Spano

Though it doesn't pertain directly to the great depression as far as I remember, anyone with an interest in economics should start with Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. This is the most clear and enjoyable book on the subject I have read. The full text in availble online HERE.

I remember seeing that a couple years back. If I remember correctly, the super-shake recipe could be had for a nominal fee. It must be awesome to be rewarded with super-human strength for doing God's work. Well, I'm off to the gym to load the press up with 45lb plates and do some 1/2 inch reps.

After reading through this, I can offer only a few possible explanations: 1. The man hasn't read Ayn Rand, at least to any degree to come to a sound conclusion or offer true characterizations. 2. He has read what he claims to have read, but is so sloppy a thinker or so steeped in modern philosophy as to be rendered utterly unable to actually understand it. 3. He has read what he claims to have read, and understands it to some degree, but nevertheless willfully distorts Objectivism for the purposes of smearing it. None of these lends any credence to his comments. To be honest, I pictured a psychotic homeless guy when reading this, because I simply couldn't make a bit of sense about what he was saying. It's definitely not worth any effort to "refute" this, because he hasn't even addressed Objectivism - he has addressed some chaotic mess in his mind, and whether this comes from ignorance or modern philosophy or malice I can't say. Just proves Ayn Rand's point about today's leftist intellectuals.

You are trying to dodge the issue by falsely comparing a name and a body part. The are completely different. My leg is a part of me -- it is me. To use my leg you necessarily must use coercion against me. A name is NOT part of me -- it is a identifier, a string of text pronounced by anyone who can read or speak. Because a name exists totally apart from it, the use of a name involves no coercion. I can sit here and say your name a thousand times without your life being impacted one bit. Again, you are trying to dodge the issue: a novel is property, a name is not. A novel is a product of the effort of an individual, a value created by him. A name as such is not, and thus does not warrant any protection under property rights. Please answer this question: under your proposed system, can I or can I not write, print, and distribute of my own effort and at my expense a pamphlet detailing why "Rob Henson" is badly mistaken when he claims that a person's name should be subject to property rights (without your permission)? If I can, then you have no property right to your name. If I can't, then my freedom of speech is subject to your veto even though I'm innocent of coercion in any form.

The only thing one has the right to control is his *property*. Property must be earned. In speaking of identity, you are attempting to conflate name and reputation. Your name, as such, is simply a symbolic identifier of you as an individual. It is arbitrary in that you were designated "Rob Henson" at birth by your parents -- you did nothing to earn this name and it in no way constitutes property. You seem to be suggesting that your name, the object, the string of text "Rob Henson", is your property. If so, please give a derivation of how your name becomes your property, based on the Objectivist ethics. Under your proposed system, criticism and free speech would be ended. It's a good thing your system isn't in place, or else I suppose you'd have me hauled off to prison for this post.

My favorite part about this "controversy" is the irony of seeing people defending the “historical truths" of the Bible against a work of "mere fiction." How dare Dan Brown write a story questioning, among other things, that baby Jesus sprung from a virgin womb. My second favorite part is seeing millions of people so insecure about their "historical truths" that they run around hysterically, worried that a couple hours in a theater will bring their system crashing down.

Schwartz references Libertarian writers extensively, including Rothbard, Block, several LP publications, the LP platform, etc. Before you dismiss the entire essay based on one excerpt and label Schwartz a liar, I'd suggest reading the essay in full. The first time I read it, I was a little hesitant about accepting the conclusions. But when I reread the essay recently after becoming more familiar with Objectivism, I saw more clearly why he is correct. Keep in mind that what Schwartz attempts to do is identify the *essence* of Libertarianism, which is subjectivism, and to show why the consistent Libertarian is at best unable to defend liberty on any grounds other than whim and, more likely, will follow his subjectivism to whatever brand of totalitarianism his particular whims point toward. Schwartz addresses the point that many will object to his conclusions and say that they do not adhere to anarchism etc. But all this means -- and the essay in full proves this powerfully -- is that those folks don't understand the nature of their own ideology. If you have any specific examples of where Schwartz uses "lies" or "poor scholarship", please share.

I wasn't aware of the nature of this publication. After reading some other coverage of the study, it seems to have more substance to it. I'll keep a watch out for the Mail in the future. Anybody know a resource giving reviews of the quality of different newspapers?

Here's a link to the article "Women spot ideal fathers at a glance": Link So let me get this straight: one's facial features determine one's affection for children and ability to be a good parent? So much for all those books on parenting - if you haven't got a soft jawline, you're destined for parental failure. Research proves it, after all. This is a perfect example of what happens when you divorce science from philosophy. These researchers come up with an absurd conclusion and don't even think twice. I wouldn't be surprised to one day read a headline that said "Research shows that reality doesn't exist after all".

Morality is concerned with the question: what should I do? The reason human nature forms the basis of morality is because an understanding of our nature and requirements must be established before we can correctly answer that question. If you think "genetic dispositions" have some impact on morality, you need to explain how these alleged "dispositions" affect how we should choose our values and virtues.

