ZSorenson

Altruism in it's common definition is perfectly demeaning. But thank you claire for the point about selfishness.

This is the weakest link. Developing Asia puts so much of their would-be savings in American debt because they lack critical financial infrastructure. And that's only the beginning of their problems. A lot of growth in China for example is fueled by government policy (not optimal investment), including monetary manipulations. Plus, a lot of the excess savings come from selling to America. America is far and away the high-tech powerhouse in the world. Fareed Zakaria, even, in his book called The Post-American World, concedes that the upper level higher technical education occurs overwhelmingly in America. This isn't good news for the 25% poorest in America, but is bad news for the 75% poorest in China. Peter Schiff makes the same mistakes as other economists by not looking far enough beyond the 'status quo'. In this case there's this assumption that Asia is some miracle. It's not. It has a high population, and is 'behind' the industrialized world. It's capitalizing, that's all. And it's capitilizing so that American can by consumer goods at a discount. In other words, we're paying for their miracle (and then they don't have anywhere to put the savings gained by lower-than-American-wages-workers except into our debt). All it has to do is capitalize up to the levels of the West, and its magic growth will freeze. And it won't be able to reach that point as Communist. I can't even imagine the level of malinvestment in China, let alone the ongoing cultural implications of a dependence society (no matter what number have the entrepreneurial spirit). Of course, America only has until Gen X reaches levels of upper management (20-30 more years), until we've completely lost our edge. By then, I predict a good percentage of our skilled labor will be people comfortable moving back to native India, or Korea, etc. If America drops the Wagner act and the minimum wage, fixes Social Security and Medicare to flow like a leaky faucet, abolishes the income tax (who cares what replaces it - so long as it isn't VAT), repeals all drilling and energy production bans, and goes back to the days before the Federal Reserve system, then in less than a decade I'd predict we'd storm FAR ahead of anybody else. In terms of 'cultural infrastructure': we'd have to introduce school choice, as well as end federal grants - totally - in the education system. Art, science, medicine, only 'depend' on federal dollars because we've created them too. And that 'dependence' breeds a lot of art, science, and medicine that doesn't optimally benefit the economy. And if the economy is bad enough, all that will happen. Short of being 'that bad', I can't see how anyone else would move ahead of the US - unless they too liberalized. And that's where Objectivism comes in. America's 'edge' is built out of its government's history economic laissez-faire policies, and the frontier ethic of its people. This ethic means: a population forced to accept reality. If someone else can do that, then that's where the economy will thrive. But who will do that? Japan - until recently the 2nd largest economy - succeeded because they worked really really hard, and that hard work was spent copying the lessons learned by the American 'cowboys'. China has many times over the population of Japan, so only a small portion of it needs to industrialize to overtake Japan. There's no recipe for success there, in the long run. But the world was destroyed economically in the 1940's, and since then there are three economic stories: 1) Rebuilding (only lasts so long) 2) A little technology (computers, barcodes, shipping containers) 3) Billions of people living in collectivism, conquered by the West, forced to learn its legal institutions, liberated from Imperialism for a couple of decades (before the institutions are unlearned). So what we need is a return to the 1820-1920 era of American economic policy. That's what 'made' the industrial revoultion. But returning to that period means returning to a time when people didn't think about certain things. These economic/social concepts, of the 20th century, have to be rejected in order to have long-term global economic health: - Economic Equality -'We're all in it together' protectionism (there is no 'guardian' of the market, just a referee) - The idea that nobody is ever supposed to suffer in society. - The presumption that man has some God-like ability to know and impose a moral order of some kind on his fellow man. **That's my opinion, and I don't count as an official Objectivist. Objectivism as a philosophy would offer the idea, I think, that knowledge, therefore morality and volition, are possessed ONLY on an individual level. So politically AND economically, the whole concept of 'social policy' is contradictory to man's nature. There's no good 'social order' he can establish over others, and there's no economic way for it to work. So you need to reject 'social policy'. Man can only destroy himself, or other men, if he tries something like that. I think that the 1940's, imperialism before that, and the millenia of barbarians and warlords before that destroyed mankind's productive success much MORE than modern liberal democratic 'social policy', and so the latter appears to have been successful. But we're finding out that it isn't in the long run. We've never bothered to see if laissez-faire works, because we concluded that it wasn't fit due to its lack of a controllable 'social policy'. Also, Objectivist epistemology has a lot to offer economic science. I happen to think that the poor do not, in fact, have their 'share' of wealth distributed to the rich. Instead, their 'share' is distributed to the future, where everyone is richer. This future involves inventions that change the productivity of the economy in a way that is not expressed in the present-day total 'share'. Objectivism fundametally understands the open-ended nature of concepts, and can therefore 'handle' epistemologically the idea that a share of wealth today can corresponding to a greater share of wealth tommorrow - even when today's 'share' is 'distributed' to the 'rich'. Austrian economics fails to 1)Reject the political idea of social policy and 2)Properly conceptualize wealth creation (through induction it arrives at the proper conclusion, but fails to provide an epistemological basis, hence the inability to reject social policy). That's a Sunday night for you. Apologies for the disorganization. I can't really see how this fits together coherently. It's just a bunch of ideas relevant to the topic, listed one after the other. Use what is interesting or useful, and do not worry about the rest.

