protection for the individual is very difficult for the confirmed anarchist to accept, as individualist as some of them are, but anarchism is not the solution. A government dedicating to protecting the legitimate rights of the individual would leave one free to live one’s own life according to one’s own ideals while preventing others from interfering with said decisions with force (as this would be illegal and punishable by law). Anarchism, on the other hand, would not provide for such protection. Some anarchist claim to have thought it all through and have come up with solutions based on market principles, but I have yet to see a worked out solution that would not eventually lead to outright violence in the streets as one segment of individuals attempts to protect themselves from other individuals in an effort to protect their rights, which they claim were violated (real or imagined). With a Constitutional Republic and institutionalized systems of protecting the individual (police force, military, and courts for resolving disputes peacefully), I don’t see how one can protect oneself for large-scale enterprises, like a corporation that exists, say, in all states of the United States; nor for one’s own individual life as these competing agencies of force vie for protecting the individual without any sort of institutionalized system of resolving disputes (the court system). So, both myself and fellow Objectivists are for a clearly limited Constitutional Republic rather than anarchy.
  8. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Leonid in Applications of Philosophy -- Objectivism in Daily Life   
    I think the rational principle involved here is the "Principle of the Beard." Dr. Peikoff explains that in some cases, there is not definite cut-off point for considering something to be this versus that. For example, a man is capable of growing a beard. But a beard is more than just a few hairs growing on the face, and there is no definite numerical identification that he must have a thousand hairs growing on his face for it to be said that he definitely has a beard. By observation, one can tell if a man has a beard or not, but pin-pointing exactly when it is a beard and not just hairs growing on his face is not something that can be pre-determined.

    Likewise, past a certain point of no longer having the physical attributes of a human, one is no longer human. However, I don't think one can pin-point that in a pre-determined manner -- i.e. if he is born with only one arm, he is still human, everything else being equal. Maybe even if he is born with no arms and no legs, though that is pushing the threshold. At some point, it has to be decided if he is a man or something else. And it becomes a borderline issue.

    Similarly, if a man were to get gills, maybe some would say he is still human. However, getting gills by itself would be insufficient for doing deep water work. Man's body is not designed to live in the pressures of the deep. With gills, he could go diving in the local lake, but not deeper. So, more than gills would have to be done. Would one have to get rid of his lungs and have some sort of air processing bladder? Would he have to have the cells of his body modified so that the pressures would not kill him? and what about trying to use hands and feet underwater? There is a reason fish don't have those, and that is because they are extremely inefficient under water (ever tried to walk in the pool?). Also, it tends to be extremely cold under the ocean, so man would have to have his warm-bloodedness adapted to that. So, if man is going to be adapted for environments other than the normal one of one atmospheric pressure on land at certain temperatures, it would have to be very radical. And I would say that even getting gills would require changing the lungs, and would be crossing over into non-human.
  9. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Amaroq in Obama's Birth Certificate   
    I gave the moral argument: They attacked us on 911 and celebrated the fact and supported the terrorist attacks then and since, so it is moral to act in self-defense and to destroy those countries. The moral argument for killing "innocents" is that their death is not our responsibility -- it is the responsibility of the country that attacked us, and the truly innocent who are morally against Theocracy would welcome the attack on their country to overthrow their government. Ayn Rand has said similar things about the USA going to war with the Soviet Union -- she would have welcomed it, even at the risk to her own life because the USSR was destroying her life anyhow.

