RachelColoredGlasses

Actually, you want a Kantian, Christian or not. Seriously, though, because our subconscious minds work semi-independently from our conscious minds, we can hold automatized values and convictions that are in conflict with our explicit ones. A socialist best friend, for example, might have automatized a sense of great honor and deference to greatness. If so, his behavior, words, and even his bearing will "betray" that sense, that quality, regardless of the fact that he professes to worship mediocrity. And if he is highly compartmentalized, he can pursue highly selfish values in his personal life without ever making the connection between them and their betrayal in the ideas of socialism. Consider another example of committed Christians. The convictions associated with belief in the resurrection of Christ are actually rather abstract, and also the Christian scriptures have enough contradictory admonishments that practically any personality type can join their ranks. Many Christians are highly motivated to achieve objectively great values like financial success, harmonious families, political freedom, and even deep scholarship. All of those are very important values to a wide variety of people, including, I imagine, you. And the virtues it takes to succeed in the pursuit of those values are worthy of respect and admiration. And if the sense-of-life "chemistry" is there alongside those virtues and values, i.e. if your personalities are complimentary, then a friendship, even a strong one, could indeed develop. Most people are not professional philosophers. And because we live in a society of such specialization, it is possible to live for many decades without discovering the contradictions between rational values and mysticism or subjectivism. This was illustrated through Gail Wynand, in The Fountainhead. If he and Roark were not best friends, surely they were extremely close. But it would be a stretch to say that Gail was a capitalist. In fact, his explicit epistemology included the believe that reason is not the best way to deal with men. And his version of egoism was decidedly Machiavellian. But Roark was drawn to the greatness that he saw in Wynand that contradicted this. He hoped, right up until the end, that his friend would realize the truth about his own potential.

If it isn't too redundant, here is how I'd put it: Is it okay for me to grab a rabbit, if I can catch it, and eat it? Is it okay for me to grab some flammable materials and cause them to ignite, and then roast the rabbit before eating it? It is okay for me to harvest materials to fashion a shelter? What about carving a lute? Must I ask permission to make an agreement with someone to play him a song if he gives me some of his rabbit? The concept of rights is derived from the need to take specific actions in order to live and the observation that men must use persuasion when dealing with other men. Private property, or ownership, is nothing more than an extension of the recognition that I can/must use my own ingenuity and effort to exploit nature and can/must make agreements with other men to more effectively dispose of my thoughts and actions. A car, or a house, or a computer, or a side of beef - these are nothing more than highly complex derivatives of various men putting their minds and bodies to work. One man must stoop to plant seed. Another must swing a pick to strike a vein of ore. And a third must secure their cooperation in exchange for coordinating their efforts to maximum effect. The failure to accept property rights as a logical extension of the right to life, i.e. to exploit nature to meet my own needs, is a declaration that thoughts and actions have no purpose. The thief (or socialist) is reneging on his agreement to exchange his labor (including creativity) for the labor of others. I take actions, like hunting, in order to achieve certain consequences, like getting a rabbit for stew. If I knew that hunting would not result in putting a rabbit on my plate, or that any given action would result only in supporting someone else's goals, I would have no life of my own. My thoughts would be disconnected from my actions. And my actions would be meaningless. (Actually, if I knew that my hunting was no longer resulting in putting rabbits on my plate, I'd figure out why it wasn't working. I surmise that it would result in an arrow through someone's throat. It's dangerous to mess with man!) Boiled down, it's all only thoughts and actions - even the puppy that some bastard suggests he wants to torture (since the breed had to be domesticated and hybridized and the individual animals had to be fostered, etc.). Too bad he can't see the magnificent beauty of the system built from this simple identification. Rachel P.S. There is no difference in principle between taking everything from a man and taking only 1% from him. Because men must be dealt with by persuasion, i.e. by securing voluntary cooperation, any violation of that is total. Either I am cooperating or I am not. Either we have reached an agreement or we have not. Look at it this way: Slaves are kept in order to harvest their labor. Technically, they produce more than they actually need in order to make it from day to day, at least physically. This is evidenced by the fact that their owners become quite wealthy. That wealth is coming from somewhere, and the owners surely aren't producing it! Some fraction of the productive effort of the slaves more than 1% is being harvested, especially if all they have left is food for themselves and their shelters. What's wrong with that situation? Why exactly do men regard such a practice as wrong? How does a reduction of the magnitude of the harvest tto a mere 1% justify it? Spreading the taking around so that everyone's production is harvested doesn't make it fair. It only turns everyone into a slave of everyone else. (And, insidiously, it makes it that much more difficult for common men to recognize their predicament. One advantage of the literal slave is that at least he knows he's a slave. When he goes to the slaughter, it won't be as a lamb. That can't be said of the socialist.)

