whYNOT

"In 2012, the Mayor of New York affirms that the role of government is to forbid the sale of super-sized sodas."

This is the open letter to the Mayor of New York's subjects.

“Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” (Job 1:21)

“Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up." (James 4:7-10)

“Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.” (Romans 13:1)

Throughout centuries state and church supported each other. Church provided divine legitimization to any form of statism and the state-unlimited power to use in the name of God. This unholy union created nothing but misery, poverty and hecatombs of corpses. As result of Enlightenment Church had been separated from the state, and God as Nietzsche observed, died. However, that hardly could be said about state. Only for the relatively short period in human history in the new American Republic people were treated as a free independent thinking beings and the state as their servant. Then the social pendulum hanging on the mystical-altruist-collectivist axis swayed back. People, who for the almost 2000 years have been taught that God should provide, started to look for a substitute. They found it in the form of government. Today government expected to have the mystical divine powers of the alleged God. Government is omnipotent, omnipresent omniscient and eternal. It tells people how to bake a loaf of bread, to build a house, what and how to eat, drink and inhale. It even supposes to handle events of the cosmic proportion like Global Warming (or Freezing, or what you have). It supposes to give wealth, health and happiness. It is a government that gives and takes away and lifts you up, providing that you are humble enough and pay your taxes. In other words we are dealing today with the bad case of social disease-a deification of state. What is the cause of this deadly illness? In my view-the source of state deification is a consequence of the Western dominant philosophy-altruism.


“It is your mind that they want you to surrender—all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth” (GS)

Altruism turns everybody to the second handier, a person who is living through the others, shedding his independence and responsibility and looking for somebody to pick up the buck. The government which for centuries operated under the divine shadow is only too happy to take over the functions of the late Almighty. So next time when the government tells you what size the cup of Coca-Cola should be and how many fire doors should be in the building, don’t say: blessed be the name of the government. Don't change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Remember Nietzsche and answer “This kind of government is dead”

Induction and Anarchism as an Ideal
By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
06/02/2012

I’ve come to a realization recently after having discussions with several anarchists, and the realization is that some of them are not being rationalistic (thinking of principles divorced from the facts), but rather they are making an inductive generalization based upon their own experience of dealing with various governments who insist on getting in their way of leading their lives in a rational, independent, and productive manner. What generally happens is that they seek to do something – like opening up a business in a convenient location – and the government steps in and tells them they cannot do that without specific permission from the government (local, regional, or national). For example, I once had a boss who decided to move his picture framing gallery across the street to a smaller venue. No problem getting the lease and the business name and signage and all that stuff, but the trouble was that the venue did not have a rear entrance to be used in case of emergencies, so the local government would not let him move in until they had an investigation. Said investigation took over eight months to come up with a legal solution, so he lost revenue for all of that time. Fortunately for him, he had a second location that was doing OK, but can you imagine not getting paid for eight months due to a government technicality? I’ve heard of similar stories, and while not all of the victims turn to anarchism, some definitely do, stating that it would be better if we had no government at all, which they think would solve the problem.

According to The Logical Leap by David Harriman, it does not take a lot of the same types of facts to be aware of to come to an inductive generalization. Turning on several light switches in a house can get even a young child to come up with the generalization, “Flipping the light switch will turn on the lights.” So, even a few times of dealing with a government can lead one to realize the generalization that, “The government is preventing me from living my life!” Is this a valid generalization? One based on the facts in terms of causation? And what should one do about it? An Objectivist would say to advocate for better government based upon upholding individual rights in such a way that the individual is free to live his life as he sees fit so long as he does not initiate force against others. To many people who turn towards anarchism (no government), this seems like a very far-fetched way of getting rid of entrenched governments who violate individual rights. However, a contextual research into the early decades of the United States (the first 150 years) will show that just such a government did indeed exist (sans slavery and taxes). That is, a government geared towards an extension of self-defense in an institutionalized manner did exist, and was lost over the years. But what made that loss possible; and, indeed, what made the United States possible in the first place?