    I do agree with the several previous posts who said if we are to do it then we need to do it right and to stop apologizing every time we kill a "civilian" (in quotes because their standing army is not the one attacking us, and all the terrorists are "civilian" in that sense). The outright moral cowardice displayed by Bush and then Obama in fighting this war is why it is stretching on for so long. WWII against formidable armies and navies only lasted about four years, and the Islamics have nothing anywhere near the magnitude of Germany and Japan. We are not winning because we don't have the moral fortitude to win.
  10. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Amaroq in Obama's Birth Certificate   
    Yeah, right...like the FBI and the CIA, who are supposed to keep track of these things, prevented the first bombing of the WTC and certainly stopped 911 dead in its tracks! The whole problem has been treating it like criminal activity instead of State sponsored terrorism, and guess who came up with the answer to that one? Why, it was our good friend Dr. Peikoff, now to be known by some to be an Objectivist in name only and dishonest for applying the principles of Objectivism to real-world situations. If his suggestion had been followed in End States Who Sponsor Terrorism (written 10 years before 911), those terrorist attacks would never have happened. But that's only theory according to some on this forum, and there is no need to apply philosophy to real-world events. Philosophers -- especially rational philosophers -- ought to just keep quite about those things and stick to theorizing about forms of syllogisms or whatever, so long as they do not try to apply it to real-world events.
  11. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Amaroq in Obama's Birth Certificate   
    I'm doing my best to ignore J13 and Ninth Doctor due to some of the things they've said in threads (including this one), but I cannot let this off-hand remark against Dr. Peikoff stand. You are implicitly asserting that Dr. Peikoff is an Objectivist in name only because he is against the building of the NYC Mosque near Ground Zero. We've discussed this thoroughly in several threads, and it is not a violation of rights to defend oneself against a vicious enemy who is seeking to become established in the United States and especially seeking to build a monument to their wanton acts of destruction on 911. The right to life comes before the right to property -- i.e. one cannot make the claim that a murderer's property rights are violated when one removes him from his house and throws him in jail for murder. And since the terrorists of 911 made their attacks in the name of Islam and were perfectly consistent with Islam, then yes, Islam can be throttled in the USA, at least until the war is over an we have decidedly won the war and they swear to never attack us again. Moderators: If these two posts need to be moved to another thread, then do that, but I couldn't let it stand.
  12. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from SapereAude in Split Topic: How free is the US economy?   
    You know, it is one thing to call me a kook because I posted an hyped up article on Obama's birth certificate; and it yet another thing for me an other Objectivists to be called a kook for pointing out that Obama et al follow and preach Marxist political philosophy and want to impose Marxism on the rest of us. What do you have to do, be thrown into a gulag before you learn to think in terms of principles and to take ideas seriously? It has been pointed out time and time again that the political philosophy of the Left comes straight out of the Communist Manifesto -- but that's OK, because it is only abstract ideas and have nothing to do with the daily lives of Americans. Obama is aiming towards a government controlled economy and Pelosi is aiming to curtail political speech -- but that's OK because the trains run on time. Get real!
  13. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from utabintarbo in Split Topic: How free is the US economy?   
    You know, it is one thing to call me a kook because I posted an hyped up article on Obama's birth certificate; and it yet another thing for me an other Objectivists to be called a kook for pointing out that Obama et al follow and preach Marxist political philosophy and want to impose Marxism on the rest of us. What do you have to do, be thrown into a gulag before you learn to think in terms of principles and to take ideas seriously? It has been pointed out time and time again that the political philosophy of the Left comes straight out of the Communist Manifesto -- but that's OK, because it is only abstract ideas and have nothing to do with the daily lives of Americans. Obama is aiming towards a government controlled economy and Pelosi is aiming to curtail political speech -- but that's OK because the trains run on time. Get real!
  14. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Amaroq in Split Topic: How free is the US economy?   
    You know, it is one thing to call me a kook because I posted an hyped up article on Obama's birth certificate; and it yet another thing for me an other Objectivists to be called a kook for pointing out that Obama et al follow and preach Marxist political philosophy and want to impose Marxism on the rest of us. What do you have to do, be thrown into a gulag before you learn to think in terms of principles and to take ideas seriously? It has been pointed out time and time again that the political philosophy of the Left comes straight out of the Communist Manifesto -- but that's OK, because it is only abstract ideas and have nothing to do with the daily lives of Americans. Obama is aiming towards a government controlled economy and Pelosi is aiming to curtail political speech -- but that's OK because the trains run on time. Get real!
  15. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from DonAthos in Obama's Birth Certificate   
    I found an article that has the relevant video at the bottom of the NJ trial. From listening to it carefully (turn the volume up because the sound quality is very bad), Obama's lawyer admitted that the image presented on the internet was never intended to be a Hawaii certified legal document and would not be offered as evidence for Obama being a natural born citizen. When pressed further, Obama's lawyer said it would not be so presented because there was nothing in the New Jersey law that stipulated that one's natural born citizenship had to be legally documented before getting on the Presidential ballot. The spin on the right and throughout the Tea Party affiliates is that therefore Obama's layer had admitted that the internet image is a forgery, but this was not something Obama's lawyer agreed to -- she only agreed that it was not a certified copy and that it would not be used in court. So, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what was put on the long-form image, since Obama never said it was a certified copy in the first place.




