John McVey

That was in what I had already stated. I think that in this case the move from parts being entirely determined by laws and their specific energy states to whole bodies made thereof being similarly determined holds. I don't see why the human brain should be exempted from it when other complex systems aren't. As I said, I take a dim view of the throwing of "fallacy of composition" against it. Says who? As has been repeatedly noted by Objectivists in this topic, Dr Peikoff has long pointed out that there is no law that says all causes have to be billiard-ball-like. The only requirement is that it be causal, whatever it may be. Volition in a world run exclusively by billiard-ball causation is a contradiction. JJM

In this topic, don't use reference to the fallacy of composition EVER. The only need for the defence of volition is to point out that that it is directly observable. Reference to contradiction etc, while nice bells and whistles, are secondary to that. The mere fact that someone opposed to a this-worldly volition can create some enormous intellectual edifice and place very high values thereupon still doesn't mean that it can't be brought down by a simple light flick. The aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is bollocks; it simply isn't necessary to get into the kind of quantity of verbiage that opponents use. The moment you start introducing logic and fallacies and making a big deal out of it by responding with similar quantities of words, you're both granting them sanction for creating that verbiage in the first place and also putting yourself on the path to rationalism. However, in a big presentation where you've got marks to gain in class you're going to have to say SOMETHING that has an acceptable amount of intellectual material in it. That's easy, really. Once you've done the assertion of the existence of free will, go on to note the fact that the question "how can volition arise when the fundamental constituents of everything are determined?" is also secondary to that simple defence. The mere raising of it is in no way whatsoever a valid means of casting doubt upon the existence of volition. In a debate or presentation you will also need to identify that fact. THAT volition exists is fact. HOW volition exists is as perplexing as all hell - but this does not in any way shape or form detract from the THAT. As to that question, the only valid further details one can add (and get class marks for) is something like this: The fact is that every atom within the body is, ostensibly, moving about in a determined manner. Many phycists reckon there's a fundamental indeterminism at work at a level deeper than that, but by the time one gets to blobs of atoms on up the variations smooth out to leave behind a net determinism, one that can be calculated and predicted with extreme precision (what this suggests about the indeterminism is a separate topic). Yet volition does exist. Its existence is therefore necessarily saying that there is something directing the motion of atoms within human brains other than the currently-known forces of nature and the prior energy states of those atoms. The mystics-of-spirit claim this something else to be supernatural, but we may perfectly legitimately rule that out automatically as an explanation. So, the real bottom line is, we do not as yet have a sodding clue why free will exists nor do we know how to connect it with what we currently know of the forces of nature. I've long held the idea that volition today is in the same position that gravity was in at the time of Newton, something that was also considered supernatural. There were those who rejected it because they rejected the supernatural, and there were those who accepted it again because they accepted the supernatural. Likewise with volition, where pretty much nobody but ourselves thinks volition can be something entirely this-worldly and doesn't need a supernatural explanation. *** I have never liked the reliance upon the Fallacy of Composition for the defence of volition. I don't use the FOC because it falls utterly flat. Even someone without specialised knowledge of how to apply the fallacy properly can know very well that something is amiss with its usage here. The reason is that the motion of objects far larger and more complex than the human brain are completely determined, because the constituent particles of them are determined. Consider, for example, weather patterns in Jupiter, or the formation of all the galaxies for that matter. The attempt to exempt the human brain from this principle is an instance of the fallacy of special pleading, which any skilled opponent of volition is likely to point out. I strongly suspect that the raising of the FoC in relation to human brains by many defenders of worldly-volition is merely the throwing up of a fog, not out of any straightforward intent to point out fallacy (though of course many people are indeed motivated by that, as mistaken as they are in doing so), but because the fog-thrower is afraid of the polemic consequences of confessing ignorance. Given that we're facing energised opponents both on the anti-volition side (the mystics of muscle) and the pro-volition side (the mystics of spirit), I can understand the motivation for not wanting to appear weak, but that is still no excuse. So, I nevertheless say this: STOP IT - have the courage to say the three words "I. Don't. Know." Admit your ignorance, and stand your ground on the simple fact THAT it exists, and that direct observation is the only thing any honest man needs to validate its existence. Tell your interlocutor of the separation of those two issues, ie demonstrate that ignorance of the HOW does not interfere with the certainty in the THAT, then make your judgement of your him if he persists in conflating the two. After that, it's best just to leave the details of the how to the physicists and neurologists et al because you've got buckley's chance of figuring it out. JJM

