Vladimir Berkov

You make a good argument, yet I still have some remaining worries. You say that Rand's use of physical perfection is appropriate only in the context of a novel. This may be true, but still it is very dangerous when you combine it with the way Ayn Rand wrote fiction. She very much intended novels like Atlas Shrugged to carry a philosophic and political message, not just a literary one. As such, she must have realized that her readers would seek meaning in her books as a way to help them live their lives. Thus including things which are appropriate only to a novel, but aren't applicable or desirable in real life leads to a real risk of people misunderstanding her philosophy. It is easy to figure out some things in the novels which are literary only. For example, someone would be a fool to try to build a version of Galt's generator based on reading Atlas Shrugged. But I find it very unclear whether the physical appearance and abilities of the characters is meant to be read in the same light. You yourself stated that this sort of misunderstanding of Rand's intentions is common among readers of her work, and understand its potential hazards. When you look at characters in the books which are "morally perfect" yet not as intelligent or as able or as physically perfect as the heroes, you see that they usually end up meeting some unhappy or tragic fate. For example, a reader of Atlas Shrugged who can identify with Willers as an example of how a morally perfect individual might look in his own life experience, is not likely to be inspired by Eddie's fate at the end of Atlas Shrugged. The same could be said for Kira's fate at the end of We The Living. In short, the message you state that Rand was really trying to make is not at all clear simply by reading her novels and in fact there is much in the novels which tends to create an appearance of an opposite intention.

I haven't read the case in full yet, but from what I can figure out this case is a "landmark" more in its political implications rather than its legal ones. The case seems solidly built on Jackson's 3-part test which has existed ever since his opinion in Youngstown in 1952.

It is just a bad idea overall, for several reasons. 1.) Natural resources. A new country needs them if it is going to be a viable alternative to current ones. The problem is that current countries aren't going to give up land with precious resources to people trying to form a Gulch. 2.) Inertia. It is hard to get people to move, even to please with more personal freedom. Note the numbers of Objectivists who live in places like New York City. It is hard to convince people to move somewhere with more personal freedom but with no symphony orchestra, Whole Foods or Mercedes-Benz dealership. 3.) Defense. Making a new country in a third-world region like Afrika is just asking for trouble. Even the most powerful African nations are relatively weak, but would still be incredibly powerful relative to a new Objectivist nation. The Charles Taylors of the world would think nothing of invading the Gulch if they can get away with it, and they can.

The difference is that Rand had the explicit purpose of creating a fictional representation of man as he "ought" to be, the essence of romantic fiction. I think it is clear from the novels what Rand thought man ought to look like. And while there are certainly some incidental features (like Roark's red hair) others are surprisingly consistant across different characters and novels. As I said, look at the physical descriptions of the different characters across the different novels. The male heroes are virtual clones, so are most of the heroines. The antagonists are more differentiated, but in a way which makes it clear that Rand was obviously using their physical appearance to denote something negative about their character or morality. I could easily provide citations but I am away from home with no access to my books. Again, this is not the issue. I agree that Rand believed that physical appearance, strength, intellect, or ability did not prevent a person from being perfectly moral. However, morality is only one aspect of being an ideal man, a man as he "ought" to be. For example, one might think that Steven Hawking has a perfectly developed intellect, morality, and other mental faculties. However, would you really say that a Steven Hawking is man as he "ought" to be? Is complete paralysis and life in a wheelchair the physical state proper to man? Physical perfection and moral perfection are two separate and distinct elements to being a man. The ideal man should have both, although since physical perfection is largely unchosen being ugly or beautiful says nothing about a person's moral standing. Still, I believe that Rand's choice of clearly using physical characteristics to help define her fictional characters shows that she felt that physical appearance and ability is an important attribute of being a man as he "ought" to be.

Not a Platonic "form-like" ideal, but her personal ideal man. As I said above, I am not talking about a dogma. I am merely talking about the acceptance of some sort of personal ideal. This is essentially saying that physical appearance is important. If it were not important, why would Rand make such an obvious effort to use it in creating her characters? Her characters didn't need to work towards achieving an ideal of physical perfection because they were created already having achieved that state. Here I am not talking about dressing well but simply the physical body. From all the evidence I have seen at least within her published writings is that the only focus she gave to the subject was from a purely literary standpoint. Which is why I think Rand's use of physical characteristics to exemplify the morality of her characters is so dangerous. People will think that if they can't look like Galt, they will never be as good as Galt, for instance. While Rand would certainly emphasize that the moral nature of a person is most important, her association of moral characteristics with physical ones tends to dillute and confuse that emphasis. For example, look at the physical changes in Peter Keating vs. those in Roark in the Fountainhead. Rand was obviously using their physical appearance to illustrate their moral and psychological state. Similarly, Rand uses physical motion and ability to illustrate the supreme skill of her heroes.