  16. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from brian0918 in Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position   
    OK, time for a really big apology to Diana Hsieh. I went back and re-listened to the podcast in question (for about the third time) and also re-read that portion of her rebuttal to critics, think I misunderstood her statements about the court deciding that the brainless child could not reason, and therefore could be euthanized. Somehow, I took her statement to mean that the court grants us rights. She also clearly states that she thinks it would be immoral to eat them, though the "dark humor" of human baby baby-backed ribs (brought up several times) was misunderstood by me as her endorsement of actually eating them, especially since it went into having them in grocery stores and farms. I misunderstood her arguments several times.So,for that, I do apologize to her (since she is on oo.net and evidently listening it). But I will also send this note to her via email. Diana, I do apologize. It may very well have been my revulsion of eating human babies that led me to mis-interpret what you were saying.
  17. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from ngreene in Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position   
    If DH is not going to claim that she is a professional philosopher speaking for Objectivism and not considering herself to be a professional Objectivist philosopher specializing in ethics, then part of the controversy is already over.

    As for me misrepresenting her podcast on brainless children, she even reiterates the point in her reply:



    So, she will have to explain how my views in the previous post misrepresent her views. And yes, please do listen to that podcast and how she and her audience celebrated the fact that we could have human baby baby-backed ribs.
  18. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Amaroq in Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position   
    The newly re-written essay "Subjectivist Objectivist" makes a lot more sense to me. Basically, Chip is saying that the supposed Objectivists wish their arguments or positions were compatible with Objectivism, though it can clearly be shown that they are not; thus placing an "I wish" over an "It is" -- making them subjectivists. The examples drawn from DH in John k's essay demonstrate that DH's argument on several topics is not compatible with Objectivism, though, of course, she *wants* them to be so compatible.

    Regarding rationalism as a method, it is not compatible with the Objectivist method of objectivity -- of remaining focused on the facts while having an abstract discussion. So, their argument is not that rationalism is a type of subjectivism; but rather that rationalism is not compatible with Objectivism.

    Wish they had made all of that more clear from the beginning.

    My original analysis of what I thought they were saying was that insofar as a rationalist argument can be shown to not be compatible with reality, and the rationalist stamps his foot when this is pointed out to him, that insofar as he does that he is also trying to place an "I wish" over an "It is" -- i.e. that the rationalist methodology does not lead to an understanding of existence, though they *want* it to.
  19. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from dream_weaver in Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position   
    Since the topic of this thread is objectivity, I'm not going to discuss Islam much further, as it is definitely a non-objective system of beliefs. Yes, Islam mean "submission" and that is actually one of the more evil aspects of it, quite aside from physical jihad against infidels and honor killings. Even if Islam did not aim for world domination through force (Caliphate), it would be evil since it is not based on a rational grasp of the world and is anti-man and anti-mind. The acceptance of Islam practiced fully leads a man to turn away from reason as an absolute, to submit his own rational judgement to that of the religious leader, to make him submit; which is evil.