This may be a bad place to bring it up, but National Review continues its tradition of putting its thumb down on everything Ayn Rand. The most recent issue features Miss Rand on the cover (from the commemorative stamp), and two articles bashing her/saying how great Whittaker Chambers was. I wouldn't say the religious right has been growing bolder, because it feels like they've always been this outspoken. But never fear, the economy's collapsing anyway. I think Glenn Beck alluded once on his show to a plan that would essentially invite foreign armies (by the President's invitation) to help subdue American rebellion as the government seized land in order to create a new currency that would replace the current one as it becomes worthless. If that actually comes true, then Mr. Beck will deserve more credit than his best advocates give him. Unfortunately, he seems to think fervent prayer will protect us... Actually, to be fair, I read a bit that describes this rally as 'Tocquevillan'. I think that means that by fervent prayer, Beck is advocating personal invidual responsibility. Learning for yourself, maintaining integrity to principles despite what everyone else is doing, and putting forth personal effort for personal gain. It's not an awful message, because you have to consider the audience. Still, I do hope he moves on to solid political principles. If you study his political commentary, it's fairly hopeful. Give it a shot - see if you can find out who he has endorsed and why. Two examples: he didn't endorse Mitt Romney at first despite a shared religion because he thought the guy was a complete phoney. Second, he was much more against the Bush foreign policy than most on his 'side of the aisle'. Here's my point: I can't stand his appeal to religion, his ADD, his incoherence, and on and on. But he sometimes seems like he could end up being the biggest voice of sanity among those who share his level of influence.

Earlier I was referring to how parenting should be viewed primarily. Children can be raised for many of the same purposes as those shared when the parents are in love as otherwise. But the primary purposes arise when the two parents are in love. I like the comment about life surplus. When two partners are in love, there would be a lot of surplus because of the principle of division of labor. I speak abstractly of course. When you love someone, particularly when they bring additional or diversified value into your life, having children is a good place to 'spend' the surplus created by the romantic union. By union, I mean when two people not only combine households and economic gains, but also when they unite their spiritual gains. If one person has an excess of courage, and the other an excess of creativity, having children would be a great way to 'spend' these virtues together. It's a difficult analogy. But I am still of the opinion that while having children can occur outside of this context (legitimately), that the main reason for having children - as humans - is derived from the nature of the romantic relationship - in its abstract and spiritual implications as they apply to what humans are physically/biologically. In order to address a stand out point - I think homosexual partners can emulate this exact process. While there's an ultimate biological barrier, the emotional and natural desires leading up to and following it are exactly the same as those for heterosexual human beings.

I have a slightly different, additional, comment to make. So I've opened a second response. Women have a difficult relationship with child-bearing, I think. This is related to my last post. I said that if your goal is to spend a lot of effort on raising children in order to see your virtues and values manifest in them, then you have to be very deliberate and active in your parenting. If your goal is to just sort of 'let nature happen' and put up with it, then parenting will suck and basically drain your life out of you. I am not a woman, but I sympathize with them because they don't have to love anybody or have any values or any desire to have any children for their bodies to just start making them. Men can run away from pregnant women. Women cannot run away from their bodies, requiring at least measures of prevention/control. So children could be this very serious, severe imposition on women in even a vacuum of values. I would think that that reality would breed a lot of resentment towards the child making process. I bring this up because "Why people have children" as a debate is often framed within a feminist narrative - because women are the exclusive laborers in the primary effort. And going along with that narrative the issue is that frankly, for a woman to decide to have a child, that is a heroic act really. Unfortunately, no heroism is required for it to 'happen'. It is only heroic *when* the action is deliberate, and the female body just doesn't care what the values of the woman are. This makes pregnancy itself seem sort of arbitrary, and I think that this causes people to be ambivalent about "Why" to have children. Especially women. Once you differentiate the ACT of bearing a child from the FACT of having one, it becomes easier to understand "why" you might choose to.