Didn't Pat Robertson already try to pull this kind of stunt 8 years ago? Didn't he say that it was the fault of gays, people who have pre-marital sex, abortions, and so on, that made God kill 3000 people by smashing planes into the Twin Towers? JJM

There are a couple of threads on this. The main one comes from a post that the newly-minted Dr Hsieh started via her blog after listening to one of Dr Peikoff's podcasts that had material on the subject. JJM

They're coasting on their audience's presumed acceptance of a certain moral code. If the audience members accept that code then they will swallow the writer's words without question, whereas they'd be beligerent to someone asserting the opposite of those words. This is an example of how people's beliefs on ethics controls what they will accept as true or false in politics without bothering to question. JJM

Don't diss the lights, man. JJM

You're welcome. I do apologise again for being so curt the first time around. The piece does need some minor editing, and were I to write something larger I'd include reference to yet more material about concretes as having different values to people in different cultures. For instance, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans are avid rugby players, while that sport is largely alien to Americans - and there's nothing wrong with that, either. JJM

After reading that I had more thoughts about whyNot’s original post. There is more to a culture than generalised beliefs and methods. A culture implies shared values and history at the concrete level. That does not hold in reality, and nor is it any part of Objectivism that it should be made to. Certainly, Objectivism supplies admirable ethical principles to which all men of all nations should aspire, but the concretes are up to each of us - and those concretes can and should be chosen by what is of particular importance to our own concrete existences. The result will be differences in culture that reflect differences in history and experiences. Two different groups, composed entirely of Objectivists, can quite legitimately end up having two markedly different cultures even though they do indeed share some commonalities and will likely be very strong allies. Consider Australia and New Zealand, for example. The lands were discovered (by the English at least) by the same Captain on the same ship on the same voyage, which in the founding days of the modern states were initially populated (on the backdrop of small numbers of previous and different inhabitants) by people at the same time and from the same location, and who did the same sorts of things when they were free men. We almost were one country - even today, the provisions allowing New Zealand to join as a state within the Australian Federation are still there in the Australian Consitution. Yet we are two different nations with two different cultures. We may share the same parentage, but we are brothers with different personalities and different takes on things. We're always up for a game of cricket together and happily trade well-crafted playful insults with each other in a manner we'd never tolerate from anyone else, but we also have our real disagreements and will separately think for ourselves. When push comes to shove we'll always have each other's backs - and on that note we do have one highly-prized cultural value in common: 25th of April, ANZAC Day - but our respective celebrations of our existences are separate affairs. The 26th of January, Australia Day, has major cultural significance for Australians but little for New Zealanders. Similarly, the 6th of February, Waitangi Day, has major cultural significance for New Zealanders but little for Australians. Despite practically identical origins, the difference has arisen from different experiences, different values, different thoughts and different conclusions, as have grown since that time. Being separated by over 1000 miles and having different problems to face, especially when growing up in a time before modern high-speed travel, tends to do that. Leaving Australia and New Zealand, I am reminded of the anger that Dr Locke expressed after watching the movie "Independence Day." He was furious that there was an express statement of the rejection of Fourth of July as an American holiday and its conversion into a world one. "It is OURS" he exclaimed, and he was right to do so. Even if all the nations of the world were populated by Objectivists, the Fourth of July will aways be an American holiday. In a fully Objectivist world the rest of us will still recognise that day as such, despite us all being Objectivists. We, the non-Americans, will assuredly be glad of what came after a small firefight in rural Massachussets and why, but while we share the ideas and ideals in the why we will never feel it quite the same way about the concretes that made it a reality as an American does. It's an American holiday, celebrating Americans' achievements. The decent among us in the rest of the world heartily congratulate you for that, but we do so from a respectful distance. Independence Day is a part of American culture and nobody else's. There's even more to culture than just the history. Culture is really the personal, writ large. Just as different Objectivists have different senses of life, and that this is perfectly consistent with Objectivism, so too will this hold for nations and cultures. The concretes of a local culture will see the inhabitants raised in it tend to adopt variants of the sense of life inherent in that culture. For instance, Australians are predominantly laconic while Americans are more sanguine. There's nothing wrong with that difference, and nothing that Objectivism has to say about it other than that the sense of life does exist and is different among men without this automatically being a detriment to their moral characters. Different countries will have different problems, different histories, different ideas, different achievements, and as a result different cultures and values – and the world will always be an interesting place with new things to see as a result of that. So, to answer Tony’s original question, we can have shared gratitude for the achievements of various people the world over (I don’t need to be American, Russian, female, or whatnot, to be thankful for and willing to celebrate the efforts of Miss Rand), but the depth of feeling as applied to legitimately different historical importances can and will be different without this being a contradiction to the principles of Objectivism. Similarly, we can and should have the same principles upheld as moral ideals, but the applications have to be tailored to our own circumstances. To suggest that all members of the same one type of being sharing the same one type of consciousness and following the same one moral code should have the same one culture is pure rationalism - and Objectivism rejects that. The global Renaissance that will arise when Objectivism controls all the world’s cultures wont be the birth of a single way of life. Instead, the glorious future we will see is what will result when all the myriad peoples of the world pick out those parts of their own heritages as they judge good and then use Objectivism to polish and make shine brightly, each in its own unique way. JJM