I think on the specific point about primarily identifying with the hero I don't really have a disagreement. I'm trying to frame in my head why I took the tone I did, which is indeed somewhat in disagreement with you. Let's see if I can articulate this... I think it's that I feel a solidarity with life that is similar to the solidarity that I feel with rational men. Of course I don't feel the former nearly as intensely as I feel the latter; I don't actually burst out into tears every time something dies. But that something must die that I might live I think is worthy of acknowledgment - and in the case of dogs, because of their special relationship with man, that acknowledgment might include tears. In the specific case of the attack dog trained to carry out the ends of evil men, the tragedy lies in the fact that a perfectly good living entity is being used as a tool of destruction. I totally support the hero in the necessary killing of such a beast. It has to be done in order to serve his values. But I don't revel in the death of the dog. Nor am I claiming that I think you do. But that's my point: Decent men do not celebrate the necessity of death. Of course death is natural and even helps us define the value of life. But it's inevitability, even in the context of our hero defending his greater values, is regrettable. Don't you think?

I don't think it has any necessary connection to anthropomorphism or even an unhealthy valuation of animals above that of humans. Those things we value in general are in general valuable to us and evoke emotional responses. Consider that car lovers hate to see high-end cars wasted on the unappreciative and may even feel sad at the destruction of a fine machine. Those who value fine art cry out at the prospect of a private owner destroying one of his own pieces, even though they themselves might never have benefited directly from the piece. And when a person of high intelligence decides not to exercise his fine abilities and instead turns to drugs or crime, we bow our heads at the tragedy of wasted potential though that particular intelligence has nothing directly to do with most of us. Benevolent men value the very idea of values. We love the idea of others prospering, and the thought of life flourishing in places we'll never visit. And in the case of dog-lovers, the idea of pain caused to any canine is an ugly thought that properly brings out strongly negative emotions. And crying because a dog dies who belongs to people you care nothing about is a response not to some floating abstraction but to your own values.

Start with the individuals. Each individual (whether or not a citizen, by the way) has the right to personal self-defense. This right extends to his property, of course. But a need arises to identify proper and improper uses of force. We need government in order to submit the use of force to objective principles. One extension of this is the need to submit acts of force to public scrutiny. Being concerned with your own defense, you need to know not only that those who would initiate force against you are thwarted (or at least punished) but also that when others use force, it is in self-defense. You need to be able to examine the justifications for each use of force to determine whether it was truly defensive. Anyone can claim self-defense, but part of your right to self-defense is the right to examine it when force is used so you may determine that there isn't a criminal hiding in your midst. (This, by the way, justifies police entering private property and speeding in exigent circumstances.) The government is the way to do this. By giving only certain properly trained individuals leeway to exercise force, and subjecting their activity to laws and court oversight, each individual can remain certain that each use of force is strictly defensive in nature. The government of Objectania is more or less a company instituted for the management of force of arms. Since it requires resources, it will need to charge for its services. It will need to purchase or rent property in order to base its operations. But the literal answer to your question is that the government exists specifically to protect the island - the privately owned property of the island. That any land on the island is privately owned is the government's justification for existence. (Clarification: When I use the word "defensive" in this context, I do not imply that it is strictly a post hoc response. Preemptive use of force can be defensive, i.e. non-initiative, if the context warrants it.) [Edited for clarity. -r]