I am not saying that Ayn Rand thought a perfect physique was a requirement to being a moral man. I am simply saying that Ayn Rand thought a perfect physique was a requirement to being an ideal man. I don't think Rand would have considered an ugly yet moral man to be ideal, same with a handsome yet evil man. And it is the fact that she thought such an ideal existed that is most important. People may disagree over the precise nature of the ideal, but most seem to think an ideal of some sort exists. (See the gender representation thread) If there is an ideal of physical perfection, and physical perfection is part of being an ideal person, then it becomes the duty of all who wish to strive towards being an ideal person to try to work towards their ideal of physical perfection just as they would their ideal of moral perfection. This is in fact, the crucial abstraction from Rand's writing, rather than the actual characteristics of her heroes or heroines. A person seeking to improve himself to an ideal of humanity doesn't (and shouldn't) have to make himself look like Howard Roark or be an architect. but they do have to work towards meeting their personal standard of physical perfection, as well as their personal standard of moral perfection, even if in their case in means being a blonde-haired doctor, rather than a red-headed architect.

That is like saying that intelligence would not be ideal for a dumb man. Ayn Rand obviously intended to use physical characteristics to denote moral characteristics as well in her books. Thus the physical appearance of her heroes has meaning beyond her personal taste.

Well, based on Rand's novels, for men it is tall, thin, supple yet strong, with usually an angular face.

They are not feminine because they are in fact, mens clothing which has migrated to womens clothing. This is partly due to cultural context. Look at the symbols for "mens restroom" and "womens restroom." Which symbol is wearing pants and which one a dress? For that matter, consider the question "Who wears the pants in the family?" The masculinity of pants is likely the reason why Rand chose to outfit Dagny in them, to illustrate Dagny's pursuit of traditionally masculine career and goals.

It really boils down to the differences in clothing between men and women, and carrying those differences to their logical conclusions in finding an ideal representation of it. Mens clothing emphasizes masculine physical attributes, especially the shoulders and chest. It is traditionally less restrictive and more practical than womens clothing, reflecting the traditional role of men as "men of action" who are responsible for things which involve physical activity, etc. The ultimate masculine clothing is of course the military uniform. Epaulettes draw attention to the shoulders, while belts emphasize the narrow waist and add to the illusion of a broad chest. Not to mention the fact that military activities are innately masculine in nature. Riding clothes, hunting outfits, safari gear and such are masculine for similar reasons. Womens clothing emphaizes feminine attributes, such as the the bust, hips and waist. Since strenuous labor isn't very feminine, womens clothing need not be greatly utilitarian to be attractive on a woman. Womens clothing can be flowing and extravagent, or skimpy and impractical and yet still be feminine. Ideally, womens clothing also reflects feminine movement, such as the swish of a skirt while walking, etc. The fact that most modern women wear mens clothing I find rather un-feminine however. Even Ayn Rand had some sort of fascination with women in pants, perhaps because she prefered them. Neverless, pants, even those designed for women are virtually never feminine.

But the clothes are a physical aspect, in addition to a mental one. I don't think nakedness is a bad thing, but I also don't think it is the ideal representation of a human. Neither. The fact that a woman is wearing clothing is not inherently appealing or ideal. Nor is the fact that the clothing shows only a small amount of skin. What I find fascinating is the combination of the body plus the clothes, plus the mind/attitude of the subject, plus the skill of the artist. It is not about obsuring the form, but focusing the attention of the viewer on what the artist, and the subject find most important. For instance, look closely at the painting. Notice how the background and the clothes are dark and don't draw attention to themselves. Instead, the contrast with the woman's face draws your eye immediately to it, highlighting her expression, particularly the eyes and smile. Similarly, the long white glove focuses the eye on her hand and the very elegant and particular way she holds the leash on her dog. The delicate hand being used to control the dog says a lot, I believe. It is not accidental. None of these insights would be communicated to the viewer were the woman nude. Too, often the hint or suggestion of nakedness or the human form can be much more erotic and sensual than the actual bare nakedness itself. The woman in the painting is the Marchesa Luisa Casati, a google search about whom would not be a waste of time.