If I hadn't been told it was a PC then judging by the pictures alone I would have thought it was just a piece of analytical equipment for a laboratory, such as something like this. Btw, there is a full profession in its own right for this stuff - Industrial Design. There's plenty of scope for those taking inspiration from Howard Roark to shine in this profession. JJM

That much I agree with in principle... ... but this I don't. What the difference should be is that the payers get to vote, the non-payers don't, and that's it. I think those who don't contribute money have no right to a say in how to spend the money that is contributed. The non-payers would still get full protection of their rights, including the right to have their grievances against executive authorities investigated by the legislative representatives of what constituency they're in. The proper way of "enforcing" it would not be via government, but by individuals being free to discriminate against those who choose not to pay up. Having it as a private matter means that individuals would make their own judgements of why others don't pay, and then make an objective decision accordingly - it would be rational to give free-riders the flick, for instance, while not being unfairly rude to those who are genuinely cash-strapped. Thus government itself would not have to be in the business of judging people's motives and would only concern itself with individuals in this regard in terms of eligibility to enter the election booths. What you're referring to is known in many countries as a "poll tax." If the sole difference were one of voting then I disagree with calling it a 'tax' at all. If access to government services were on the line, then it is not only a tax for real but also a rather pernicious one since that in principle is denying justice to the poor for being the poor. JJM

Open borders doesn't mean unguarded borders. So, yes, an applicant first submits an application. Open borders means the application will be automatically accepted unless there is specific reason not to, and the only two valid reasons for that are communicable disease and credible threat of actual rights-violating activity (again, merely having nasty ideas doesn't count). If there is no just reason to exclude someone then that someone has the right to enter the country, not merely a legal entitlement but the full moral deal on the same basis as all other rights. When the individual actually shows up, the passage through actual immigration-control will simply be that the clerk on duty makes sure that this application has been accepted. No quotas, no points system, no special treatment for this or that group - the gates are kept open unless there's good reason to close them. It would be similar to the rules of evidence for any legal matter - note the integration of shall-admit-unless in immigration with presume-innocence in courts. My judgement of politicians' qualifications to formulate such rules would form a part of whom I'd choose to vote for, in the same way as I judge their qualifications to formulate the same for domestic use. As I said, the detail of that forms part of the philosophy of law, in which I am no specialist. No, the reference to people coming in "armed" with "harmful" ideology was yours, not mine. Hell, over on Craig's TOS article (thanks 2046), in point 2 of his plan I'd rule a line through the "enemies of America" bit. If there's no credible threat of actual rights violation (which would include things like incitement to riot and the like) then even someone with a very disgusting ideology and who openly hates freedom wouldn't be turned away. It so happens that someone that extreme would be very likely also to present a credible threat of rights violation, but it is that threat rather than their ideas that would keep them out if they are prevented from entering. (You raised the KGB guys, not me) All applicants would be presumed innocent and have their right to enter recognised unless there's reason to think they've done something to forfeit that right. The reason that a KGB agent would not be admitted is that the KGB was inherently a rights-violating organisation and its members the enactors of the decisions made by thug-rulers, which means having forfeited many of their rights. Anyone overseas who presumes the prerogatives of government. A religious leader would not be a foreign power unless that role is associated with a nominally political one or is an actual theocrat. The point of calling a foreign power such is that not all those who assume those prerogatives are valid governments - a classic thugocracy or theocracy, for instance, are not a government even though they act as though they are. That would depend on the physical circumstances and what is the most convenient method of interception. If they're trying to bypass immigration-control by sea then the Navy or Coast Guard will probably be tasked to intercept them prior to arrival. If by air, the Air Force, though it need not be in the first instance. Along land borders it would probably be a specialised law-enforcement body of some kind that patrols and intercepts. If thev're already successfully snuck in the nation then probably Federal Police or similar will be the first organisation tasked to find them. The Army (or National Guard) wouldn't get involved unless martial law or state of emergency had to be declared, and even then there'd be issues of who has authority and under what circumstances. Don't forget that the easiest way physically to enter the country is predominantly through regular channels - highways, airports and seaports, for instance - so avoiding them and immigration control would be suspicious in its own right in the context of the country being free and one that recognises the right of entry of rights-abiding people. If in that context someone still enters without passing through immigration and is caught, the proper course of action as I see it would simply to conduct a check same as had they done a proper application (though more thoroughly, for obvious reasons), decide yay or nay on the same grounds as per regular applicants, then make the immigrant do a simple penance of some kind for being a PITA before release with a "Btw, welcome to our country." For foreign agents, credible threat that they're seeking to violate rights in some way, such as by espionage or sabotage or murder. That's what bars KGB agents but not say MI6 agents without good reason. JJM