The economy certainly isn't "in tatters", but rather has remarkably continued to expand despite all the damage Bush and the rest continue to do. Let's not forget that Bush has signed every bill sent to him by congress, so to say whether Kerry would have been worse you'd need to show that Kerry would have been able to influence congress to spend even more than they have under Bush. Seeing as how the Republicans have been actively expanding government (drug benefits, etc), I doubt Kerry's presence would have made that much difference in terms of government expansion. The big thing, I agree, is defense. That is where the president plays the crucial role, much more importantly than with respect to Congressional spending. Kerry would have been a serious blow to our security, in my opinion.

Lukas, are you familiar with the works of Ayn Rand? I ask because you speak of the "mystery of the objective moral", which I take to mean the objective basis of morality -- which was in fact proved by Ayn Rand. I'd suggest reading her book The Virtue of Selfishness.

You mean Muhammed? I am seeing him too, using Opera.

I have put up this audio tape set for sale on ebay. Click to view auction The lecture is excellent. Here is a brief description: An examination of the distinction between "motivation by love" and "motivation by fear". Includes discussion of aspects of motivation including conscious/unconscious factors, the nature of values, life as the ultimate value, and false theories. The course is an excellent application of Objectivism to the topic of motivation and explains how a proper conception of motivation arises from Ayn Rand's metaphysics and ethics. Sells for $80 on aynrandbookstore.com.

There's no need to talk about communism's failure in practice when the theory itself is morally reprehensible. All you need to do is explain why the idea of "from each...to each..." means that productive people morally exist for the sake of the less productive. It should be pretty straightforward to explain why every man has the absolute right to the product of his efforts and the right to exist for his own sake, and why this is in direct contradiction to the central idea of communism (altruism).

I'm curious to know where you immigrated from, and what your experience was like - it's always good to have first-hand accounts when discussing the immigration system.

The criticism I've heard referring to illegals hurting legal immigrants by "jumping the line" is that if the current illegals were to get amnesty, it would be unfair to those who waited through the legal process. On some level, its true that you would be angry about somebody skipping the process and getting the same results as you did with less hassle. But this isn't really a valid argument against amnesty in my book. The fact that some people will feel slighted if illegals are granted a more rational status isn't a good reason to continue to call them criminals. The "unfairness" would be the fault of an arbtrarily restrictive federal government, not of the immigrants who sought to avoid it (without violating anybody's rights).

I'm not willing to take the fact that she survived as evidence of her guilt as an agent of the insurgency. This seems way to close to conspiracy theory to me.

I'd be most concerned about establishing an indepedent judiciary to keep elected officials in check. If we had: 1. A constitution that explicitly set forth not only the powers of government but its purpose and the philosophy behind it, such that it would more immune to "interpretation" than the current U.S. constitution 2. A judiciary consisting of rational judges with the integrity to uphold the constitution against politicians making ever expansive and intrusive laws then I would be much less concerned with the details of how those politicians were elected. I think most of the aversion we have to popular elections comes from the fact that elected officials have been able to run amok without nearly enough interference from the judicial branch. Of course, in the current system, the top judges at least are the indirect result of popular elections (e.g. appointed by the President). While the legislative branch must agree to the judges' appointment, those legislators are likewise popularly elected. I don't really see a way around this. I wonder if anyone else considers this a problem or has other ideas?