Though not essential to child-rearing, I have to conclude that the partner in that endeavor would be a critical motivation for it. Yes, not all children are biological and share genetic characteristics, and so, yes not every child requires explicitly two parents, or even parents of different genders. But the fundamental nature of child-making constrains the vast majority of parenting to be of two biological parents. This translates to a child being a very real literal physical manifestation of the loving union between parents. Even in the non-biological case, if parents love each other, and raise children together, those children are the product of their shared values. I think it would be wrong to endorse parenting outside of the context of parents who are in love. In emergency cases where no such situation is available, it is obviously better for a child to be raised by an individual with values, or anybody at all, but the ideal would be for a child to be the product of shared values between loving partners. Keep in mind that two people can produce other things besides children. And that sharing of values doesn't have to be between lovers. But physical love and reproduction is so highly connected to how man expresses love and valuation, that parenthood has to be thought of primarily in this context. I've realized that I don't want kids unless I share them with a partner whom I truly love. Before hand I wanted kids in an abstract sense, but I was leaving the question of who the partner would be open ended, and now I've identified that fact. In that case (before identifying the role of a partner), my desire for children was based on a very explicit desire. If identifying values, posessing virtues, and projecting them onto the world through productive action, to the point where your existence is the cause of the manifestation of your values in the world, if that is the ideal, then what higher way to do this than through diligent and tireless effort to shape a forming mind into the best mirror of your values. To see your values manifest in the world, in the form of another rational mind, one who is capable of valuing the same things as you, and who values you in return: for the sake of your best virtues: what is higher than that? Some people, like Ayn Rand, or bluecherry, might legitimately conclude that they are not capable of achieving this through children. And actually, that's fine. What Ayn Rand achieved is above and beyond the great vast majority of parents. But still, I think there are quite many people capable of raising fine young people. And it is good for them (as in, for their sake) to do so. One thing about children is that they can't be an end in themselves. You must be living life and producing while raising them, and they must grow to start enjoying life and producing value. There are inherent constraints associated with parenting: a lot of work, no late night club-hopping, no seasonal romps across Europe tasting wine; but our collectivist age has fooled us into thinking parenting is ONLY a sacrifice. Should children to a large extent understand that they live in an adults' world: that they have to learn patience, that they have to be part of many activities that they don't understand? YES! People have told me: "Well you just haven't had children yet." No, but I have seen the examples of different familes. Some parents are lazy, and think children are just a necessary sacrifice for the good of society. They spend little mental effort on their kids, but a whole lot of chasing and yelling and money for toys on them. Their kids are brats. Other parents have children who are quiet at adult functions, don't speak unless spoken to, etc. It turns out, actually, that these parents spend a lot of their personal time on their kids: they do chores WITH them, they talk to them, and the parents themselves possess actual values and integrity for the children to emulate. I know the breakdown isn't that perfect, but I do believe that children who learn that THEY live in an ADULTS' world do eventually figure out that they are growing up and relish in the opportunity to partake in adulthood: responsibility, integrity, liberty; all as they grow. But because of the doctrine of self-sacrifice, we've all been fooled into thinking children mean ADULTS having to live in the KIDS' world. Having kids means hard as hell work, as well as giving up countless alternative opportunities, maybe not swearing and drinking and watching R rated movies as much, but it does NOT mean living in a 'kids' world. The arguments about civilization enduring are also good. Imagine if people lived just 20 years longer on average. That's a whole generation from birth to productivity. Adults would very much benefit from the continued "production" of fine young people. I put forth the hypothetical just to stress the point.

I'll start 'er off. How about this as an abuse: "...has assumed absolute power over the currency, so as to render the individual pursuit of happiness irrelevant, with the result of corrupt persons with ties to government power reaping massive reward off of the losses of the hardworking and honest." If When the economy collapses, and the monetary regime fails, people will be destitute, despondent and pissed. Ironic, if a Republican were in charge post 2008 it would be easy to blame 'big business'. But I think Obama is perhaps a 'gift from God'. Because of him people will properly blame the government, and hopefully the Federal Reserve system.