Basically, it was the ideas of The Enlightenment that made such a free country possible, as the individual became sovereign in all walks of life due to the rational influence of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, who advocated that each man’s individual mind was capable of knowing reality unaided by Divine Intervention or government edicts. Prior to that, with the possible exception of Ancient Athens, there was a top-down approach to government whereby the government would set the terms for the life of the individual in that society – of the individual being the servant of the State instead of the opposite idea that the government ought to be the servant / protector of the individual. It was the Founding Fathers of the United States and the political theories they understood and advocated that led to the individual protection type of government. Unfortunately, these ideas really required a more philosophical approach – basically a new rational philosophy and a rational morality – to ideally translate into a politics that would stand the test of time and not become eroded as reason and individualism wavered due to bad philosophies (primarily Kant and his collectivism). Without that fully rational basis, the Founders presented the case of rights as being self-evident – as it states in The Declaration of Independence – whereas the concept of individual rights does require a whole host of more fundamental ideas to be completely validated. Lacking such a base, the political ideals of the Founders became chipped away almost from the beginning, but especially after the ideas of Kant swamped the field of philosophy.

And I think it is because the ideas of individual rights and proper government are not self-evident that collectivism on the one hand or anarchism on the other hand begin to take precedent in people’s mind. They tend to think that we need either more government (total socialism) or get rid of government altogether (anarchism) to solve the current problems. I have written elsewhere why I do not think that anarchism or competing governments will work, but I do think the anarchists just cannot conceive of a proper government or say that it has been tried and has always failed. Due to this, I think their initial inductive generalization is a false one, that the alternative is not Socialism versus Anarchism, but rather upholding individual rights in a fully institutionalized manner (Constitutional Republic) or dispensing with them in fully institutionalized manner (Communism). The idea of institutionalized protection for the individual is very difficult for the confirmed anarchist to accept, as individualist as some of them are, but anarchism is not the solution. A government dedicating to protecting the legitimate rights of the individual would leave one free to live one’s own life according to one’s own ideals while preventing others from interfering with said decisions with force (as this would be illegal and punishable by law). Anarchism, on the other hand, would not provide for such protection. Some anarchist claim to have thought it all through and have come up with solutions based on market principles, but I have yet to see a worked out solution that would not eventually lead to outright violence in the streets as one segment of individuals attempts to protect themselves from other individuals in an effort to protect their rights, which they claim were violated (real or imagined). With a Constitutional Republic and institutionalized systems of protecting the individual (police force, military, and courts for resolving disputes peacefully), I don’t see how one can protect oneself for large-scale enterprises, like a corporation that exists, say, in all states of the United States; nor for one’s own individual life as these competing agencies of force vie for protecting the individual without any sort of institutionalized system of resolving disputes (the court system). So, both myself and fellow Objectivists are for a clearly limited Constitutional Republic rather than anarchy.

This Canadian beauty was born as a man and still possesses XY set of chromosomes. However i doubt that anybody can claim that she represents a metaphysical assault.

Stop. Hold that thought. Explore it. Think about your thought process there.

Instead of top-down rationalism you're doing proper bottoms-up cognition and coming up with the ambiguity that is necessary when you don't have enough information. This is a good thing. Celebrate it. It's what it is to be human. It's part of our nature--to not know every imaginable thing at any given moment. To not be Aquinas's Angel. To not feel required to have an opinion on everything no matter how little you know about a particular subject.

Water Helen! Water!

This is just flat-out rationalism. Man can't get gills for some good purpose like mining the ocean? Though this is a hypothetical, why not? It would be to his benefit (assuming this kind of modification doesn't hinder an otherwise healthy life). In this case, you could consider the man's body his "environment," if you want to look at it that way. Either way, he's doing something to make his life better.
There's really nothing wrong with any kind of body modification, or mind modification for that matter, as long as there is nothing wrong with it. You have to look at the facts -- look at your life, the possibilities available to you, your limits, your goals, etc. etc. etc. Honestly, this "sanctity of the body" crap is just that -- crap. You need to consider the broadest picture.