Even before I try to apply an explicit principle to a situation, I like to ask myself, "Which consequences can I live with?" In this situation, that question becomes particularly apropos. To my thinking, there are certain circumstances that I find so repugnant that I simply cannot tolerate being a conscious, thinking being in them. That's rather a fancy way to say that I'd rather die than see them come about. In the situation that you describe, I think it's arguable whether you have any choice in the matter to begin with. And it is important to remember that ethics exists only to guide man in making choices, and in particular choices that pertain to furthering his life. But in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation, also commonly referred to as a "lifeboat" situation (because in a lifeboat at sea, there's not a lot you can do to survive, if anything), you aren't faced with the normal (i.e. proper to man's nature) mode of living. Normally, naturally, man must use his mind to determine a way of exploiting nature to produce circumstances favorable to his life. Prior to civilization, he must perform every necessary task himself. In civilization, division of labor becomes possible (even preferable), and he can specialize in a limited activity and count on trade with others to acquire all his needs. But in life as it existed under the Third Reich, no such actions were possible. There was no way to answer the question, "How should I proceed so as to benefit my own life while leaving others free to do the same?" It was an artificially induced hell. And the name of the game, in Hell, is Beggar Your Neighbor. Will you be predator or prey? But what were the practical consequences of choosing to turn over Jews? Well, you'd remain free of concentration camps, and even more immediately you would be allowed to "trade" with others, i.e. purchase bread. So in a sense, you'd have your immediate life, such as it was, and have opportunities for further action. But looking a little past that, what would your life be worth? Would that course of action bring you any closer to man's proper state of being, i.e. to exploit nature and leave other men free to do the same? No. Not really. You would only be, to a greater or lesser extent, fueling the German Wehrmacht and its destructive philosophy, which would ultimately kill you, too. On the other hand, what were the practical consequences of choosing to hide or succor the Jews? Presuming you weren't caught, you would still have to live in fear of discovery. And even though the principle of honesty doesn't strictly apply to this situation, the fact remains that leading a "double life", which is what actively hiding facts from others amounts to, is extremely difficult. It wouldn't directly benefit you. In fact, it would tend to multiply the difficulties of your own already deprived life. And while the psychological consequences of capitulating to the criminals that the Nazis were would have been devastating, there is no denying that the alternative had its own dangers - being at odds with your neighbors and the prevailing sensibilities of your society takes its toll on your frame of mind (think "siege mentality"). I think the thing that tips the scale for me is that by helping Jews to remain free of the Nazis, I would have been working toward a state of affairs in which I, or at least those I loved, was properly free to address the problems of life and safe in a civilization that respects man's nature. It's subtle so it may not seem like much, but like I said, I'd rather not go through the motions of life-proper-to-man if they are only an illusion. Rachel P.S. And, as the old story goes: "I could die; the king could die; and who knows, maybe the horse will sing!"

Those interested in rational parenting would do very well by visiting Rational Jenn's blog. She's an Objectivist, home-schooling mother. She is very articulate, extremely insightful, and more than a little educated, not to mention quite funny! I'm not aware of any of her posts dealing explicitly with Rand's ideas on parenting, but she herself has approached this career with the principled method of a scientist and the ambitious determination of an entrepreneur. Here is a link to her post, titled The Goal . . . (or Parenting, What's the Point?). A quote from that post: And here are two of my recent favorites: On Staying Out Of The Way A quote from there: On Positive Discipline A quote from there: When my turn comes, I want to be like her!

Er, not quite. She was certainly in error about the right course of action. But, as they hastened to assure her during her month in the valley, they, including Dagny, were all in agreement on the basic principles. True, Galt did tell her that she was the one he would be fighting, but he also said that his true enemies were the moochers and looters. He did not regard her as immoral. He could never be in love with an immoral woman. The distinction between error and immorality is sometimes subtle, but always crucial.

I'm dissatisfied with this piece. It is excellent as far as it goes, and there is no doubt that I lack the skill to even come close to such quality. But my dissatisfaction is with the polemical implication of the essay. Notice that the only two Republicans mentioned were Bush and Palin, two enemies of the cause. (McCain doesn't count because his name was merely a descriptor to help identify Palin.) What I'd like to see added to pieces like these are names of those who have some hope of achieving what this article hopes for. If the Republican party has any chance of being turned away from religion toward its capitalist side, someone has to do it, somehow. What the article points out is very true. If the party in the next few years will ostracize or even demonize the religionist element then it could be a powerful force for good. (Wow, I feel like I'm paraphrasing Star Wars!) But will that consist of bringing the religious members to see their errors? Or will it take adding a new, more secular membership? Are there influential or prominent Republican party members who might be open to rational principles who might also be encouraged to work harder -- strike that -- more efficiently at converting their party? Jared Seehafer eloquently lays out the problem. But how can the challenge be met, by whom, and through what means?

