knast

Rand also says in that book that it would be proper to deal with the same subject over and over again, if you want to, only that you should not have the same concretes. That is to say: as long as you write middle-range articles, the new thing does not need to be a new principle. That would be a theoretical article. It is enough that it is a new concrete. So you could write a thousand articles in which you defend capitalism, but you do it by dealing with different things or aspects of the subject. I.e., by applying the same ideas to evaluate different concretes. For instance, even though there is in essence nothing new with the Obama administration and all the bad things it is proposing to do to "fix" the economy. It is essentially the same Keynesianism that every administration have applied for decades. But still it is totally legitimate to critize the particular policies of this administration, even though much of the same criticism in terms of principles have already been made, in thousands and thousands of articles before you. The only things that have varied, are the concretes. See pp. 15-16, at the sentance that starts with: "On a related point, some people think an article, to be new, must do more than 'simply' apply some basic principles to a new situation." EDIT: Sorry, I did not read carefully what you wrote and then, unfortunately, jumped the gun. I see now that you also pointed out the same thing I said. Concerning Miss Rand's point, I think that she is right. Why? Because there is no reason for you just to repeat exactly the same thing over and over again. Her own explicit reason for this is that it is "finger exercises" and a waste of "developed style". I think that is true. Now, speaking only for myself I would like to add that I think it is, in the end, boring for the writer to write about the very same thing, over and over again, and not adding anything new. And when it becomes boring for the writer it eventually becomes boring for the reader as well. And that is reason enough.

I think Ayn Rand's answer is good. I find nothing strange about this. The lady comes with nothing but an insult. It most certainly is legitimate to wonder why this person shows up just to insult Rand and everybody else who understands and cares for Miss Rand's ideas. It is NOT an honest question from an honest inquirer. In fact, the person accuses Ayn Rand of running a cult and since that is a totally arbitrary statement, Rand did the only rational thing: act as if nothing worth commenting have been said - and then go on condemning the person for insulting her on her show. (Yes, it is her show in the sense that she is the guest of the day.) The statement is not worth commenting, but the insult is reason enough to condemn someone. What if I showed up on, say, your birthday and out of the blue started to accuse you of pedophilia? You should NOT comment on the pedophilia accusation since it is totally groundless. But you are morally justified to condemn me for this groundless accusation and then throw me out of your house. Read more about the nature of arbitrary claims here: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html

It's a small world. :-) Life is not the only value, but it is the ultimate value. Now, can you act to gain a particular non-ultimate value, in a rational manner? Yes. Can you act rationally in order to gain this non-ultimate value at the cost of your ultimate value? No. Why? Well, if I don't misunderstand you, you put it pretty well when you wrote: "acting to gain a value while losing life is a contradiction in terms (and thus irrational) because the value is severed from it's root, life?" This is part of the answer. But there is more to be said. All of this is too abstract. So let's concretize. Is it rational to poison yourself? Not if you want to live. Now, there are probably many ways you can poison yourself. Some will get you there faster than others. Does this mean that the most efficient way to poison yourself is the most "rational" - given that you want to poison yourself? My answer is: No. Why? Because if the (non-ultimate) end you pursue is irrational, then it is not rational to pursue it to begin with, and whether you pursue it in one way or another does not make the slightest difference. It's just ridiculous to say: "Well, given that I want to blow my head off, should I do it with a shotgun or a machine gun? Which would be more rational?" In the end, it is as I suggested earlier only if you seek life that rationality becomes a value. Why? Because you have to be rational in order to achieve the values that makes your life possible. Achieving the irrational will not help you in this regard, and is therefore irrational. You can, if it helps, look at it from this perspective. Take a syllogism. Such as this one: fdsjkfsd is rewrewrwer rewrewrwer is 123456789 therefore fdsjkfsd is 123456789 Now, contrary to what many would say, this does not constitute logic. The premises are just gibberish and to deduce more gibberish from gibberish does not constitute logic. It has nothing to do with logic or cognition of any kind. Likewise, to achieve the irrational, in the most efficient way possible, does not constitute rationality. The idea that anything is rational as long as it does the trick, comes from David Hume. And Hume just as wrong about that as he is wrong about everything else.