Don't Ayn Rands fiction works provide some insight into this? Look at the physical appearance of characters like Galt, Roark, Dagny, Francisco, Rearden. Then look at Toohey, James Taggart, etc. It would seem that part of being an ideal human is having an ideal body. This would seem to impose an obligation on those who strive towards the ideal to take all possible steps towards achieving that ideal, whether it be diet, exercise, stomach-stapling surgery, hair-transplants, face-lifts, tanning beds, whatever.

Assuming that my family is taken care of, I would try to search out for opportunities where my wealth would yeild the greatest long term results to shape the world. For instance, establish a political thinktank to help influence politicalians and spread the idea of individual liberty in American polical thought. This would also extend to investment in long-long-term technologies and industries which need start-up capital. This could be anything from nano-technology andmedical research to space exploration. In some ways the whole question is rather pointless, as if I am at advanced age I will never see the results of my efforts. However perhaps knowing they will have results after I am gone will have to do.

There is a difference between mental strength and physical strength. I doubt Rand saw a weak-minded woman as the ideal of femininity, but I also doubt she would see a female body-builder as the idea either. Men are by nature, physically stronger and tougher than women. And mentally they are more predisposed towards weapons, warfare, violance, and combat. Thus a woman being physically strong and weilding a weapon, while not being necessarily a bad thing, is not feminine as such.

The most disturbing trend I can think of is somewhat related. Namely, the confluence of entertainment and news. This is partly due to the invention of the "celebrity" and partly due to the ubiquity of information today. I do agree though that those types of pseudo-science shows on normally quite scholarly channels is annoying. I actually don't mind the shows analyzing historical legends or claimed paranormal events, that is legitimate historical research. Shows like Psychic detectives are pure garbage, as are shows stupidly tied into movies like The Da Vinci Code or Superman.

As I said above, environmental regulation is needed where people DON'T have a legal remedy in court. Consider this hypothetical. Assume that the global warming theory is true. Greenhouse gas emissions by people and corporations all over the world have contributed to global warming to an extent that sea level has risen by 100 feet, completely covering your beachfront house and property with water. Who do you seek redress from in a court of law? No individual entity is even remotely close to legally responsible for the injury to your property. Even aggregation of your claims is unliklely to be useful because many of the parties are in other countries, often countries which couldn't care less about following US legal judgments. Private property rights are the best way to protect resources, but government action is needed to protect resources which by their nature cannot be owned as private property. Who can own the atmosphere? Who can own the ozone layer? Who can own the ocean?

Some environmental regulation is certainly needed, the problem is that environmentalists usually have the worst ideas on how to regulate society to achieve this needed result. And then you have the extremist environmentalists to think industrial human society is not a good result to begin with. The "direct harm" principle works for some limited environmental harms (such as a factory dumping pollutants into a river which you use for irrigation, for example) but doesn't work for larger problems. For example, if millions of car owners using cars pollutes the air so that you have trouble breathing, who do you take action against? You can't sue one individual car owner, you can't sue all the car owners. The problem is too diffuse. Government should only step in to protect the environment where there is a harm or risk to human life which private action is unable to eliminate or remedy due to a situation as I described above. And once it is decided that action is needed, there are good ways and bad ways to remedy the situation. Things like blanket bans on activities are a bad idea. But the selling of "licenses" to pollute on the open market, such that the costs of pollution are shifted to those most willing to bear them, is likely the best method of environmental control at the government level.

Masculine -Composed -Self-possessed Feminine -Graceful -Refined Romantic -Intertwined -Purposeful I think the fact that all three pieces show clothed figures is important. To me, a naked figure is not exactly a complete human being. The plain, unadorned body is mans animal element, which requires no thought and about which a man or woman has little control. Clothes and other adornments are where the physicality of the body meets the mental capacity which only man possesses. The same is true to some extent of a person's speech and posture. Thus when I look at a naked figure in artwork I see no insight into its humanity. It is simply a body disconnected from the mental effort of the mind.