Once in a lifetime opportunities are very rare. That's why I clicked on this thread, I was intrigued about what it could be. Were you selected for the next space mission? Are you 35 and just failed your Olympics qualifier? What could it be?

From the sound of it, your opportunity isn't "once in a lifetime". If you work hard and are a good enough salesman to have deserved that job, you're going to get another offer eventually.

I find that often people treat opportunities the same way they treat love: as a mystical, unearned concept. They're not: opportunities aren't gifts, they are the result of your actions just as much as full out success. Getting an opportunity is the sign that you're at least half way to success. Blowing that opportunity is a sign that you are exactly half way to success. It's not a sign that you suck. If you sucked, you wouldn't have gotten the opportunity.

So you should look at the glass as half full: you are good enough to have earned yourself this opportunity. You are not quite good enough to fully benefit from it, but this is not a setback. Just because you blew this, it doesn't mean that you're worse off than where you were before. You're just as good as you were before you got this opportunity, which means you should expect more of them to come along as you continue to work hard.

No, I'm not interested in legality, and don't know how you got the notion.
Morality, through metaphysics, is all I emphasize here.
Perhaps, I should explain the "conservative" reference.
It is the religious, conservativist element that opposes any intervention in the
human body, based on their metaphysics of 'God's Plan'(roughly.)
Objectivist metaphysics of Man contains no supernaturalism, or fatalism.

Rational, autonomous, self-generating and directing, fallible and a-mystical.
Just to remind you,there is no place for gender or sexuality in our metaphysics.

Now, if Dr Peikoff had called the operation a "physical assault",then he'd have had
a point - but less of a moral argument.

Whatever the neuro-science or DNA composition that determines the transgenderist,
and there certainly is more for professionals to learn, the opposition to it on
moral grounds is surprisingly "conservativist" coming from him.
He doesn't know enough, and nor do I - but what makes anyone believe that this
is all that rare a phenomenon in the first place? or, that it is not an
extremely powerful "urge" - for a gender change, primarily, with sexuality secondary?

Judging the surgical procedure as "immoral" might well condemn a person to a lifetime of misery.
Now THAT is irrational.

Sex as a romp, guilt-free and uncommited. Sort of a healthy gym work-out,
leaving both of you glowing. Great, so far.
But I don't know. It's more, in my experience.
Sex always involved intimacy, which meant feeling, and ultimately, thought -
self-examination, and introspection, mainly.
Even (I repeat) when that was the last result I wanted.
Maybe, in my escapades, I have never known 'casual' sex.
Is there really such a thing? Where's the passionate emotion? The interest
in another human? What are we distancing ourselves from? It's personal, dammit.
In truth, I really don't know whether to feel envy, or sympathy, for anyone
who experiences it differently.

I see no fundamental disparity between your view and that of Objectivism.
Maybe it will be useful for you to remember that a thing that exists does not only exists, but it exists as something. It has an identity.
In this same sense, survival means survival as something. In the case of man, survival as a man, and as a particular man, a unique person. Survival means survival as a value-seeking being with volition and intelligence. A being who can produce, create, understand, learn, share, love and be loved.

Another dimension of the issue is that a person does not only exists. Persons become. Persons change themselves, sculpt their characters, write their biographies.

A horse is what a horse is. A horse cannot become more of a horse or less than a horse out of its own will.
Men, on the contrary, become. They do it out of their volitional and rational faculty. They can become more rational or less rational, more benevolent or cruel. They can select memories, culture emotions and preferences, achieve things, make money. They can even extend their lifespan and improve their bodies!
Survival qua man, in this context, also means becoming. Life means becoming.

People who choose not to think, become less human. That is possible only because they are human in the first place: because they chose.
That's why Ayn Rand uses strong terms (even "anthropoids") to show contempt for these people, and that's why she uses "hero" as the concept associated with man qua man.