It seems to me you are trying to say this: Since what makes something rational or irrational depend on the ultimate value you choose, then it seems impossible to say that some ultimate value is more rational another. After all, the ultimate value cannot, if it is truly the ultimate, cannot be justified by some other more ultimate value which makes it rational. If this is what you are trying to say, then I answer by saying: "This is true, but so what? It does not follow from this that anyone is justified to pick whatever ultimate end he wants." Why? Because what is the ultimate end is not anything one wants it to be. It can be identified as a fact, and it is life. Life is what's ultimately what's at stake for living organisms - not your pleasure, not your love, not your house, not your money, etc. And everything you desire and need depend on you living. Further: Why is it desirable to be rational? Because it is good to be rational? Good? To whom and for what? The fact is that it is only good to be rational for living organisms (human beings to be exact) and only for the purpose of living. Outside this context, you are using the concept "value," as a stolen concept. How come? Well, you ignore or forget all the facts that makes something a value, when you just assume implicitly that rationality is something we should care about. But we should only care about it, if we have already chosen life as our ultimate value. Now, most people do not choose life explicitly. They do nevertheless choose it implicitly, as indicated by their (inconsistent) pro-life actions. There is no reason to say that some ultimate end is more or less rational compared with some other so-called ultimate end. Because as I've already indicated, it is only for living organisms who pursue life, it makes sense to say that something is rational and therefore good, and vice versa. If you do not want to live, then it makes no difference to you whether you are rational or not. It's only in this context - the context of living organisms pursuing life - that this usage of the concept "rational" could be formed. Outside this context, there is no need to talk of something as rational or irrational. Thus, to choose life is not more rational than to choose death. The choice is not irrational either. It's pre-rational.

Well, what in reality is ultimately at stake for living organisms? It's their life. So life is the only possible ultimate value because it is what makes all other values possible. "Ultimate" means "that which all the rest is based on". (That's from the dictionary.) If you choose life, then life becomes the ultimate value and standard of value. If you do not choose life, then there is literally no other "ultimate value" to choose. It's life or nothing. Or to be more specific: life or death. That's it. The point can be put yet another way: since, in fact, there is nothing more ultimate at stake than life, then logically speaking, there be no other ultimate value than life. Now, of course, you can act as if something else than your life is your ultimate value. But then you are just engaged in an irrational fantasy, because there is really nothing else that logically could be an ultimate value, except life. If you do not believe me, then just try to find something, in reality, that would give rise to the concept "value," except life.

You have unfortunately misunderstood the argument (which, by the way, is not Ayn Rand's originally). To begin with, it would be a obvious case of self-exclusion to say that the determinist would have a good reason to say that determinism is objectively true, if it actually is true. That is not true. It would still be impossible for him to objectively know that determinism is true, _if_ it would be true. In addition, since reality is one and knowledge of reality also is and must be one integrated whole, there is _no_ way he can, somehow, know that determinism is true, while he also knows that he has no reason to believe that anything is (objectively) true. Say he would answer: "Determinism is true because it meets my criteria of truth." How can he know that his criteria of truth is valid? He can't and according to determinism he just believes what he believes. Not because it corresponds to reality, and he knows it and can prove it, but because of forces beyond his control makes him believe it. Can he even know that the concept he uses are objective? No. For, more or less, the same reason. Etc. The point here is that once he have no reason to objectively believe that he knows or can know the truth about _anything_ except, somehow, determinism, then there is no way he can even know the truth about determinism. "Knowledge", "truth", "proof", etc would all be stolen concepts in this context. It all amounts to this: "Now, we know thanks to the discoveries of modern science, that man's volitional mind is an illusion. After all, the universe is as modern science have proved ruled by natural laws. This must therefore include man's mind and therefore volition simply must be a myth. Now, of course, this implies that everything I believe, I just happen to believe because of the interaction of natural laws, not because of any observations or logical inferences, based on said observations, I've made. This means that I believe in the discoveries of modern science, because of forces beyond my control, which means that the entire base that led me to believe in determinism in the first base, is totally undermined." Thus, "determinism" and _any pretense_ at being justified in believing in determinism as a "true" or "proven" doctrine, is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I am not sure I understand the dilemma correctly. The point Rand is making is that, according to a deontological theory of morality, the consequences or desires is of no interest or value. All that matters is that you do you duty simply because it is your duty - and _only_ because it is your duty. Kant don't says: "What would happen in terms of consequences?" He says: "Can this maxim, logically speaking, be universalized?" Kant is not a rule utilitarian. Rand do not oppose consistency and the categorical imperative is essentially a plead for logical consistency. That is why Kant's theory seem plausible to a lot of people. In this respect there is no contradiction between Kant and Rand. But in another respect there is a _fundamental_ difference. Rand argues for logical consistency because it is in your objective, rational self-interest to be logical. Kant, on the other hand, never speak in such terms, precisely because he is a deontologist.