There is a great deal on this topic referring to Atlas Shrugged. I am refering to an actual new document in the format of the original. I've been bothered recently by the Glenn Beck types. These Gingrich, Hannity, tea party types keep refering to 'God-given' rights in their appeal to constitutionalism. I've been bothered because I feel that calling something 'of God' and therefore proving its rightness is a stupid worthless argument. But I get it now! Objectivism is perhaps among the few secular philosophies that offers a similar attitude about political legitimacy. That is: the concept that rights are natural givens (objective, 'god-given'). This is the idea that no political system can legitimately alter the fundamental nature of rights, nor does the legitimacy of rights depend on the legitimacy of the political system. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence, it has been noted, he was searching for a justification for Congress's action more than necessarily charting a new political philosophy. While I believe that Jefferson and others like Tom Paine were in fact devoted to the new ideas embodied by the declaration, the federalists who effectively won the political battle - and were hardly different from British Whigs - were the ones who set the philosophical tone for the nation. For many years, nonetheless, the courts read into the declaration certain unenumerated rights and principles which they held were embodied within the constitution as an extension. This has long since changed. I don't fault the original declaration, nor Jefferson, but I do think that neither represents a decisive viewpoint on Objective (or natural/"god-given") rights. That's what we need today. If you think about it, that's what the 'tea party' wants: a clear statement of political philosophy that redefines American government back towards its 'roots'. Identifying those roots is part of the task. We need a document that explains what Objective rights are and where they come from, so that as individual citizens we can possess those rights and knowledge of them indifferent of any government tyranny. Imagine if someone were to write such a declaration and declare a second American revolution. This revolution would be completely within the democratic system and completely non-violent - but would count legitimately as a revolution. One demand of the revolution would be: any and all potential judges must declare fidelty with the 2nd declaration as the foundation of the constitution - not the document itself, but the immortal and fundamental rights mentioned therein. The constitution doesn't need to be changed much in that regards, because the rights don't require the constitution to be legimate and are superior to it. If you think about it, demands such as that really are revolutionary - because they change the political institution from the outside (ie without ammending it endogenously). So this is the task of this thread: what would be contained in this declaration? There are three broad areas that must be covered (not necessarily in this order): 1) A statement identifying Objective individual rights and their origin. - It would not be required, but not delegimitize the document to mention 'in nature as created' for the religionists. - Some rights might be enumerated - Still others would only be mentioned in broad categories: this document is one of political philosophy not of governance - With that in mind, there must be a special emphasis on the conceptual process used to determine the rights. This way none need be enumerated if the process for identifying them is clear. 2) Why the current political status quo is inadequate. - Specific abuses must be mentioned, this explains why a set of philosophical principles is needed beyond what already exists. - Defining the opposition. Not everyone who agrees with the revolution will agree on everything, what matters is unity of opinion and purpose until the basic stated philosophy of the declaration is instituted. By defining the opposition, unity is achieved as those who simply cannot be integrated into the new order are excluded from it. 3)Statements of action - In the original declaration, the statement of action is included in the title. The United States were separating politically from Britain. It could legitimately be considered an act of rebellion. - This new declaration doesn't require the formation of a new national boundary, or a new constitution. So instead, other actions must be specified. These will help define and unify the 'revolution'. - Some actions might include: refusing to pay taxes until the government makes necessary reforms, electing state officials who ignore the demands of the federal government, my example about judges, and so on etc. - Any such action might inherently be illegal, and could be considered civil disobedience. But if enough people believe in the cause, these actions will irreperably harm the current 'regime', and make it much easier to finalize an acceptable change to the system (newly elected pols will realize that they can't tax people who won't pay them anyway, so they won't be as eager to reneg on campaign promises). I am asking people for proposals, as a thought experiment. You may remark on any of the categories I mentioned. If you want to be comprehensive, keep in mind that any 'actions' of 'revolution' MUST tie in to specific philosophically grounded principles in reaction to specific real abuses by the government. You don't need to mention them, but keep that in mind.

Haha, you're a joker! I hope. The main reason why the greenback is considered sinister is because of a relentless campaign over 100 years to make it so. That same propaganda is also why everybody wants to have them so badly all over the world. The devaluation of the dollar is not an image problem. But, you know, let's replace a mild mannered old man with the interner of thousands of innocent Japanese Americans on the $100. What if the $20 was rainbow colored with a cross, shield of David, islamic crescent, buddhist wheelie, hindu whatever, bahai something or other, etc. on the back? What if the $50 was changed into a cool rub-on tatoo? What if we changed the $100 bill into a more valuable-seeming Obama collector's plate. Actually, for the historical significance of being the first black president, Obama might have earned himself a place on currency one day... too bad he'll be the most despised president since Hoover - or worse. Mark my words, Obama is heatedly disliked now. Wait until Iran invades Baghdad, nukes Israel, the dollar bubble bursts, and the energy market collapses due to insufficient infrastructure due to imposed limits on investment. Oh, and wait until grandma dies because she couldn't get that surgery, your kid can't get braces, and you can't get your knee replaced....

Hmm, I can't find it on Google, but I read once about a space colony design called a 'sunflower homestead'. This is essentially a bowl shaped spinning thingy. There would be almost normal gravity at the edges, and crops would grow in the middle. It would be large enough for a family, and capable of travelling around the solar system. That seems to be the ideal you're going for. There would always be lots of space to get away if you wanted, and plenty of resources to self-sustain. There would also be an opportunity for division of labor. Imagine pulling off at Ceres for 4 months to work in the factories there, earn some dough, by replacement parts and a some luxury wood flooring, and head back out to prospect on your own.

I haven't found a good replacement yet, but I think the right place to look is around the concept of 'exploitative'. There are unfortunate Marxist connotations with the word, but those aside, it's a good place to start. The selfishness of mankind is a philosophical fact. In fact, it is because each human is distinct from any other human as well as selfish that love and concern for others is even possible. Exploitation is only possible through 'forcing' or 'fooling'. Therefore, what modern and traditional society tend to think of as 'selfish' is only possible when people are fooled into not being selfish. Unfortunately, exploitation has a historical connotation that's quite good - the conversion of resources into useful products. So I wish there were a more human and ethical related word that was synonymus with exploitation.