    By contrast, Objectivism understands that the mind is individual and that we are not to submit to either Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff or to any other man who claims to be an intellectual leader. One has to think things through on their own, judging the truth or falsity of an idea or a system of ideas by his own rational effort. And Dr.Peikoff has come out and stated that one does not have to agree with him on every topic, that neither he nor Ayn Rand sought blind followers. Yes, he is an authority on Objectivism -- the one most knowledgeable about it and what Ayn Rand taught; but the individual must come to understand Objectivism by his own rational, logical, and fact-based effort.
  20. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from SD26 in Viable Values by Tara Smith; Life as Standard and Reward   
    Viable Values by Tara Smith
    Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
    11/19/2011

    “Viable Values” is an excellent read for anyone concerned with rational values and what code of morality stems from this approach. After surveying modern approaches to values and morality, and dismissing them due to their lack of logic and a rational standard, Tara very thoroughly investigates what is required for something to be an objective value. The topic of the book is meta-ethics – the relationship between the facts of reality and moral codes and values. She demonstrates that only Ayn Rand’s ethics of rational egoism is based on the facts of reality and the facts about man. If logic is the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality – which I think it is -- then this book is extremely logical, and very thorough in its scope to discuss and analyze the factual basis of the concept “value” and how only life as the standard gives one an appreciation of the concept. The subtitle of the book is “a study of life as the root and reward of morality” and the book lives up to this. Not only is life the standard, but a proper ethical code has life as the reward for being moral. That is, if one is pursuing those things in reality that are in fact beneficial to oneself, then not only is one being rationally moral, but one gets more life out of one’s actions.

    There is one drawback to the way the book is written. After bringing up the issue of “Why be moral?” and showing that previous approaches to morality are not logical, she doesn’t answer this question until about page 117. Consequently, I would not recommend the book to those who are novices to Ayn Rand. I would say that “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Virtue of Selfishness, “ both by Ayn Rand, are pre-requisites because these do not get bogged down in other approaches to morality. In “Viable Values” one can become disheartened that there is no legitimate answer to “Why be moral?” and put the book down before Tara gets to the answer, which would be unfortunate.

    I also have one philosophical misgiving about her approach to “Why should one live?” and focusing on acting to gain and or keep rational values. She states that such questions are pre-rational – that is, one has to decide to live one’s life before the issue of values and morality become paramount. While I agree with her analysis, I don’t agree with the phrasing. In a sense, all of the facts of reality are pre-rational – they come before reason (this is the Primacy of Existence approach) – but that is an awkward way of phrasing it, since I think it implies that rationality is the fundamental standard. Actually, the facts of reality are the ultimate and fundamental standards – and the starting point. The moon orbiting the earth is a metaphysical fact, it is neither rational nor irrational; it just is. Similarly, the choice to focus one’s mind on living is a fundamental fact about man. That is, free will in man is a basic fact about his consciousness, and like the moon example is neither rational nor irrational; it just is.

    But these misgivings are paltry compared to the immense value of the book and how it analysis the concept of “value” and squarely places it into a logical hierarchy.
  21. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from SD26 in Viable Values by Tara Smith; Life as Standard and Reward   
    In ordinary everyday existence, the choice to live or not to live doesn't usually come up explicitly. It is not as if we wake up each morning and make an explicit choice to live or die, we get up and go through our morning routine. However, I think this would be the choice to live one's life and to pursue the day and the values of the day. In some extreme cases, however, the choice is explicit. If one suffers some horrible illness and cannot enjoy one's life one can say, "I'd rather die than go through this." In fact, people do say that, though without full seriousness for getting things like a very bad case of the flu, for example, or surviving the death of a loved one that is so painful one doesn't know how to go on living with that pain uppermost in one's mind.