It is like you are reading my mind! I agree totally! I've had the exact same experience from my philosophy courses at the university. I am currently working slowly on my MA, but I find it harder to find the motivation for each day that goes by, because I find the state of modern "philosophy" so horrible irrational and insane, that it's almost ridiculous. I just cannot take it seriously anymore. When I try to take it seriously it just feels like I have to violate my own mind, trying to hold and accept contradictions, floating abstractions, the arbitrary, concretes without context, 50 pages long and badly written essays that easily could have been cut down to 10, etc - all in my head and make something coherent of it. Usually I can make something of it, but I can't stand for it, because I know it is all just utter nonsense. I seriously don't know how much longer I can take it! I have several times talked to some of these people, trying to convince them that induction is the proper method. I say, over and over again, that we have to start with the facts. But it is seems hopeless. They do not see the need for facts or observations, at all. Most of them are, as you say, hard-core rationalists. Of course, I know what they think about induction, since I am aware that they swallowed everything David Hume and Immanuel Kant and other modern philosophers said. My teacher in logic actually said that there is no "empircal method" for philosophers. All we have, she said, is logic, which in the end have nothing to to with reality, since it only reflect on how our language works. Therefore they also feel justified in imagine anything, i.e., to engage in pure fantasies based on absolutely nothing, and then pretend that this is serious philosophical "thinking". Then, based on such "thinking", they actually believe that they somehow can prove or disprove whatever they want. I, however, am not being taken seriously because I point to reality. What do they do when they are not busy fantasying? I have observed that the essence of their "method" consist of saying something weird, stupid, outrageous, meaningless or sometimes, by mere chance, even sensible and plausible, then "testing" the proposition by refering to their intuitions, i.e., their feelings. Facts? Reality? Observations? That's, apparently, not the proper philosophical method. But to be fair: there are some "experimental philosophers" who thinks that "observations" amounts to making polls on how people in general feel about these issues. Again, I am not taken seriously when I try to tell them that their feelings are not proof of anything. It's just fantastic!

I would suggest that you read a great book by Dr Brian P Simpsons. It is entitled _Markets don't fail!_ and you can order it at www.AynRandBookstore.com. It deals specifically with issues such as "externalities". If you can't afford it or you just can't wait, then I would refer you to another great book by Dr George Reisman, entitled _Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics_. You can read it online, for free, at www.Capitalism.net. In particular you should start with page 96, and the following pages.

Hi Kelly, I will quote Ayn Rand's answer to this particular question: The principle is of course the same for welfare or public unemployment aid. I hope this answered your question.

That is true and it constitute yet another problem with libertarianism as a movement. But that's not an accurate summary of what I said or meant to say. The fundamental problem with the libertarian movement is, as I said, that by claiming that everone, regardless of the nature of their philosophy, is welcome into this movement, you're implying that freedom is compatible even with false philosophies or that it has no need of _any_ philosophical base whatsoever. In either case you've got big problems. In the first case you're attempting to pretend that every philosophy can defend freedom - even if some of them are false. In that case you'll end up as a subjectivist. Why? Well, what is subjectivism? In epistemological terms it is the person who says that what is true depends on who you're asking. What is true for may not be true for you and vice versa. Etc. Only a subjectivist of this kind would be so utterly indifferent to the truth and "tolerant" of the false. In other words you'll end up by saying as the founders of the libertarian movement did: "I don't care why you think freedom is good. (In fact I don't even care what you think freedom is.) What's true for me is not necessarily true for you. And that's all fine and dandy. All I know is that I believe in freedom and you believe in freedom. So why not get together and fight for freedom? Perhaps we can make other people - also without any concern for their philosophical base - join us? Perhaps we can start an entire movement for freedom?" Notice, by the way, what this subjectivist approach does for the libertarian movement. It establishes that freedom is not in any way more defendable than dictatorship. The subjectivist libertarians say: "Freedom is great because we feel it!" What statist can't say the same thing in their defense? In the second case, you may not explicit hold the view that truth is subjective. But nevertheless you may think that freedom is not in need of any intellectual defense at all because you say that it's more or less obvious or self-evident that freedom is a good thing. In the end however, that's just another way of saying: "I can't prove that freedom is good. But why should I care to prove it? It's self-evident! I just know it!" Which is just another fancy way of saying: "I know it to be true, because I feel it!" So, in the end, you once again end up as a subjectivist. Now, even if you're not an explicit anarchist, but a proponent of a limited government; you don't see the government not as a necessary evil but as something essentially good, you'll pretty soon be in a lot of trouble if you join the libertarian movement or start to sanction it by refering to yourself as an libertarian. Why? Because if you join the libertarian movement and thus sanctioned the subjectivist approach to ideas, then you've also sanctioned the view that your own philosophical defense for capitalism is not any better than anyone's else. If so, then you'll eventually end up as an implicit anarchist. If you accept the view that there's no objective truth, then there's no objective validation for anything. There's no objective validation for any code of morality and thus no objective validation for any morally legitimate restrains of peoples actions. Thus there's no way to actually defend the existence of a government.