I don't really trust people. There's no ideology - Objectivism included - where its adherents can be trusted for their affiliation to that ideology alone. And there's no set of measurable personal traits that I can envision using that would properly screen out people I might not trust. I think we have to work with what we've got - and there's a lot that can be done without running away to a Gulch, which wasn't the ultimate end for the characters that did it in Atlas Shrugged. I often dream of building places for people to live in outer space. The only qualification I can envision for people living there is willingness to do the work required to live there - and not being a blatant collectivist or tyrannist. And that's basically the right approach for life, I think. People worth dealing with from the context of that dealing - friendship, commerce, employment, etc. - are worth dealing with. 'Atlantis' is the niche you carve out for youself in your environment by refusing to sacrifice yourself voluntarily to others. Not that I don't find speculation on cool man-made islands to be 'fun'.

Undoubtedly it will be a stunning game. I have hope that the 'anarchists' will be of the libertarian bent. Columbia was described as a death star of the turn of the century. So I think the whole thing is supposed to be Avery literal symbol for America's burgeoning imperialism. I can't shake the suspicion, however, of a moral message that success and achievement necessarily rely on the exploitation of the weak. Hello? A city 'above' everyone else. If anything, the message cautions against achievement. Well, that wasn't optimistic. If there is hope, then, I think it would have to be in the dichotomy of 'liberty and tyranny'. I'm just worried that achievement and tyranny and heroic individuals will be conflated together. Like I said, the company is called irrational games.

They're back...... The original creators of BioShock have returned to create a brand new 'Bioshock' game along with a totally new world. Check out: www.whatisicarus.com for a trailer and some explanation. The creators wanted to carry on the themes of Bioshock and the style and tone I guess, without having to stay in the same environment with the same narrative. This time, the featured locale is "Columbia", a flying city with architecture and music from the 1910's. You can read more on the website, but I want to make some observations and maybe preempt these guys a little. First, the world involved is obviously the Wilsonian vision for America. Yes, America - the stars and stripes are all over this game. What is interesting is the element of racism, that of overt imperialism, and also a not so subtle nod at eugenics. The baby-killing kind. I hope the game creators are at least accurate in that they don't try and pin all that nonsense on the pro-business Republicans of the era. Heavens, the Democrats, Wilson, and the Progressive left, were the big culprits there. Period. So, that's interesting since 'capitalists' were the enemies of BioShock 1. Second, what is the message going to be? These guys are obviously a little philosophically literate - and their studio is called 'Irrational Games'. If it quacks like a duck... But really, if this is another swipe at capitalism in its 'jingoistic form', then I'll be pissed. If it's another swipe at 'philosophical extremism', I'll be disappointed, but less pissed. WWI jingoism was actually fairly bipartisan - a rare union in history between bigotted morons on the right, and bigotted sociopaths on the left. Gotta love the Progressive era... In any event, I'd love a discussion and some speculation on what these guys might try to do with this game. Also invited: discussion on what this game could be. Let's say you were appointed the story/philosophy head today and could decided what this should be moving forward while retaining everything already there.

I want to mention what I would find as an acceptable outcome for this situation. I think the society, through the State must choose - does human nature imply that an individual human is very to more than likely to choose a second human, a (1) companion for an extended living commitment during his/her lifetime? Or does that constitute an infringement on the rights of the individual? That's the question to be answered. No definition of Marriage otherwise is constitutionally acceptable (provably so at that). If the State institutionalizes something like this, then it has to respect the rights of the individual. This new 'Marriage' could not provide any benefits beyond the obvious that arise from a permanent living arrangement. No tax breaks. Yes shared power of attorney. It would be a collection of legal arrangements possible to individuals anyway - just combined into a convenient form. Now, relating back to Prop 8 - if the State had such an institution as I have described, then rights might be extended through a court to disallowed uses (ie, illegalising polygamy as unconstitutional). This is because the foundational rights and purpose, legislated into the institution, are still being met: a legal arrangement to benefit people who enter into a long term living arrangement. The twist in my example being that the legislature presumed that monogamy was the only place such an arrangement applied, but the court decides it logically extends. But that's not what happened in California. Ostensibly, marriage is a 'spiritual living arrangment' (I don't mean the religious sense of spiritual) between committed individuals. But legally it isn't. Legally it's a million things, and has been tweaked and refined. The voters of California recognized that the foundational purpose of the law was to recognize a religious/moral institution. Their attempts to pass Prop 8 were specifically TO PRESERVE THIS DEFINITION. That means they didn't want the religious/moral definition to apply to gays legally through the State. A judge can strike down the original definition, but cannot extend it against its purpose. That's the problem. Given the alternative, these same voters might choose to have no institutionalized marriage ('civil unions' instead), rather than have 'gays' be given a title to marriage. It's fucked up, and evidence in my book for deleting marriage from the lawbooks altogether and starting over. Still, as they say two wrongs don't make a right.