Morally, whatever you can legally do to minimise your burden is fair game, so long as you aren't avocating for furtherance or expansion of the system thereby. Legally, go speak to a business lawyer. There are different types of corporation that you can set up, and may be allowed to set up, depending on how they are to be organised and what you're going to do with them. Also, the tax laws themselves may override any interposition of corporate vehicles intended to effect a change in which tax provisions apply. As well as opening yourself up for possible prosecution, you may find that you'd be just wasting your time and money because the tax authorities might tax you as an individual anyway while you still have to pass through the regulatory hoops required under corporations law. Speak to your lawyer about it, but don't get your hopes up. Unless you're earning bucketloads my guess is that you're just as well off not making too much of an effort besides ordinary tax planning practices. Ask your lawyer to tell you when other things may be viable - and be sure to choose your lawyer wisely. JJM

Geez, all this sniping and active chatting and whatnot about things that had nothing to do with the original topic, and generally bouncing off the walls. You guys have been drinking way too much coffee. JJM

You're implying there is a linear scale where none exists. Immigration is strictly an individual affair - it is individuals who pass through immigration application channels, not military units. That the individuals may be part of secret units and lying their way through is beside the point. The only 'test' for immigration (besides candidates not harbouring communicable diseases) is whether that individual shows sufficient evidence of a propensity to actually violate rights. What someone things and why someone would violate residents' and citizens' rights is, again, beside the point. How much checking that immigration officials would do would be context dependent, warranted only by available evidence. Anyone who isn't a vector or a violator can get in if they want, there is no ideology test warranted for immigration (citizenship is another matter), even if we could objectively say that their ideology is disgusting. The idea of "ideological" invasion is only an issue for the reasons I already stated - it is becoming illegal to question too deeply. Either someone is going to violate rights, or they aren't. If they aren't, then they'd get waved in even if to pound the pavements advocating communism. We'd turn away known KGB agents not because "they're stinkin' commies" but because as active agents of a foreign power they'd be under orders to actually violate rights in various ways. Why they'd obey those orders is not the issue. Note: "ideological invasion" also sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for plain xenophobia. Whatever reality it might have in that sense, such as allegations of Palestinians' "battling with their wombs", is already dealt with in what I said before. If the individual successful immigrant does turn out to be a rights violator, then the government takes whatever steps it deems necessary. That much would hold irrespective of whether the individual is a mere criminal or acting as a foreign agent. The military defence aspect of the government would only get involved if the individual was acting at the behest of a foreign power, in which case that power's assisting the individual to lie his way through immigration and then to violate residents' rights was an act of war, and so the fight should be taken to that power. The immigration department has nothing whatever to do with that aspect, so again it is not a neat linear scale. There's only "overlap" because one department's processes were subverted, not that there was a fuzzy border between responsibilities as you are implying. If a large enough number of foreign agents individually lie their way through immigration and intend to form up before doing anything, what then? They can form a quaint organisation perhaps, but nothing more substantial than that without either raising suspicions well before they're in a position to do much - or get their kit via secret landings. If they do the latter then turns it purely into a military invasion, and again not an immigration issue. In the meantime, intelligence services will probably have already heard of it from their own sources overseas - and if there is no warning of this, which means that the foreign power went well out of its way to pull it off, how on earth is this a failure of immigration processes? More detail than that isn't a high-theory philosophical issue, and is more to do with concrete applications of philosophy of law. There is no Objectivist position down at that level, only that there may be positions at that level held by people well-influenced by Objectivism. The gulch was private property, not a jurisdictional boundary. The defence of Galt's Gulch is no different from any landowner putting up fences. It had nothing to do with immigration. JJM