Not all libertarians are explicit anarchists. But all libertarians who are part of the libertarian movement of today, are at least _implicit_ anarchists. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of the libertarian movement. The reason the the libertarian movement started back in early 1970s was to make all kinds of people join a common cause for "freedom". Now while this might, at a first glance, seem like a good idea, it in fact is not a good idea at all. Why? It doesn't matter, according to libertarianism, whether you ground your defense for freedom on a rational philosophy or on an irrational philosophy. This indifference implies that libertarianism view philosophy as ultimately irrelevant to the issue of freedom. Apparently, "freedom" is compatible with every kind of philosophy (Platonism, Christianity, Kantianism, Hegelism, etc) and, by the very same logic, the libertarians usually claim that libertarianism is compatible with every code of morality (Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Altruism, etc). This is precisely why you can find both the friends of capitalism and the enemies of capitalism, that is the anarchists, within the same alleged movement for "freedom". This is why you can find both better people such as Ludwig von Mises or Henry Hazlitt and worse people such as Walter Block and Murray Rothbard in the libertarian movement. What does the fact that the libertarian movement view essentially every philosophy or code of morality as being coherent with libertarianism and "freedom"? Well, for one thing it implies that every idea is equally true or false. How else would you explain the total indifference? And by the same logic every code of morality is equally true or false. This is _subjectivism_! What does subjectivism imply regarding the case for freedom? Well, if there's no objective knowledge, no objective concepts, no objective set of values, then there's no objective ground for restraining peoples freedom of action in any regard whatsoever. If so, then there's (rationally) no legitimate ground for a government. Thus the anarchists within libertarianism can always say in answer to those who want a limited government: "Who are you to say that there should be a government that forbids certain kinds of actions simply because you seem to think they consistute 'force'? Who are you to define 'force'?" If truth, concepts, values is subjective then anarchism is the only consistent alternative within the libertarian movement. This means that "freedom" according to libertarianism means that: the individual should be free do to whatever he feels like - _without any restrictions or restrains of any kind_. Further, if every philosophical defense for freedom is equally true or false, then this implies that freedom doesn't have or need any intellectual or rational defense. If that's the case, then it can ultimately only mean one thing, namely that the libertarian movement rest on the premise that freedom is good merely because the libertarians _feels_ it. (It is worth mentioning in this context that leading libertarians such as Walter Block often define libertarianism as simply "the non-aggression _axiom_".) Subjectivism is indeed an integral part of the libertarian movement. This is why it's perfectly all right to say the the true _essence_ of the libertarian _movement_ is nihilism, subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism. This is also why it's perfectly in order to say that (the better) libertarians who don't agree with this assessment in fact fail to see the true essence of the libertarian movement just like some communists and environmentalists fail to see the true essence of their movements. For further details on this subject read Peter Schwartz pamphlet _Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty_ . You can buy it at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

The stupidity and the irrationality of the Welfare state is eloquently illustrated in this news item from Sweden. The Local: You can't make up stuff like this.

You are COMPLETELY right!

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Sure, this might be your own opinion on this issue. And that's all right. But I thought that we were trying to clarify the actual meaning of Ayn Rands philosophy Objectivism, as it is being presented in Peikoffs book, OPAR. By saying this you're only creating more confusion on this matter, I am afraid. I think I've done that. No, let me rephrase that: I know that I've done that. Why are you wrong? In part because nothing I said, or Peikoff for that matter, contradicts the fact that to keep on living is a choice. Honestly, I don't know where you got that impression from. In part also because even though we can choose to live or choose to die, death as such can't, unlike life, logically be a ultimate value or goal. The reason is that existence for a living being is conditional, i.e., life is conditional. Death isn't. You'll die no matter what, eventually. But to stay alive you have to fight. That is what it mean to say that life is conditional; it is conditional upon your own actions. It is not enough to simply avoid things which might kill you; you'll actually have to act. You have to struggle. You have to act in order to gain or keep the values which makes life possible. Further. As I explained in my post, death or non-existence is not another kind of "something" with it's own advantages and disadvantages, which you then can rationally compare and contrast with something else. Non-existencen is nothing. It isn't. That's why you can't rationally compare life with death as you, on the other hand, could compare a car from Ford with a car from Mercedes-Benz. Or, to use your own example: you could rationally compare one taste of ice-cream before another. Although you may not be able to prove that chocolate is objectively better than, say, strawberry, you're still comparing things which actually exists, which for that very reason possesses some actual qualities one could compare in some sense. You could therefore say something like: "I choose chocolate, because I like the taste better." But how could you rationally say something like: "I choose death, due to all its advantages compared with life"?