I like what many have added. If DavidOdden doesn't mind correcting me, this is how I'm interpreting his analysis of this ruling: 1) By legal precedent, marriage is a fundamental right. 2) Also by precedent, this right has been more and more narrowly defined as a spiritual union between two individuals (or whatever it explicitly said) - as previous legal barriers to marriage between races, as well as legally recognized gender roles, and the role of childbearing, etc., have historically been removed from the definition of marriage according to the law. 3) Therefore, what remains of the legal definition of marriage as a fundamental right is something that does regard gender by any rational standard. 4) As a consequence, preventing woman from marrying woman because of her gender is to deny her access to this right as it has been legally defined. And so forth... END I'm inclined to accept that, with only one caveat. The key issue is how you define 'marriage'. It is a something, and if it is considered a right, that right must be something. Jake Ellison defined it as, "... a long term commitment between sexual partners." (since he did not use the word 'definition' I do not hold him accountable for this quote as a definition, I am only putting forth one example of a possible definition of marriage) That is one definition of marriage I can agree with. What definition best fits the sort of relationship that ought to be protected as an Objective right is another discussion. What concerns me is how the state determines its definitions - particularly when it comes to rights. In this case, precedent and the legal evolution that has been accepted by society, has defined Marriage (state sanctioned with capital M) in a way that makes gender itself irrelevant (pragmatically). So the point the judge makes about using gender as a lever to discriminate against gays is very accurate. Even so, Marriage is not a right - it cannot be construed to be one. Marriage has: 1)Certain legal benefits which can be bestowed. 2)A legal status (a title, certificate, documented and official something or other) And it's America's damn fault for sticking to a legal institution that is so convoluted. Do homosexuals have a right to Marriage - with all that it subsumes even going into the future - or do they have a right to the same benefits and status as their fellow citizens? THAT'S my concern. Courts must restrain government, not direct it. **If** the ruling grants individuals the right to marry people of any gender, where marriage is defined as Marriage - a floating and living concept capable of subsuming greater legal privileges in the future, THEN I am against a court deciding this. The court is telling future legislatures that all subsequent definitions of Marriage must conform to a certain form regardless of the changing definitions society produces (to an extent). **If** the ruling decides that current marriage law discriminates arbitrarily, illegally, unconstitutionally against certain individuals, and therefore must be discarded until better. THEN I am totally okay with this. I love the idea of a court wiping out government activity. That's basically my final word, and I do not know for sure which alternative this ruling fulfills - though I suspect the former and hence my apprehension. I agree with the ruling that Prop 8 is not acceptable, I have been convinced of that. But my discomfort with a court defining a legal standard rather than merely upholding one remains. If it wasn't clear, my stance on this issue is that the judge should strip back PRECEDENT and LEGISLATION until he arrives at the last LEGISLATIVE STATUS QUO that meets constitutional standards. That may be impossible, but here's the thing - no matter what your personal view is, Marriage exists as a legal institution because of a moral and religious foundation in America. You can transform the institution to be defined somehow else, or discard it. The majority of people want "Marriage" for those religious/traditional reasons. By extending the 'right' to those to whom it doesn't ethically or morally apply - according to the foundational standard - is to discard the foundational standard. That's fine with me. My problem is that accepting part of the foundational standard while rejecting another is a contradiction - only resolved by, like I said, subsuming into the 'right to marry' newer/other definitions. This means that the legal institution of Marriage has no societal genesis, and is this cancerous thing on government that any official or judge in the right position of power can add to or subtract from. I have one last thing to say, in the next comment.