    In other threads on other forums, I have made the case that like the choice to focus one's mind or not, our fundamental choice, that this *is* the choice to live, since living rationally requires one to focus on the facts of reality with our full mind on the ready. However, in this type of case, one doesn't deliberate, because one cannot deliberate until one's mind is focused. So,like I said, the choice to focus or not or the choice to live or not comes before one will reason about anything. In Tara's view about rationality, it is always purpose driven, and she states that without purpose there is no rationality -- that one cannot focus on the facts of reality with one's full alertness without having some specific purpose in mind. I do think she is correct about this, that rationality has to do with effectiveness (taking the facts into account or not), though taking the facts into account requires a huge context that comes about due to what one wants to pursue -- i.e. purpose. Otherwise the facts are there but so what? She is saying is that we cannot have a purpose until we decide to live and to pursue our lives; and without purpose, there is no rationality. This is the fuller meaning of what she means by "pre-rational" -- there is not necessarily an explicit deliberation about the issue, and we are not taking the facts into account because we cannot do this until we are focused on living purposefully.
  22. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Strider68 in Don't Blame Wall Street -- The Government Did It!   
    It is evil to impose a standard onto someone by force. It is evil to impose banking standards onto banks by force. If banks want to take on high risks, that is up to them, but they should not be bailed out when things go wrong. It was the government imposing standards that led to the Financial Crises, because those institutions would not have loaned to uncreditworthy people in the first place without the government forcing them to do so. Perhaps some were acting irresponsibly, but no one should suffer for bad business decisions aside from that business. It was governments tying everyone together under regulations that led to the bubble and it bursting when too many deadbeats bought houses. Leave the force out of it and let banks rise and fall according to who runs their business most profitably. And I'd say the short-sightedness of some banks came about because they thought they were going to be bailed out if they ran into trouble anyhow,which means government force was giving the wrong signals to banks and lending institutions.
  23. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from Neal Cormier in Don't Blame Wall Street -- The Government Did It!   
    Regarding the Wall Street Occupiers, I have written the following essay and have posted it to my website and other places. I didn't see this topic on the masthead under "politics" so I started a new thread.

    http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/dont_blame_wall_street.htm

    Don’t Blame Wall Street
    By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
    10/13/2011

    There are a lot of people I know via FaceBook and other forums that are falling for the idea that Wall Street caused the Financial Crises by coming up with and speculating on mortgage backed securities. As they put it, Wall Street was on a speculative binge and eventually the bubble burst because they got too greedy and had to be bailed out. This is an incorrect analysis of the situation.

    What caused the bubble and the speculation was the government forcing banks to deal with uncreditworthy people, who bought homes when they couldn’t afford them or signed deals with a variable interest rate thinking interest rates would remain low. Both thoughts were supposedly backed by the government via Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, semi-government institutions that bought up mortgages to keep people buying houses they couldn’t afford. In other words, what fueled the speculation on the bundling of mortgages into securities was the government forcing there to be a bigger market than would otherwise exist in a free economy. There is nothing wrong with commodity backed securities, and nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities. But the speculation boom and then bust was caused by the government giving false promises of backing up mortgages via Freddie and Fanny. Once the mortgages were not paid back in sufficient numbers, the commodity became devalued and those mortgage backed securities became valueless as an investment tool. But, again, this was caused by the government guaranteeing those mortgages, at least in several statements made by the government, since they were forcing banks to deal with uncreditworthy individuals. Turns out it was an empty promise, so the market crashed when too many people defaulted. So, if you want to blame someone, then don’t blame the banks or Wall Street, but rather governmental interference in the economy – they caused the bubble and they didn’t stand by their promise to back those mortgages or to keep interest rates low.