Basic logic? Don't make me laugh. How about actually reading what I wrote? I never said that you were a socialist. I did however say that it would indeed be silly to think, with all that we know today about socialism in all of its forms and variations (including the watered down version of it which is the welfare state), that socialism in one way or another can be "sustainable". It is a sign that you don't have a good understanding of economics or economic history. This is bizarre. I gave you three links to two articles and one book in my very first post. Did you ever read them? It doesn't seem like it. After that I recommended at least three more books: Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by Reisman, Man versus the Welfare State by Hazlitt and The Welfare State We're In by Bartholomew. And while I am at it, I can also vouch for The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein. First you write things like: "I have said explicitly that I have no such evidence." Then in the next sentence you all of a sudden write: "Because these particular countries [the Scandinavian ones] seem to defy the principle." How do you know that if you don't have any evidence for believing that? Is this, by the way, evidence of your superior understanding of "logic"? First, ignore all the facts which proves you to be completely wrong. Then say that you don't have any reason to actually believe the things you seem to believe. Then when you get the suggestion that maybe you should study the subject more, precisely because you don't seem to know what you're talking about, you get upset and starts to call other people "religious" and "dogmatic"? Yet you can't understand how someone can get the impression that you're not for real? Gee, I wonder why. No, now I am done with you. You can say whatever you want to me or about me. I don't care. I only tried to help you. Hopefully others saw some value in what I wrote.

I would like to quote from a book by the Swedish author and proponent of capitalism, Johnny Munkhammar. The name of the book is European Dawn, and it deals with the problems of the welfare state all over Europe. The book begins with a interesting quote from Tony Blair: Let me quote some more: I see that the book is available at Amazon. The book is there described like this: But it is VERY expensive. It is not a long book which can make you feel like a sucker if you buy it for that price. Anyway, you can listen to a talk given by mr Munkhammar at the Heritage Foundation about this book, European Dawn, and the failure of the welfare state. See this link.

I have indicated quite clearly that the welfare state in the Scandinavian systems don't work. I have provided you with explanations and facts. I can personally testify to the things I say because I after all live in one of theses "successful" welfare states. You have not provided any information or reason as to why any of theses welfare state systems would be essentially different. The only difference I can think of, between the system in the UK, or the US, or Uruguay (to pick a extreme example), is the degree. In other words: to the extent other systems have failed MORE miserably than the Scandinavian systems, it is only because their welfare states have been larger, and their degree of capitalism is small. What you are saying also suggests to me that you don't think in terms of principles. Because if you can see that the welfare state has failed in several countries, all over the world, then why can't you see that it is due to the very nature of the system? If you can realize this, then why do you expect the system of the Scandinavian countries to succeed? And how can you go on claiming that "one apparently succeeds" when the facts that I have provided you with shows us that it in fact doesn't? No. But that is irrelevant. See above. (A clue: think in terms of principles.) Now you ARE being silly. Are you suggesting that I am "dogmatically" and "religiously" because I say that the welfare state in Sweden doesn't work - even though I have provided you with several facts which indicates that's actually the case? Notice: facts - not religious "dogmas". I am *logically* arguing for my point with *facts*. The way I am looking at it, you actually comes out here as a dogmatic religiously ignoring everything I am saying. This is totally arbitrary. Simply because YOU don't know much about this subject, and proves it by your own statements, does not mean that you can go and throw around insults like this. I am, and have been for the last four-five years, a student of philosophy at the University of Lund. And I will soon get my first degree. I know my philosophy and I know my logics, thank you very much!