That marriage exists as a fundamental right legally was well demonstrated. But there is plenty of good cause for arguing that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Access to marriage - to a man/woman relationship is NOT restricted along gender lines. Men and women have equal right to enter a man/woman relationship, as do homosexuals. I personally think marriage itself violates the due process and equal protection rights of singles if only for certain tax and other implications. So to defend marriage as a fundamental right - while legally proper - also legitimizes marriage along lines of tradition and so forth (which was clearly part of the legal foundation of the right). This same reasoning bears nothing against defining marriage as a man/woman relationship. The legal logic is flawed - marriage can be defined as man/woman - and the reason for it not to be is arbitrary - UNLESS there is a higher standard that is appealed to. This higher standard would have to question the legitimacy of state sanctioned marriage. The judge clearly argued the opposite. Is marriage a man-woman relationship? If you appeal to legislation, tradition, democracy, precedent, and so forth, it is. You cannot, as this judge has, appeal to a historical and established 'right' but then pick and choose which components of that right your sociological worldview prefers. The historical precedent is either legitimate or not. Both mobs and elites are defeated by rules, and both are served by arbitrary decisions. The idea that two homosexuals would want to enter into a strong sacred relationship is a view. The state has two options: totally allow individuals the right to their views or pick a view and stick to it. Marriage falls in the latter category. It shouldn't, but it does. So you can advocate and vote, but cannot celebrate an arbitrary ruling. If I was on this court I would recognize that my job is to uphold the law, whether I voted for it or not. Gender roles might be the same in marriage, but that is not strict enough to establish that gender is irrelevant in marriage. If precedent is what I'm obliged to follow, and the law and the constitution, then I would approve of Prop 8. Hell I wouldn't have voted for it! Again, the law impedes Atilla. When Obamas are in power, their only restraint is the strict law. Judges cannot inject their arbitrary opinion - no matter how seemingly virtuous - into a ruling or else the law is defeated, and Atilla wins. I will read up on Objectivist anti-originalism. It seems to me most of the concern is over courts that used to implicity defend property rights, but no longer do. This seems more of a constitutional flaw than a judicial flaw, but I will read more. In any case, I think disagreement on this issue hinges on whether you think the application of due process and equal protection concerning homosexuals and marriage is arbitrary or not. I think it is. Because marriage is a certain something - defining it is essential to treating it as a 'right'. And the judge chose his preferred definition over the legal one.

Here is the transcript: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL">Prop 8 Ruling</a> I think that the judge's reasoning is critically flawed, and dangerous. What I think he did - I think the judge basically is saying, "These heterosexual people have this marriage thing, so homosexuals should have it too for that reason alone." Cultural Marxism. He accepts - which is perhaps legally proper - the institution of marriage in all its implications: "The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household." "The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”). ... The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is fundamental. The question presented here is whether plaintiffs seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right. To determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due Process Clause, the court inquires into whether the right is rooted “in our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.” Glucksberg, 521 US at 710. Here, because the right to marry is fundamental, the court looks to the evidence presented at trial to determine: (1) the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States; and (2) whether plaintiffs seek to exercise their right to marry or seek to exercise some other right." "Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States. See FF 19, 34-35. Marriage requires two parties to give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household. FF 20, 34. The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. FF 34-35, 37. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace. FF 35-37. The state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’s life. See Bowers v Hardwick, 478 US 186, 204-205 (1986) (Blackmun, J, dissenting)." The judge then argues that marriage is not related to child-bearing, and previous restrictions based on race have been struck down, and that gender roles are no longer considered in marriage - all appealing properly to precedent. His conclusion then, is: "The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals." This is my problem: the judge is claiming that marriage has some historical role worthy of state sanction, while at the same time claiming that it should be free from state sanction and its historical role. He says that views on gender have evolved - appealing to his own sense of society - when there was a very decisive democratic vote that explicity expressed the view of society on this matter. Making matters worse, the judge is saying that when society wants to view genders as equal (in his estimation of societal opinion) that's okay, but when voters seek to establish heterosexual relationships as above homosexual ones, that's entirely inappropriate. Both standards appeal to 'society's attitudes', but he chooses which one he prefers. This might be okay if there is an overriding standard. Say, one based on the rights of the individual. That is what matters here. From earlier: "The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719- 720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978)." How is marriage not in violation of this? So how can one differentiate? I'll tell you how: through a popular vote, or through the opinion of a judge. Both throw rights out the window, one maintains institutional stability (a government that works by rules). When a judge appeals to society's 'viewpoint' a popular vote should be his most objective and first source of evidence on that viewpoint. Note: I say "when" a judge appeals to society's viewpoint. And here's the equal protection argument: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 as violating the Equal Protection Clause because Proposition 8 discriminates both on the basis of sex and on the basis of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation discrimination can take the form of sex discrimination. Here, for example, Perry is prohibited from marrying Stier, a woman, because Perry is a woman. If Perry were a man, Proposition 8 would not prohibit the marriage. Thus, Proposition 8 operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sex. But Proposition 8 also operates to restrict Perry’s choice of marital partner because of her sexual orientation; her desire to marry another woman arises only because she is a lesbian. " This is so awful - because a man can't marry a man because he's a man, too. This isn't a question of equal protection, it's a question of state power visavis the individual. Women and men are equally discriminated against (separate isn't equal, true, but read the next two paras). Second, worse, is the sexual orientation argument. The court is saying that this person's desire to marry another woman airses only because she is a lesbian. So much for volition!!!! In the first half of the paragraph, he's trying to say that your identity shouldn't matter - what is a woman that she should have some 'special' reason to mate with a man (vagina?). But then he appeals to identity and says lesbians - by their nature - only desire women. That's fucked up. Let me set some things strait for the haters. My point of view is that you have to treat individuals as individuals. Any attempt to do anything else will lead to whim-based decisions that are needed to resolve contradictions. I could just as easily say: "Her desire to marry a woman is a personal choice only, and the law does not permit people to volitionally defy it. Also, women biologically mate with men, so by their nature it is appropriate to objectively single out men as appropriate potential mates." Whim chooses which one is preferred. ... My analysis is that this ruling basically 'redistributes' a phony 'right' from one identity group to another. It is not based on the principles of individual rights despite its use of that language when convenient. Legally - and I'm not trained - it seems valid though. And the argument that gender roles don't matter in marriage any more so why should sexual orientation - that's what I call a good argument! But it's an argument for the legislative floor. Because the fact is, that if the state decides that a certain living arrangement - with preferential tax treatment etc. etc. - is appropriate (thereby HEAVILY discriminating against single people), then it sure as hell can specify the terms of that arrangement (man and woman, or even race). And, it's pretty obvious that historically marriage has been between a man and a woman in the United States (polygamy mind you being legally outlawed), and otherwise generally in the history of the world or at least the West. My point is, the judge's appeal to history is bullshit. And it forms the basis of my opinion that this is a form of 'redistribution' of rights. Because the judge reasserts the institution of marriage and its validity in order to give it to new people. Why would he do this? I imagine, like SOME supporters of gay marriage, to legitimize homosexuality in society. Is that a problem? Not generally, and I think that as long as there is marriage, homosexuals should be able to have it. But declaring marriage a right is dangerous: <a href="http://www.queerty.com/new-mexicos-frightening-court-ruling-that-demands-christian-photographers-must-shoot-gay-weddings-20091217/">Forced to do Business</a> And so the issue isn't 'the issue'. The issue is how the courts and political institutions (legislatures, dept. of justice, ag's, etc.) treat the issue of individual rights. My position, therefore, is that rights are not, nor have been for many decades, properly protected philosophically by political institutions. What protection there has been, has been a result of the conservative and limited nature of these institutions built into their structure. Notice, for example, that this judge had to use very rational and pretty compelling arguments in his ruling - despite the outcome. I think this ruling represents a power grab - an attempt to let the private political viewpoint of the judge or of an agenda take precedence over a constitutional framework. The current 'interpretation' of indiviudal rights should allow states to specify that marriage is between a man and woman. So any attempt to reverse that, outside of fixing the interpretation, I view as an attack on the functionality of our political institutions. The same people who want to 'give' marriage to gay people, many of them, also want to make housing, and healthcare, and vacation, and education and so on and so forth all 'rights' to be given too. Democracy is not a proper way to decide right and wrong - what it properly is, is a 'check' against government power. The government is a 'check' against popular will. This ruling is not a 'check' against popular will, because it doesn't properly appeal to individual rights. Instead, it deconstructs the vitality of the 'check' the people have against government. That is why I'm against it. Also, I want to mention that I've read that this argument is 'maximalist' which means it is broader than the issue at hand (perhaps provoking a SCOTUS ruling). I don't know if that's true, but I'd be delighted to see SCOTUS decide that - well, hell, marriage itself violates due process and equal protection. Would they? Yes, if the only alternative was to declare marriage a 'right' by which future activists can claim 'rights' - justifying more government intrusion into private life in the name of rights. Or they could just rule on whim, too. Sigh.