According to Ayn Rand (or was it Peikoff? I can't remember), it is not immoral to accept federal student loans because they are the only effective way (for most people) to get an education. As long as you actually disapprove of state funding of such things, and otherwise work to establish justice (e.g. by voting against measures to expand state control), then, since there really isn't any other good option and since you need an education to make it in practically any field, you don't have any practical choice. And, presumably, by the same logic, it is no vice to work for an educational institution either, provided you make it clear that you do not approve of the system of state-run schooling. That principle can be applied, I think, to the banking industry. We all have to bank. If there are other options, you should exercise them. But if the state is going to run the banks, then what choice do you have? It is remotely possible that a case could be made that a moral man could work in a policy-making position for the Fed, a la Greenspan, but, per Rand (and I agree), the requisite daily compromising would tend to corrupt your sense of reality. And as for Greenspan specifically, as Yaron Brook pointed out in his excellent interview on PJTV recently, the man never once, not one single time, took a public stance for, nor acted (with respect to policy) in the interests of a free market. The man was consistently statist in word and deed over the entirety of his job at the Fed.

Please pardon my ignorance, but can you help me understand what you mean by "Ron Paul is cheering"? I know that he's essentially (officially?) a Libertarian, but what is his stance on this issue?

The power of private interests at work!

Hi Rem. The trouble with asking the question, "Should a limit be placed on the number of fish removed from the lake?", is that it's not necessarily straight forward who's purpose this serves. Technically, until property rights have been established by some objective authority, no one owns the lake, and no one has a legitimate interest in its fish, so no one's purpose can be considered. The solution to the "Tragedy of the Commons" is to establish ownership. For as long as no valid claim to ownership can be made, the lake must be said to be unowned. And it is not right to prevent someone from making a value out of the unowned. Of course, the question of how to establish ownership can be complicated. But in the specific case of the lake with fish, I would suggest that a corporation be established by all parties who can demonstrate that they are in a position to exploit it (i.e. all the local fishermen). Once the corporation is established, a monetary value could be placed on its shares, a charter can be written up, and everyone with an interest in the corporation can harvest a measurable value from the lake. And I should think that a reasonable fisherman would not be averse to joining such a corporation because it would tend to perpetuate the fish that are desired by fishermen. Were I a judge of the case, I'd try to find a set of criteria for determining who has a current, viable claim to fishing. It would have to be fishermen who are already established, to avoid the problem of new-comers. And I might look at their relative harvesting capabilities. Those who are currently able to harvest more than others might be considered for greater shares of the company. Another way to approach the problem would be to solicit bids for the property and to let everyone have a share proportional to the size of their bid. (And all bids must be paid to the state for payment of its arbitration services. Incidentally, this is one way to voluntarily fund the government.) Rachel

Yes, I did concretize justifications for means and ends. Thanks for noticing. As a matter of fact, I even managed to imply that it is all chosen. Heck, I actually used the word "choose" in the very block you quoted. So sorry you missed that point. :/ And seeing as how I was merely explaining, your snark about my failure to convince again missed the point. Thanks for trying, though.

Normally, when you ask the question, "Should I...?", what you mean is should you carry out some action in order to further some end. Should you finish your homework in order to pass a class? Should you drive carefully in order to avoid a wreck? Should you produce some good or service in order to earn a wage? Should you watch the television in order to be entertained (or informed)? All of the actions you perform are motivated by your desire to accomplish some end or other. Each achievement, whether it be to walk up a flight of stairs (to get to a room on the next story of the building), or to microwave a frozen food product (to make it edible), or to open a window (to get a breath of fresh air) is the result of an action, but it is also an action itself toward the accomplishment of another goal. You wanted to get to a the bedroom on the second floor so that you could go to sleep; or to eat some food in order to maintain your health; or to get some fresh air in order to lessen distractions (like a stuffy room) in order to concentrate better on a book you are studying. But when it comes to living your life, you live it in order to be alive. And you want to be alive so that you can continue to experience life. And so on. There is no "outside" or "higher" reason or motivation or purpose for living. You choose to live and the goal of your life is... your life. It is its own end. If you want to phrase it in terms of justification, the justification for a normal action is its "parent" goal. My justification for walking up stairs is to reach the rooms at the top. My justification for nuking a burrito is to make it edible. My justification for opening the window is the fresh air. And, naturally, each of those higher-order goals is justified in turn by the goals they serve. But with life, because it's goal is simply more of itself, it is it's own justification. Nothing else justifies my life, and nothing else needs to. Incidentally, this is one of the preconditions to establishing ethics. It turns out that we need ethics in order to figure out how best to live, since we certainly can't survive by following whatever whim happens to catch our fancy every changing moment. Each man is his own end, his own moral purpose, and he uses ethics to develop the map of his whole life.