I don't know how many who dies from waiting for health care in Sweden or in the US. But my guess is that it is much more per capita in Sweden, just like it is much more in Canada and the UK compared with the US. But in the end the precise number is irrelevant. Why? It is irrelevant because the primary reason people lack proper health care in the US is essentially the same as in Sweden: government interventions! This has been thoroughly explained several times before by philosophers like Leonard Peikoff and economists like George Reisman. And many, many more. Most recently Onkar Ghate from the Ayn Rand Institute explained it in his latest op-ed "No Right to 'Free' Health Care". Basically, if socialism usually amounts to mass murder. Then the welfare state can properly be regarded as the slow mass suicide of a nation. So I guess that if a *slow mass suicide* is the standard of "survival", then I guess Sweden will "survive". Yeah, I guess, just like people, somehow, seem to "survive" and "prosper" in Third World countries. We'll just have to see, I guess... Whatever myths and lies you've been exposed to, it's not true. People are *not* being "cared for" in the welfare state. People are being made into dependents who can't care for themselves. They are in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who couldn't care less. Instead of being able to provide themselves with health care they have to turn to the government. And then they have to wait. But if the politicians at the landsting have decided that this particular kind of health care isn't important enough, then tough luck. Now, people are not dependent on public schooling, or housing, or health care because the free market can't provide people with these things to reasonable prices. (Though that may be true in the sense that most people in Sweden can't afford it after all their taxes are paid.) They are dependent because the taxes for a *normal* wage earner in Sweden amounts to roughly 60%! The welfare state has turned the swedish population into beggars! Must this end due to the economical realities? Yes. Otherwise we will end up as some other welfare states (see Uruguay) or the product of them (see New Orleans). It is a well known fact that in the early 1970s, the welfare state had drained the economy of the UK so much that it was widely considered, at the time, as one of the poorest countries in western Europe. In fact, the economic crises we went through in the early 1990s made it clear to most people that we simply can't afford the welfare state any longer. The public pension system is just like the one in the US more or less bankrupt. Therefore the younger generation in Sweden know how utterly foolish it is to be dependent on the welfare state. Now, some people are still being in denial here, but they will get the wake up call soon enough. Ask yourself, is it possible in the end, to survive in the long-term by eating up all your food today, leaving nothing left for tomorrow? If not, then why do you imagine that it would be anymore possible for 9 million people to slowly commit economical suicide by "eating up" all of our wealth? By punishing the producers with high taxes and regulations? By supporting millions of bums on the public dole? Are you being silly?!? To the extent we survive it's not thanks to the welfare state. It's thanks to the degree of economical freedom, i.e., the degree of capitalism, which we still enjoy. The welfare state is like a pickpocket. It can hurt you, but it will take many of them to actually kill you economically. (And as long as you are free to create more wealth it won't be a big problem.) But that doesn't make the situation "sustainable". Not, when in fact, there actually is million on the public dole! One of the reaons our politicians say there's never enough money for health care or public education, is precisely because millions are living on the public dole. It IS draining the economy. It, the welfare state, is in its essence nothing more than an "economical" black hole, which is slowly pulling everything and everybody down with its own demise! I don't want to be rude, but your questions imply that you don't know much about this subject (the evils of the welfare state). Therefore I would suggest that you study more economics (in particular by economists such as Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises and George Reisman), history and economic history. You should read books like The Welfare State Were In by James Bartholomew.

The Welfare state is NOT sustainable. The Welfare state does NOT work. The Welfare state has hurt Sweden. I know because I live in Sweden. But you don't need to live here to know it. The facts speaks for themselves. We got just like in the US public schools. And they are bad. And we got socialized health care. And just like in the UK and Canada, the health care is rationed. So people die while waiting for health care. Sometimes they don't get any health care at all because the landstings (a regional government body) which deals with the health care can't afford it. And while the vast majority of Americans have a private health insure (at least via their employer), most people in Sweden can't afford it at all. The high taxes (about 60% of the income) make people forced to depend on socialized health care and public schools. Now, Sweden is not a poor third world country. But it is not as wealthy as the US. And to the extent that is is wealthy, it is not due to the social democrats or the welfare state. That's a myth. Just to give you one indication of how the welfare state has hurt Sweden and made it much poorer than the US: about 25% of the households in the US earn an income of 25 000 dollars or less. Well, in Sweden 40% earns an income of 25 000 dollars or less! (For the source of this statement, see the EU vs USA report from the Swedish think tank Timbro. See the link at the end of this post.) Sweden became wealthy not thanks to the welfare state or the government interventions in the economy, but DESPITE them. Swedens rise from one the poorest countries in Europe in the 19th century, to one of the wealthies nations in the world around 1970, was entirely the result of it's high degree of capitalism. The social democrats didn't get to hold office until the 1930s. During their first 30 years in power they were very pragmatic. They left the economy pretty much as it were before they took office. By the early 1960s, the Swedish government had roughly the same size as the US government have today, i.e., about 25-30% of GDP. However, in the late 1960s the social democrats turned radical. During the 1970s they heavily increased the size of the government. The welfare state expanded and the taxes were increased. In the 1960s the tax pressure amounted to about 30% of the GDP. By the early 1980s it went over 50%! It didn't work. Which was expected by everyone except social democrats. High taxes on everything and everybody, high inflation, the redistribution of wealth-policies, destroyed the incentives for people to work, to invest, to start companies, to create wealth. So during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s Sweden went from being the third richest country in the world, according to the OECD, to the 15th richest country in the world! This while the US is still among the five richest, just as it was in 1970! Suggested reading: http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/san...i_20060414.aspx http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/ http://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/000590.html

Of course. It would be up to yourself to judge whether a good life is possible in the future, and that your current state of life is still worth fighting for. The same goes for people who are, say, suffering from a horrible illness with a dim prospect of surviving it. Maybe they will find a cure soon enough? Maybe not. If you don't think they will, then perhaps it would be better to end your life now, instead of going through a lot of unnecessary misery. What kind of choice you make is all up to you.