    Now, with that said, I do not think either the banks or Wall Street should have been bailed out when the market crashed. But again, this is governmental interference in the economy, and not a free market, so don’t blame capitalism. The closest system to what the government is trying to institute is fascism – where the government tells private businesses what to do at the point of a gun. It is not freedom and will lead to further government induced speculations as the government bails out one then another business that is doing what the government wants them to do. It is a way of the government accruing power over productive individuals. This is what people ought to be against – the regulations and the forced dealing with businesses that should fail due to making wrong decisions. So, don’t blame the banks or Wall Street for the Financial Crises – the blame rests squarely on the government that forced banks to deal with uncreditworthy individuals and then bailed out the banks and Wall Street when the market crashed. The government is in the process of shifting the blame to Wall Street, with some success, but the evil was committed by the government, not the capitalists.
  24. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from flatlander in Don't Blame Wall Street -- The Government Did It!   
    Regarding the Wall Street Occupiers, I have written the following essay and have posted it to my website and other places. I didn't see this topic on the masthead under "politics" so I started a new thread.

    http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/dont_blame_wall_street.htm

    Don’t Blame Wall Street
    By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
    10/13/2011

    There are a lot of people I know via FaceBook and other forums that are falling for the idea that Wall Street caused the Financial Crises by coming up with and speculating on mortgage backed securities. As they put it, Wall Street was on a speculative binge and eventually the bubble burst because they got too greedy and had to be bailed out. This is an incorrect analysis of the situation.

    What caused the bubble and the speculation was the government forcing banks to deal with uncreditworthy people, who bought homes when they couldn’t afford them or signed deals with a variable interest rate thinking interest rates would remain low. Both thoughts were supposedly backed by the government via Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, semi-government institutions that bought up mortgages to keep people buying houses they couldn’t afford. In other words, what fueled the speculation on the bundling of mortgages into securities was the government forcing there to be a bigger market than would otherwise exist in a free economy. There is nothing wrong with commodity backed securities, and nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities. But the speculation boom and then bust was caused by the government giving false promises of backing up mortgages via Freddie and Fanny. Once the mortgages were not paid back in sufficient numbers, the commodity became devalued and those mortgage backed securities became valueless as an investment tool. But, again, this was caused by the government guaranteeing those mortgages, at least in several statements made by the government, since they were forcing banks to deal with uncreditworthy individuals. Turns out it was an empty promise, so the market crashed when too many people defaulted. So, if you want to blame someone, then don’t blame the banks or Wall Street, but rather governmental interference in the economy – they caused the bubble and they didn’t stand by their promise to back those mortgages or to keep interest rates low.

    Now, with that said, I do not think either the banks or Wall Street should have been bailed out when the market crashed. But again, this is governmental interference in the economy, and not a free market, so don’t blame capitalism. The closest system to what the government is trying to institute is fascism – where the government tells private businesses what to do at the point of a gun. It is not freedom and will lead to further government induced speculations as the government bails out one then another business that is doing what the government wants them to do. It is a way of the government accruing power over productive individuals. This is what people ought to be against – the regulations and the forced dealing with businesses that should fail due to making wrong decisions. So, don’t blame the banks or Wall Street for the Financial Crises – the blame rests squarely on the government that forced banks to deal with uncreditworthy individuals and then bailed out the banks and Wall Street when the market crashed. The government is in the process of shifting the blame to Wall Street, with some success, but the evil was committed by the government, not the capitalists.
  25. Like
    Thomas M. Miovas Jr. got a reaction from dream_weaver in Independence Day 2011: The Moral Issue   
    I've posted a new Independence Day essay on my website that I am reproducing here. http://www.appliedphilosophyonline.com/independence_day_special_2011.htm



    Independence Day Special 2011

    Freedom : The Moral Issue

    By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

    07/02/2011



    There has been a lot of talk on the internet that the GOP (The Republican Party) is going to have to decide if they are going to follow Jesus or Ayn Rand when it comes to their admiration for either in the light of trying to uphold capitalism or freedom. I do agree that the choice is rather stark, as the morality of Jesus contradicts the morality of Ayn Rand. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s novel about re-securing freedom in America, she outlines a new morality, one in which each individual man has the right – the moral / political right – to pursue his own interest for his own sake. The primary values are reason, purpose, and self-esteem; and the primary virtues (the actions by which one achieves one’s own values) are rationality, productiveness, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, and pride. Clearly, these are not the virtues of Christianity, which holds pride in disarray and upholds faith over reason; and as far as I can tell, Jesus never said one ought to work for a living so that one can earn one’s own keep. The Enlightenment – the resurrection of individualism and freedom during the time of the Founding Fathers of the USA -- did not have an explicit pro-freedom morality, but Ayn Rand was able to come up with one based on Aristotle’s teachings on logic.