The "desert island" idea I think is far too simplistic. For example, can a salesman live alone on a desert island because of his productive capacity? Can an entertainer? Can a lawyer? Just like thieves, the productive jobs I just mentioned all require people, goods or society to exist before they are of any use to anybody, including the person possessing the skills. If a salesman is stuck alone on a desert island, he isn't going to try to survive based on selling nothing to nobody. He will simply use reason, other skills, physical effort, etc. to try to survive. There is no reason to think that a thief cannot do this. A thief, stranded on a desert island is not going to say "Oh no! Life is unknowable and since I cannot steal from anybody, I have no idea what to do! Reason has forsaken me and I shall sit on the beach until I die of hunger!" The only reason such a conflict seems to exists is because you have defined the principles too broadly. Being a thief doesn't mean that you hold all production is unprincipled and immoral. It is not a contradiction to apply one standard to yourself and another to other people. Because you are including only the cost into your calculation and neglecting to include the benefit. Stealing may degrade the situations of many individuals (including yourself), as the monetary costs of the theft are spread over a wide number of people. But in a society of any size, these costs will be so small as to be virtually unmeasurable. Whereas the benefit of the theft accrues entirely to you. As I said above in my Best Buy example. If you steal $100,000, your situation is not worsened to the amount of $100,000 due to the cost of the theft on society. It will be reduced a fraction of a cent, if that, leaving you the net benefit of $99,999.9999

I still don't understand how theft puts one in an "adversarial relationship with reality." An explanation of how a given activity is related to the fundemental principles of some ethical system. Since we are talking about Objectivism, I am looking for an explanation of how theft is against one's self-interest in some way beyond its obvious material risks.

Um, ok. So you seriously think it is OK for a 5-year-old to buy firearms, packs of cigarettes and bottles of booze? Or engage in sexual intercourse with a 40-year-old? Or drive a car? Or vote? Or enter into a binding legal contract? Or serve in the military?

This is why I am so interested in finding a good moral argument against stealing which is based on self-interest instead of collectivism. I would say that it is more a question of whether Objectivist ethics can actually answer the question, or if further development of the ethics is required to make a satisfactory answer. Ayn Rand's ethics were certainly never intended to be complete, static and unable to be improved upon or expanded as new thinkers or knowledge comes forth.

I don't dispute that theft in a general sense harms all those with property. My point is that the marginal cost of one additional thief on each individual is so small as to be virtually unmeasurable. The benefits one individual thief may gain from theft will greatly outweigh the costs of his actions which actually affect him. See my Best Buy example above. I agree, but I am not sure how this is applicable here. The problem with the decision whether or not to steal isn't a choice between principle and no principle, but rather between competing principles. A thief can live by principle just the same as any other person, the only difference is that their fundemental goals, assumptions and methods will differ. I can easily put forward an internally consistant principle which a thief could use to live his life. Yes, but this is simply another "practical" argument which also applies to every other profession. There is no career choice with guaranteed success. Life is full of risks, random and chance hazards, etc. For example, a construction worker may get smashed flat by an accidentally falling beam, a stock broker may get cleaned out after the market shifts unexpectedly, etc. The fact that theft is risky doesn't really bear on its morality. Again, this is a practical not a moral argument. Lying is dangerous because it is often difficult for people to keep up the charade. But there are all sorts of situations in which lying or deceit seems perfectly moral. For example, an undercover cop posing as a 10-year-old girl on the internet trying to catch child molesters. Or a spy in an enemy country trying to get information to help his nation defend itself. Such activities are fraught with hazards, but that hardly makes them immoral.

Again, this line of argument seems to assume a false alternative, with the two choices being: 1.) Stealing is immoral, stealing is illegal, you don't steal, others can't steal. 2.) Stealing is moral, stealing is legal, you can steal, others can steal. The situation where the ethical issue comes up is actually: 3.) Stealing is amoral, stealing is illegal, you can steal, others CAN'T steal. Essentially, society exists as it does today with laws against theft. The only difference is that you break the law and are able to steal from others, while the others are prevented by law from stealing from you. No rational thief would ever advocate laws against theft being removed because it would result in anarchy and the breakdown of society. There would be no point in stealing because ownership of property, whether stolen or not, would be impossible. A thief benefits when generally applicable laws prevent most people from stealing, but due to his cunning, skill or information, he has the ability to steal from others without getting caught by the law. Thus he in effect, benefits from the very law which he himself breaks. The ethical question is then whether or not such behavior is immoral and if so, why?