Peikoff is not saying that you should choose life instead of death. Although he does say that it would be wrong to choose death before life, without any reason, he does not explicitly make the case that you should choose life. He says that there *are* reasons for choosing life. But what does are is only implied. Let me therefore try to "flesh out" this. In OPAR Peikoff says that non-existence is nothing and can therefore not be viewed as an alternative to existence in the same sense as Ford is an alternative to Mercedes-Benz. So while you could say that a car from Ford has some benefits and that a car from Mercedes-Benz has some disadvantages, you could not *rationally* say that non-existence (death) has some "benefits" and that you then have consider against some "disadvantages" of life. That would be impossible and irrational. "Non-existence" *is* "nothing" with all that this implies. Remember also that life is the source of all values: values are only possible (and necessary) for living beings and only if they want to live. If you, for whatever reason, choose life then life becomes the standard of value. So whatever argument you could make in favor of choosing life *instead* of death, that argument would only be possible if you've already made the (implicit) choice to live. So whatever you say in favor of life will assume that you are committed to remain in the realm of existence. Another way of stating the same point is to say that while you could give a whole bunch of various reasons for choosing life, you could never come up with "The ultimate reason". The closest thing you could come up with is perhaps something like: "life itself" or "existence in its totality". Why? Because whatever reasons you come up with they will by necessity have to relate to life *in one way or another*. (And they would, as I stated above, all assume that you alreday want to live, otherwise you wouldn't have any standard of value to go by.) It is inescapable. This is what is being meant, I think, by Peikoffs correct statement that all debate and all validation of the choice to live takes place within the realm of existence and rests on that commitment. And this is why it cannot be debated in the same sense as you could have a debate about whether to vote for Bush or for Kerry, or whether you should buy a computer from Apple or from IBM, or whether you should buy a car from Ford or from Mercedes-Benz.

It may sound like I am only talking about the physical survival. But that is not what I meant. So you are absolutely correct. It is not the mere (and short-term) physical survival that is interesting here, it is the long-term survival of a WHOLE man: body and soul. Or as you put it: "the [long-term] survival of all the aspects of your existence". This is how Ayn Rand herself puts it in the Virtue of Selfishness. Leonard Peikoff (OPAR) and Tara Smith (Viable Values) says the same thing. (It is, by the way, important to emphasize that we are talking about the *long-term* survival here because if we were only to survive for the moment, the "here and now", without any regard for the future, then we wouldn't need any moral principles. Our perceptual level of consciousness would propably do. See OPAR for a further elaboration of this issue.) I may have misunderstood the original question. But the point I was trying to make was that you can not answer the question, as I understood it, without trying to put some value on your state of life. A bad life is not worth living, but a good life is. But what then is a good life? How do you tell a good life from a bad life? By the same standard that you determine any value, by the standard of (man's) life. According to the standard of life, that which furthers your life is good and that which harms your life is bad. To live a good life, i.e., a flourishing and happy life, is therefore to live a *life-promoting* life. (Notice above all the things that I have said that happiness itself is a *life-promoting* state of life. Happiness is not only the reward of proper living, it is further a life-promoting *value*.) Now ask yourself: Is it possible to promote your life (*whole life* defined as above) if you are in a concentration camp? Is it a worthy life? Is it a worthy life to be a "human vegetable"? So, I am trying to answer the question by stating that you can say that it does not matter to merely physically survive INSTEAD of surviving in a flourishing way, because it is not worth the trouble. It is not a good life. And besides, since it is not a good life, that is a life-promoting life, it is in fact not even possible. A flourishing or happy life is the reward of proper living, of *life-promoting* living. Thus, to be *unable* to flourish or achieve happiness (because you're a human vegetable or a prisoner in a concentration camp or something of that order) is therefore just another way of saying that life is not possible anymore. All that is possible is a slow horrible death where all you can expect is suffering and misery as a result. In the case of a "human vegetable" you may not experience unhappiness, but a man who is in that sorry state, is propably to be viewed as already dead, namely "dead inside", i.e., psychologically dead, since the *person* is no more. See the Terri Schiavo case here.