So, survival in Objectivism is survival qua hero.

My question was very simple: why Mr. Thompson doesn't own Galt's life? And my answer is also simple: Mr. Thompson can take it away, to kill Galt, but he cannot grant it because it is not his. Only Galt can possess his life by right. The question is why? What is this right which exclusively belongs to each and every man and to him alone, why this right is not interchangeable, not transferable, inalienable. I think it's because this right is part of the very nature of man. Man, as any other living being is an autonomous entity which is able to generate the self-sustained goal orientated action, and therefore he is driven by self-causation. Qua man he acts but not acted upon. Any antecedent force applied to him would be detrimental to his life. But unlike other animals man possesses self-awareness and on this cognitive level such a faculty is perceived by man as volition-that is, an ability to make choices and to act upon them. In other words, man possesses the ownership on his own life. By what right? Simply by the virtue of been alive. If he cannot make choices and to act upon them , he cannot live. How does he know that? By means of self-awareness and introspection. The moment man is aware that he is living, thinking, volitional being, he also knows that his life belongs only to him by right . This right could be infringed, restricted curbed, but as long as man is alive, it cannot be taken away from him. That is the reason why altruism is impractical-man has right to live only his own life, but not the life of others-it doesn't belong to him. That why Mr. Thompson can kill Galt, but cannot offer him life. He doesn't own it, only Galt does. What we call political right in fact is a moral principle which protects this right. It is a principle which in Ayn Rand's words " subordinates society to the moral law". The only law which can do that is law of non-initiation of force which, as I mentioned above, could be only detrimental to man's life. So political right in fact is a man-made moral principle which protects man's right to live, but this principle is not identical with man's right to live which is part of man's nature, faculty of his self-awareness and ,therefore natural and metaphysically given, as his volition and mind. If man's right to live is not natural then it is granted and man possesses his right to live by permission, which is contradiction in terms. Everyone who objects to the idea that man's rights are intrinsic to his very nature should also remember that contradictions don't exist.

I don't think Objectivism says there is no influence of genes and environment, but rather that whatever influence they have does not determine what we are but merely influences us.

You must be careful with modern psychology and read between the lines for what their data show and how they're interpreting it. For example, in The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker "shows" that (from memory) half the variability in personality etc comes from genes and environment and the other half he assigns to "peer group influence." He leaves out the mind entirely. As peer groups are chosen, it is at least equally valid from the data to say "the other half comes from choice." And further, most people do not really think: they just drift with their culture (as shown by the prevalence, and "heritability", of religion).

You also have to beware of other sweeping conclusions. For example, social scientists will find a correlation between genes etc and voting patterns. But my interpretation of that is simply that (rather obviously, I'd say) your genes and environment influence such traits as risk taking vs conformity - and such broad personality traits in turn influence other things like how you vote.

The key thing philosophically is that any psychological or social science research that does not consider the role of the mind and its thinking cannot be taken at face value - because they have left out the fundamental part of being human. And related to that, except in the case of psychosis or severe neurosis, you are always free to think and choose your values. That might be made harder by your psychology: but "normal" people always have the option to think, to act on their thinking - and seek help, if necessary.

On the general topic of how free will is derived from having a thinking mind, you might be interested in what I have written here:
http://www.monoreali...s/freewill.html

I would call it a gross over simplification, but really that whole page is. It was written in the context of a brief explanation of freewill so I would recommend thinking of it in that light. That said, I doubt many Objectivists would argue that freewill exists independently of existence. A man can not will himself to float into the air or make a cheeseburger materialize in front of him. Choices have to be made with regard to something and that something is reality. What(I assume) they mean is that if your given a choice to drink either a glass of water or a glass of cyanide, your choice isn't predetermined in any way by the facts of your existence. You bring your rational faculties to bare on the circumstance before you and make the best choice freely, within the context of those choices available to you. If those are your only choices then you can't choose orange juice, but that's not the same thing as being determined, philosophically. The relevent part is your freewill applied to the specific reality you happen to be in.