I write a weekly op-ed column for my campus newspaper. Earlier this week, I was informed of a mandatory staff meeting in which we would learn from an “expert” professor about how to "increase diversity" at the paper. Along with the announcement came some suggested prep reading, including essays blasting opponents of affirmative action as dishonest and a piece by a white female professor lamenting her "white privilege." Thus, I had good reason to suspect going into it that it would be at best mindless platitudes about respecting others and learning from other cultures etc. I decided to go anyway, since I had a morbid curiosity about what these "diversity seminars" are really like. What I experienced was much more troubling than the warm-fuzzy group hug I expected. The speaker, who later informed us of her status as a "twofer" affirmative action hire because of her being both hispanic and female, came right out of the gate with the following question: "Let's go around the room and everyone tell me what they think is the most important ethical standard for a newspaper." The first two students said "honesty". A few others said variations of "representing all viewpoints" and being "unbiased." When the student just before me was asked, she said she thought that reporting facts and being truthful was important. "But what is the 'truth' and how does it relate to 'facts'?", asked our "expert" academic in a challenging tone. "Many facts contradict themselves, and there is no one truth - everyone sees the world in a different way." The student had no response. Then it was my turn. Even given the response I had just heard, I went ahead with my planned answer: "I'd say the most important thing for a newspaper is to report the facts objectively." The "expert" looked dismayed that I was apparently too dense to understand what she had just explained. “What is ‘objective?”, she asked rhetorically, smug in her knowledge that no answer could be given. Even so, I answered that “Objective means that knowledge corresponds to the facts of reality.” “Expert”: “You’re using the term like we do with science. We’re talking about social issues here.” Me: “I believe it applies to both.” “Expert”: “But people all have different views and different truths.” Me: “Reality is independent of people.” “Expert”: “Don’t you understand how race, culture, and gender shape our reality?” Before I could come up with a reply, she asked whether I had read some government report which apparently proved her assertion that reality is determined by consciousness. After I responded that I had not, she continued to rant for awhile, and eventually continued around the room. One girl prefaced her response with something to the effect of “Well I won’t say objective, because I don’t want to start another lecture…” After the question/answer period, the meeting continued for over an hour, mostly consisting of the “expert” ranting about the media’s alleged sins against minorities. Some of the choice points I remember were: - Every minority student she had spoken to at my university had been outraged about feeling “abused” and ignored by the newspaper. - Newspapers ought to have policies which set racial quotas for people appearing in photos, regardless of the content of the story. (Some papers already do) - International students “don’t count” when discussing minorities. - The U.S. government committed a “war crime” when it killed between 3000 and 5000 innocent Panamanians while going after Noriega, buried them in a mass grave, and suppressed all media reports of the atrocity. - The picture of our newly hired basketball coach on the front page represents a “positive portrayal of a successful white man” while the picture of the recently fired coach was a “negative depiction of a black man.” These and other cases proved our collective bigotry whether we knew it or not. In the course of this, she was sufficiently arrogant and condescending in scolding us for our alleged latent racism/discrimination that several other people were offended enough to verbally dispute her assertions. Towards the end, she was asked, “OK, what do we need to do to improve our diversity?” She answered that journalism and covering minorities requires a proper knowledge base. Without the proper knowledge, our ignorance would condemn us to continue in our latent discriminatory ways. “It’s like the old computer phrase”, she said. “Garbage in, garbage out.” How should one go about acquiring the necessary knowledge base? “The first thing you should do is go to your campus bookstore, and – if they even sell it – buy and read ‘A People’s History of the United States’, by Howard Zinn.” Garbage in, garbage out, indeed.

I think I can clarify my objection, which is that you are using the concept of probability in a invalid way or at least in an improper context. Probabilities can tell us something meaningful when they arise out of facts of reality, or when they pertain to entities which have identities (and therefore causal relationships with other entities). For example, the 50% probability that a flipped coin has of landing heads up arises from the fact that the coin has two possible states, heads and tails, and that these states are part of the coin's indentity. When the coin is flipped, it MUST result in one or the other state. Clearly, there is a causal relationship between the coin's being flipped and its resulting in a particular state 50% of the time. Or, taking a more complex example, one might be able to compile statistics on a certain disease. Given enough data to match with a particular patient's symptoms and genetics etc, you might be able to reasonably assign that person a probability of X% of surviving the disease. In this case too, the probability involves a causal relationship between the disease and the health of the patient. But in your example, you cite a "probability" of our being alive at a given time in history, as if there were an alternative, and then take this to imply that it is "unlikely" that civilaztion will continue much longer. I don't think probability applies here (in any meaningful sense) because there is no causal relationship between our existence at this time and the longevity of civilization. The one fact has no impact on the other. You could just as well compare the probabilities of winning the powerball and of Condi Rice getting elected in 2008.

The problem with "suspecting" such a thing is that you would need evidence for that suspicion. Mathematically and logically, there is no less chance of picking ball #1,000,000 than there is of picking #419,457. I have to echo Jennifer in saying I don't understand the purpose of this thought experiment, as the duration of civilization has nothing to do with the probability of my existence at this time. There is no causal relationship being presented.

Could you elaborate?

I've read all the Sparrowhawk series so far (its up to the fifth book, with the sixth and final book to be released within the next year if I remember correctly). I think the first two books were my favorite, but all of them have been worthwhile. Even though it is fiction, Cline follows the actual history closely. I've learned a lot about colonial America and the political leadup to the Revolution through Sparrowhawk. I highly recommend the entire series (which are all sequels to one another). My only warning: have a dictionary nearby. Ed Cline has a massive vocabulary, and he isn't afraid to use it.

There is one other cause for the anti-immigration sentiment that has not been pointed out yet: the xenophobia of some of the neoconservatives. I was struck by this recently when researching the subject, coming across the following op-ed by Pat Buchanan: http://www.buchanan.org/pa-97-0701.html At first, it seems like he's arguing against multiculturalism. It soon becomes clear that he favors a collective control of the ethnic/cultural makeup of the country by government decree. Notice the anti-intellectual nature of Buchanan's argument. He is not arguing for the importance of upholding American ideas, but to maintain the traditional American "ethnic balance." For him, many of the social problems in the world reduce not to corrupt philosophical principles, but to the trivial fact that two allegedly incompatible ethnic groups live in close proximity. One can only hope this raw bigotry only affects a small portion of the anti-immigration crowd, and that the rest are committing more honest errors. I'm not so sure.