Other people on this forum have propably already answered you. Even though that propably is the case, I would still like to answer your questions in my own way. Let me begin by saying that there seems to be three issues here, that I think you might have mixed up. First: Survival vs Happiness. Second: The meaning of holding the survival of man qua man as the standard of value. Third: Why would it matter to merely "survive" instead of surviving in a flourishing way? The first issue, the issue of survival vs happiness, is something a lot of people for some reason have a lot of trouble understanding properly. I don't know why or how, but for some reason, that is the case. I assume that you have not read The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand? I assume that you have not read it because the answer for all of your questions is there. In case you have read it but still managed to miss the relevant paragraphs, I would like to quote directly from "The Objectivist Ethics": In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of "life or death," but as an issue of "happiness or suffering." Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death ... Happiness is the state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievements of one's values. (The Virtue of Selfishness, pp 27-28.) Now this is, I admit, very condensed writing. But it does answer the first issue, namely how one should properly understand the relationship between survival and happiness. If one understands that there not only is no conflict between the two and that, in fact, they are the very same thing, i.e., that to live in a flourishing manner, i.e., a life-promoting manner is, emotionally experienced and rewarded with the psychological state of being happy. Let us now deal with the second issue, the issue of holding the survival of man qua man as the standard of value. Once more, this is a issue a lot of people for some reason have trouble understanding properly - or understanding at all. Some people erroneously seem to think that this is to say it's one thing to merely survive and an entirely different thing all together to survive qua man. That is now at all what is being said or meant here. What is being said here is that you simply can't survive if you attempt to act against your own nature, i.e., your nature as a rational being. Now that may seem somewhat trivial. But the thing is that when you attempt to survive without acting like a rational being, that is, without actually using your mind as your primary and fundamental instrument of survival, you will not make it. Not in the long run. Just like every other life form man has a particular nature, and it is his nature which determines what his survival demands out of him. Basically man can't survive while attempting to live on the perceptual level of consciousness. I.e., on the level of an animal. Not if he is to survive long term. In order to achieve long term survival, he has to use his mind, his faculty of reason, to think generalize, form concepts. He need to discover and validate the rational principles which defines the kind of actions that actually promotes his life. If you haven't read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, then do it. He deals with this and many other related issues thoroughly. Now over to the third issue: Why would it matter to merely "survive" instead of surviving in a flourishing way? Or as you stated the same question more concretely: "If life is the only ultimate value, why does it matter whether I am living as an independent man with purpose, self-esteem, etc. when I could be hooked up to a machine that breathes and nourishes me?" Life is the ultimate value. But that is also what makes it the standard of value. The ultimate end determines the standard of value. This means, in this case, that the standard of value here is life. That is to say: you determine whether or not life is being worth the trouble with LIFE ITSELF as the standard of value. Which means: the value of the ultimate value, life, is being estimated with life as the standard of value. Now, at a first glance, this might seem circular, but it really isn't. Here's a clue as to why that isn't the case: Is it "circular" to conclude that one meter is equal to a meter? Of course not. Similarly it is not anymore "circular" to measure the value of your own life with life as the standard of value. Also, notice that you can measure the value of one dollar in terms of dollars. Basically the answer here is that if you conclude that it is not longer possible for you to achieve happiness, i.e., to live in a life-promoting way, i.e., a flourishing way, then fighting to stay alive is not worth the trouble any longer. This is usually the case when you can't live as a *human being* any longer. I.e., when you live qua man, i.e., qua rational being. It might be in a concentration camp or, which is the case here, when you've been reduced to a "human vegetable". Now whether or not you should live as a human "vegetable" or not, is up to you. Nobody else can answer it for you. I would not like to live like that. I would not consider such a life good. I hope my answer have been to some help for you.

Hernan wrote: Is it? I just showed you how and why it follows logically from the Pragmatic concept of truth. Even though it seems useless, since you seem to ignore everything I write, I am going to quote from some articles which deals with Pragmatism. Hopefully you will, from these quotations alone, see why you are wrong and I am right. I will begin with Radical Academy: Now you accused me of misinterpreting what James meant: "Unfortunatley you've substituted "get something out of it" for "that which works"." But as you can read for yourself I am not misinterpreting anything. And if you can see that, why can you don't see the implication of this? Namely that reality is whatever you want it to be? And that, therefore, Pragmatism is nothing but Subjectivism? After all: "Reality is ever in the making, growing where thinking beings are at work." That is to say: since reality, according to Pragmatism, has no identity, i.e., is nothing in particular, but is instead provided with one "where thinking beings are at work". Not "working" for you? Let me quote from another article: ""Pragmatism", according to James, "is a temper of mind, an attitude; it is also a theory of the nature of ideas and truth; and finally, it is a theory about reality" (Journal of Phil., V, 85). As he uses the word, therefore, it designates ( a ) an attitude of mind towards philosophy, ( b ) an epistemology, and ( c ) a metaphysics." And: Incredible. That was exactly what I said in my last post. Whether or not it is true that the soul is immortal is not a factual question, but a question of how the two possible answers ("yes" or "no") will make me feel. If it makes me feel bad, then it doesn't work for me and is thus false. If it, however, makes me feel good, then it does work for me and is thus true. Reality is whatever I want it to be. Whatever "works" better, regardless of the facts and the demands of logical thinking. Coming to think about it. What you are doing right now, as a pragmatist, is precisely what pragmatism is all about: if you don't want pragmatism to be an irrational and false philosophy, then it's not, and in that case, everyone who claims otherwise just have to be wrong. No matter what. No matter what William James and John Dewey said. Why? Because that apparently "works" for you and therefore it must be "true".