Same with the more complex issues of genes and upbringing. Those things massively shape the choices available to you, but they do not free you from the burden of being responsible for the choices you do make with regard to what is available to you.

Obviously you would hold those things as relevant in determining someone's moral worth. Making a million dollars from scratch is a world away from making a million dollars after inheriting a million first. Likewise in considering a disability or emotional disorder.

The podcast is worthwhile, but not surprising, and as you say could apply both ways.

Trying to get my head round Objectivists "misinterpreting" O'ism - and being ousted as a result...

Is it possible to be a. an intrincist O'ist? b. a subjective O'ist?
That was a new notion for me until I read LP and DK, on the subject.

"Peikoff is giving voice to intrincism - a belief that the truth is revealed and that error
reflects a willful refusal to see." [ D. Kelley: Truth and Toleration]
Also:
"Fundamentally, the choice is objectivity vs. non-objectivity in its various forms.
Being objective in practice however, does require a kind of mental balancing that
sometimes feels like striking a compromise.
We have to hold in mind the requirements both of reality, and of our own nature, and if
we focus too narrowly on one, or the other, we tend to slide into intrincism or subjectivism."

"Compromise"? " mental balancing" ? not things that I wanted to hear, as an Objectivist.

Except. I know what he means. Who of us picked up our first Ayn Rand novel, followed by
everything else she wrote (in quick succession) and did not get a 'sense' of "revealed knowledge"?
I'll bet that it lasts to this day in many of us.
Partly her style, partly her self-evident truthfulness, partly her sense of urgency in her terse essays, partly
the reader's own hunger - lots of elements to this. Of course, she did, and would, reject intrincism with contempt.
She proved every step of the way.
But the effect still lingers. Emulating her (or trying to) can lead to dogmatism, in my opinion.

I know what Kelley means by the narrow gap between subjectivism and intrincism.
It is that (I suppose) psycho-epismological sense - again - that one is both observer of, and participant
in life. Kinda like simultaneously watching a play onstage as an audience member - and being the main character
in the spotlights.
Part of the value, the essential one for me, of Nathaniel Branden's works, is that he 'ties them together', and avoids
both pitfalls in the process.. (An 'enemy of O'ism'? hardly. Perhaps its greatest supporter, in hindsight.)

As an afterthought, it's occurring to me that the difference between the DK 'school', and the LP one, is not only
epistemological, but also metaphysical. That is indeed a very deep divide. Personally, I will continue to learn
from both schools.

Grames, I would rather focus on the positive aspects.
As is commonly known, Rand implicitly and explicitly repeated that Objectivists should never accept any authority over their minds - especially, and even her own:
"The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth."

From this, I take that it is irrational to enshrine any authoritative figure since a. he or she can make mistakes; b. far more importantly, it interferes with one's own relationship with reality.
"...an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error."[Galt]

I know that Peikoff has made some brilliant contributions to O'ism; similarly, Kelley has been of great value to me (and the fact they are at a seemingly insoluble intellectual impasse doesn't escape me - but 'to choose one side' is an error of mutual exclusion, in my mind). I am just as certain that in (due to?) his prolific Podcast output, LP has made some rationalistic errors in recent times.
That Diana Hsieh honestly pointed them out should not draw such virulent criticism, nor put her beyond the pale. He should thank her.
Thankfully, none of us is omniscient. Without deliberately going out to make them, in my view, one is not really trying hard, unless one does make mistakes...to then correct them.

Objectivist principles are not only contained within a set of books, but in the life and mind (errors and all) of each of us. They are not a suit of armor, nor a straitjacket, nor a hair-shirt - they are a tool and a guide with a singular purpose.

SoftwareNerd,

More schisms! Original approach, and half-playfully I'm imagining it taken to its
logical, absurd outcome - each Objectivist becoming his own Independent Institution.
Yup, *individualists* would you believe?! Where we started.

Seriously, though, as has probably been mentioned, it is all becoming ridiculous.