    In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus decries men to turn the other cheek when assaulted by a brute, give one’s cloak to a thief if one’s shirt is stolen and to give to the poor until it hurts, and to practice charity as the height of virtue. Turning the other cheek is supposed to be as way of demanding to be treated as an equal, according to some Biblical scholars; that is, it was traditional at the time of Jesus to slap the left cheek of an underling or a slave, indicating subordination, and Jesus admonished those slaves and servants to turn the other cheek, their right cheek, in order to indicate a protest of being treated as less than human. However, Jesus did not admonish his followers to rise up against one’s enslavers or to fight a government that is trying to take everything away from oneself. In fact, Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, leaving little room for keeping what one has earned. I don’t see anything in the Bible that says one ought to pursue material wealth, including a high paying job, so that one can obtain and earn that which one wants out of life.

    So, clearly, the two moralities are at conflict with one another. But which one will lead to political freedom? Which one will lead to a man being free of others – from the initiation of force – to pursue his own values by his own standards? Many Republicans who admire Ayn Rand claim that Christianity will lead to freedom. That there is a fundamental respect for the individual included in Christianity – as opposed to communism, which has no respect for the individual. And while it is true that Christianity does show respect for the individual soul – as in all individuals are important and all souls can be saved -- it does not show any respect for the business hero who gets goods and services to the market at a profit. Such businessmen are not practicing charity, but rather justice – the justice of making a viable trade of value for value. Christianity, if it says anything about trade and the pursuit of profit, admonishes that it is harder for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a wealthy man to get into heaven; which means those people pursuing profits are not practicing a virtue, according to Christianity.

    I don’t think it is possible to uphold individual freedom – to live one’s own life and to pursue the American dream of earning one’s own wealth and products – based on a morality that says one ought to give it all away to the closest beggar or thief. And when Christianity had all of Europe in its power and a theocracy of Christianity was formed starting with Constantine, there was no freedom to pursue one’s own values by one’s own mind and hand – there was only the Dark Ages whereby man ceased pursuing material pursuits and focused primarily on spiritual pursuits and nearly starved to death in the process. And those who might have disagreed with this morality could be punished by the State and The Church, leading to no freedom. Freedom does mean that ability to decide fro oneself what moral code one is going to follow. It does not mean that one is free so long as one is Christian and imprisoned if one rejects Christianity. And yet, that is what Christianity led to shortly after Constantine imposed Christianity onto all of Europe by force via the Roman government. This is not freedom.

    Freedom can only come from a recognition of the sovereignty of the individual due to the fact that each individual has a mind of his own and that he ought to use it – ought to be rational, as a primary virtue. It is the needs of the independent human mind that makes freedom a moral demand – that is, the fact that one has a mind and has to use it to live one’s life is the justification of freedom; the only justification that is needed is the recognition of the fact that the human mind is individual, not collective. Ayn Rand was able to fashion a new morality based on this recognition and to restate the demand for freedom in completely secular terms. No appeal to authority – the State or God – can take away from the fact that a man is in control of his own mind and can use it to further his betterment on earth. Having a primary concern for oneself – of being an egoist instead of an altruist – of being independent instead of dependent on others – of pursuing real values on earth created by man and distributed by businessmen – only this will lead to freedom. And this is the stark choice Americans are going to have to make if they want to continue to have Independence Day celebrations for the next generations to come. Nothing less will do.

    Ayn Rand’s morality – of rational egoism – embodies all of the virtues that was only implicit in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States. So, for this Independence Day celebration, take a moment or two to think about the connection of morality to politics and how only a morality of rational self-interest can lead to prosperity and freedom for all.


×
×
  • Create New...