I am told by my father that the best one to get if in particular you're interesting in knowing what the blazes Ye Olde School Fundamentalists are on about, especially for understanding Calvinist politics and its influence on the US, the best one to get is a variant of the Geneva Bible (or a Tyndale, of which 80% is in the Geneva). As he tells it, the KJV is a pro-monarchy interpretation used to justify the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and the justness of interceding authorities between an individual man and God, whereas the Geneva Bible is republican (no-King-but-Jesus type) and stresses the direct relationship of the individual man to God. I don't know how much truth there is to that. JJM

That there are a minority of people who believe X rather than Y, or that the education system isn't teaching properly? Note, btw, that "post-graduate" can mean in any field. Grad-school education in finance or economics will impart nothing about evolutionary theory, for instance, so why get so worked up that "only" 74% of people with post-grad degrees think evolution is true? I am actually pleased that the % is that high. What's also pleasing is that rejection of evolution also tends to be related to age. Less than half of people 35+ accept it (and, on average, only 26-27% actively reject it), while 55% of people 18-34 do accept it (and only 18% reject it). I like that result, though obviously it could be much better. The authors may be dismayed by the implications of the research, but I am not. It's surely not perfect, but also surely not grounds for saying that the sky is falling just from those results alone. JJM

Obviously I haven't been watching good ones at work. And there I was, thinking that these shops, after spending thouands buying these machines and selling expensive coffee, would at least teach their staff how to use the things properly. Grames: thanks for the links! I wasn't expecting the defoaming effect because all the defoamers I was familiar with were oils and silicones. JJM

Nah, she's apples. We don't hate people just for advocating some pretty heinous ideas - indeed, to a considerable extent they are also the victims of those ideas. Many aren't blameless, but even so, hate is waaaaaay not the right response in most cases. JJM

That I didn't know. I've watched baristas, and it's always milk-into-the-coffee. I knew that people used to put the milk in their cups before pouring tea in, but I was under the impression that this was defence against thermal stress in the porcelain and not needed to be done any more because of teacups being made of stronger materials today. I'll have to try putting the milk in first and see what the difference is. Thank you for the tip. JJM

We don't use imperial fluid measures any more in Australia. I was just making a note on conversion for the benefit of those who do. JJM

I think NCD thinks all Objectivists are required to hate Catholics (and religious folk in general) as a doctrinal necessity. He needs to be disabused of that notion. JJM

Martin Lindeskog is still about the place somewhere. Ask him. JJM

"Nnnnnnnasty, eh?" Milk has already got calcium ions in it, what's wrong with tossing in some aluminium and magnesium ions too? Hell, magne... *deletes big-ass nerdy exposition on magnesium in foodstuffs* Thinking back, actually, I reckon 5ml might be too much. The actual measure I used was "half a cap." Adjust the antacid volume as you wish. Also, I don't know what adjustments would have to be made if one were to use skim milk instead of full-cream, or used some "non-dairy creamer". Finally, readers, be sure to read the medicinal warnings on the back of the antacid container to see if anything there applies to you. Evidently this includes not taking antacid within 2 hours of any medication, so that probably means don't use coffee/antacid to wash down your meds. JJM

While looking in my fridge door for one inhabitant thereof to place in my latte my eyes fell upon another inhabitant thereof, and it got me thinking. I had a hunch, so I then proceeded to use both to make a latte to see how it worked out. Two interesting results came out of this. One inhabitant: the milk, natch. Other inhabitant: double-strength minty-flavoured liquid antacid! The first curious result was that it seemed to kill off the unwanted foam generated by the espresso machine. That meant less crud sticking to the side of my mug. The second result, and the one I was thinking about, is that it does indeed reduce the acid content of the coffee without harming the flavour. Wikkid! McVey's recipe for a nice smooth latte: - Put one standard espresso in a regular mug (300ml, or about 10floz?). - Add 5 mls of double-strength antacid, and stir. - Fill mug to top with full-cream milk. - Nuke in microwave to get nice and hot. - Sweeten to taste, and stir again. Tada! I did a little googling to see if this was not a new discovery. A cursory search came up with nobody advocating it for regular drinkers, though I did run across some medical research that suggested that it was a beneficial practice for people with stomach ulcers. Go on, give it a whirl! JJM

G'day! Yep - 'twas atheism, engineering and a general pro-business attitude in me for years before I discovered Objectivism. JJM