If one O'ist tends toward dogmatism, and another to intrincism, another, subjectivism, etc,
I for one have confidence that they will correct those as they go along. Simply because
I know I will, to the best of my ability. (And if that's subjectivist, too bad.)
O'ism's methodology, and plain-old not so simple living, will eventually reveal wrong premises,
more truthfully than any 'premise checker' group will - and with none of the authoritarianism.

Biggest certainty is that I have more in common with some guy or woman in Baltimore,
or Cedar Falls, or wherever, than with my next-door neighbors. And I get on fine with them, usually.
Let's not 'glorify' our minor distinctions.

But a coercive monopoly, insofar as its also a business, is protected by the government in both good ways and bad ways...

As for the rest of the thesis, I'm exactly sure what the point is--perhaps you can clarify. If the point is that, in the USA, it's impossible to do any sort of business because of regulations, I would say that is wrong, and needlessly defeatist. Surely there are some businesses that are very difficult to enter because of regulations, and a few that are practically speaking impossible, but I know a lot about business and I would tell you it really isn't that bad out there (speaking about the USA here--I know zero about other countries in this regard). Also, remember that regulations only effect competition when they are different for one company versus another. The government controlling the roads is actually an example where practically speaking that doesn't happen.

The subtle point here is about degrees and measurement: does the given regulation distort things by .1%? 1%? 10%? 100%. If we're talking about a new business, the risks are so enormous that unless regulations are rampant (100% if you will), other natural factors are far, far more decisive. For ongoing and commodity businesses, a government-mandated "boost" of say "5%" is often still not significant to competition as compared to other factors.

I typically see regulations having the undesirable effect of distorting competition rather than killing it. It sometimes makes companies do weird things, to the detriment of everybody...

1) I think individual actions are being judged on the basis of aggregates. This isn't a correct way to analyze things. Most individual actions can't be judged as ethical or unethical based on GNP.

I have no responsibility to increase GNP as much as I possibly can.

Giving a man a sandwich he didn't earn isn't the harm that is being done. The circumstances that create that dependency in the first place is the problem.

2) I did a lot of charity work in my teenage years. It was awful. I "volunteered" at a nursing home that focused on dimentia patients, several soup kitchens, and even an impoverished minority neigborhood. I don't understand how anyone can work in a nursing home, maybe I was just sensitive at the time, but its depressing.

I have found that most of the really endangered people who recieve charity have mental illnesses that go beyond the helpfulness of ethical instruction. We aren't really talking about an unofrtunate vs immoral dichotomy, because we have to consider that many of those men and women's minds have been permantely damaged by a variety of life experiences that could have come from misfortune, flaws in our polticial economy, or just average immorality. Until psychotherapy becomes a meaninful science meant to help actually dysfunctional people, these people can only just be supported out of a good will.

3) Another issue that needs to be considered is the fact that poverty is extremely relative. Some of the people that are considered poor are at worse living a lifestyle that would have been considered futuristic in the 1970s and 1980s. I know people who are much wealthier than I am (I am a student and work at golf course, so I meet a lot of different people). Those people have afforded themselves lifestyles that allow them to do things that would neve be in my power to do, but in the future may be possible for any average citizen to do so.

I suppose it is some strange facet of human psychology that allows people to experience arbitrary rage and envy when they see someone with more wealthy than them. I have always questioned why people need to be equal. I don't care if there are people with floating palaces, it doesn't affect me at all if someone has more wealth or less wealt than I do if I have the same ammount of wealth I already did. Yet somehow people let it get into their head that the wealth of another is somehow realted to their own by default.

And hey, if you do envy something of someone elses, thats fine, just emulate what their virtues and get it yourself.

5) So my point is that the are usually bordering on insane or aren't really that unfortunate.


Unfortunate people should and will always be helped because rational people hate random tragedies.

In many ways I think it is like life in general. While civility is an admirable goal, it can take two to be civil. But It think the best response to feeling one's blood start boiling is just the same as in real life: don't punch the other person, just walk away, with as simple and neutral parting statement as you can muster.

Of course it is much easier to be civil when everyone is being honest (which one would hope for on a forum like this!), and giving people the benefit of the doubt ("this person is not an idiot/evader/troll - this is an honest disagreement between two people both seeking an objective truth") always helps. But if you can no longer give the benefit of the doubt - give enough benefit to just walk away.

As a "self-made soul", it may help to hold in the front of your mind, that
every thought, action and feeling - and even, non-thought and non-action -
is contributing to (or detracting from) that "made soul."
We can't do much about what went before, of our own doing, or of others - except examine it,
indentify it, and move ahead. This moment, and all that follow, are within our power, however.
The first steps you take towards dissipating your anger, will lead to increasing self-awareness,
and greater pride in your 'efficaciousness', in order to accomplish more. Of this I'm sure.

Just an addition to some very good advice.

Is this 'presentism'? Judging past mores, standards by their modern equivalents and knowledge?
Seems likely.
it seemed self-evident to me at 19 when I arrived in a very conservative society in one of the most conservative
cities in South Africa, in the late 60's early 70's - that, homosexuals were born, not made.
In those days, the locals wouldn't talk to you if you didn't speak their language, and I found the only crowd I was accepted in and could hang out with were other 'rebels': the sons and daughters of farmers who'd come to the big city to study, away from their deeply religious, traditional families in tiny towns.
Arty, talented, articulate and fun - many were gay, and they always hated it. The repression and guilt they lived with daily - in fear of others, and especially of what their fathers would do if they found out, caused so much grief, that it wasn't that unusual to hear
of attempts at suicide.
Can anyone understand the deep self-loathing and alienation that happens here? I can only fully realise it now, looking back.
The 'received wisdom' of that time in the West and everywhere, with variations, I gather, was that homosexuality was "a lifestyle choice" - though I think the phrase only came later. Until neuroscience began catching up (when 80's, 90's?) this was how millions lived - feeling outcast by society, feeling 'wrong', and not understanding why.
Neuroscience provided the answer - as it did for the millions who had lived with ADHD, also not understanding their own tendencies, which I personally relate to. This had to be a life- changing revelation; the social problems remained, but the self-knowledge now gave the individual a chance to recover self-esteem.

So, maybe you 'had to be there', to know what gays know - that it's what they ARE.

What could Ayn Rand have known? Possibly her entire knowledge of homosexuality was based on the ancient Greeks, and maybe media reports of the American hippies. I don't know of course, just guessing. One thing, I do sometimes feel that in contrast to her incredible insight and understanding, she could be naive and credulous, at times. Another, that volitional consciousness is the pillar of her philosophy - not that neuroscience discovering some deterministic factors conflicts with this - and she umcompromisingly denied determinism.
Mainly, that she did not have the advantage I had, of really knowing gays. All she could go by, was that it was a 'lifestyle choice'.

Let's cut her some slack.

It's you who are doing her a disservice. Objectivism derives its principles from reality, which means
knowledge, which means facts.
Do you not think that in the light of further information about homosexuality, she would have - now -
rejected her earlier, and slightly rash (imo) position? No doubt, here. Grant her integrity some due.
Second, as I said, her extemporaneous remarks are superfluous to Objectivism. They represent an
application of a principle, not the principle itself. That she was nearly always spot-on, doesn't change that
we have each got to make our own applications, if we value independence.

Give 'em a chance, Steve. Could be they've shifted their views since all the arguments
they have heard! It would be a pleasant surprise, anyhow...

Queer Capitalist, I always thought Rand's notions on homosexuality, you must have read by now, were strange.
I long put it down to lack of knowledge at that time, her personal taste, and so on.
It's one of few areas - like gender identity - where I don't agree with her, but it definitely is not
central to her philosophy. Ultimately, superfluous.
I'm not gay, but it interests me that many gays seem to be coming in to Objectivism.
To a friend who asked, I said that it might be because O'ism is not faith-and tradition-based judgmentalist, as are conservatives - nor is it "hey, man, it's all cool" hypocrisy, as with prog-liberals relativism.
Objectivism rejects both, at all levels. It's a radical philosophy, which offers the independence
I believe a lot of gays seek.
( A large generalization on my part here, with these political stereotypes, but I think there's some truth to it.)

Briefly: the ethics of rational egoism, together with individual rights, cover everything you ask, and more.
All (!) that remains is your choice, and your consent.

An artist is able to burn away all irrelvancies and present a picture that focuses only on what truly matters to the artist. In learning about Reardon, Roark, Dagny Taggart. D'Anconia - these Idealized capitalists are presented as pure examples -it is easy to see the pertinent traits. Reading biographies of the real giants capitalism, one is presented a complex picture of an individual... the important aspects of the person are often buried under many layers of useless personal information. There is value in reading and studying the triumphant caputalists, but one must dig for the timeless truths amid the trivia.

Rand's Idealized heroes present none of those challenges. It's like the difference between discovering gems in the jewelry store or in a gem mine - in both instances there are valuable things to be found, but in the former location one must merely recognize them, while in the latter one must dig through quite a bit of worthless material to discover each gem.

On the objectivist morality of the trader, once internalized this gave me a framework with which to easily and effectively refute collectivists, socialists, and the merely envious who attempt to push guilt onto achievers. More importantly, it gave me the moral certainty of the righteousness of reaping the rewards of the wealth that I earn as a producer. This moral certainty is priceless, and makes me far more efficacious than I otherwise could be if I were racked with doubts of my own worthiness to produce wealth and keep what I have earned.

True, she did not discover rationality. Nor did Rand invent the notion that Purpose/productiveness is critical to happiness. Nor was she the first to talk about the benefits of Pride and Self-esteem.
What Objectivism really gives one is a reasoned argument, explaining why these values/virtues are efficacious. Objectivism's approach does not take these as religious injunctions: "you ought to work". Also, importantly, Objectivism argues that the good is the moral and it is the practical. So, an Objectivist is not left with any conscious dichotomy of moral vs. practical (nor of self vs. others) which he has to work through. As elements, Objectivism does not come up with that much which is new -- it's about figuring out what little nuggets from all over the place are actually true, how they tie together, etc.

So, at its very basic, Objectivism gives one a certain set of values which one would otherwise have to arrive at -- and, one may or may not arrive at some or all of those same values. It also gives one the integration of those values. Ideally, this means one ends up with the right values, and one also holds them more self-assuredly.

I can probably come up with an example where I (personally) would not have acted a certain way but for Objectivism (but only by running the dubious task of trying to predict how my history would have unfolded had it not been for Objectivism). In the end, I cannot point to any single instance and claim that "but for Objectivism nobody would have acted the way I acted in this situation". I would not have acted the way I do in totality but for Objectivism, but I can't say which parts I would not have discovered for myself.

It's also worth adding that holding a philosophy does not make one the best practitioner of its values. I'm not speaking of the impact of "raw" ability -- like intellect or some other trait that is deeply rooted by the time of early adulthood. I think that it is quite possible that a person who says "Rationality is always the way" may practice less rationality than a person who says "Rationality is useful, but sometimes I use emotion". In other words, a person who says he is Christian need not be a practicing Christian, and a self-professed Objectivist may not practice Objectivism.

Interesting topic.

Consider this. Your children exist now, when you are alive. It's not for the peace-of-mind of your corpse that you bequeath your inheritance to them. It's for your peace-of-mind now, while you are alive, that you make such arrangements.

To the one who dies, no values are possible to him after death. If he attempts to arrange things to operate a certain way after his demise, it's only for his benefit now, in life. If he wants his classic car given to a museum, or his mechanic, it's not because he's worried about watching what's going to happen to it from above, when he's a ghost and his no-good son has ownership of it. It's because he values this thing in life that he takes the trouble to secure it after his death. It's for his peace-of-mind and well-being now.