Mostly because this is a discussion forum, not a debate forum. While proper dialogue between individuals should be factual, logical, and logically consistent, the format of a discussion is one in which facts are brought into the discussion by more than the one party. For instance, you say there is not a shred of evidence to support this assertion. I had assumed, by my reading of the issue, that there was plenty of evidence - at least enough to justify a discussion on the issue. But, since you have failed to see any evidence on your own, it is proper for me to present some clearly. It appears, then, that this discussion could be taking the form of a debate. This is unfortunate, because despite being verbose and touching on zillions of political and cultural issues, I thought it was pretty obvious from my post that my main point was that political actions justified by political whim over consistent principle are never good for individual rights. I see how this might not have been clear to some, but I would expect many to understand. One reason to touch on a million issues as well as to mostly imply one's main point is to foster discussion. A person can be asked to clarify his position on an issue, or whatever point he was making, but to mock a point or rule a point irrelevant by narrowing the context of a discussion to specific debate terms on the validity of specific arguments is to destroy the purpose of discussion. This purpose is to allow ideas to freely enter a conceptual space, and then allow the participants to come to conclusions as they examine those ideas from a variety of different contexts. In your reply, I can assume you are not innocently asking for more information. "Despite" "verbose" "zillions" "a single shred" and then reiterating the same point clearly made, over again, is what I read. Then, a question: "Why is that?" While I wouldn't necessary assume that the final question is rhetorical and malicious, the language I pointed out beforehand leads me to believe it is. In a previous post I used some aggressive language against another poster, so I would personally justify the use of aggressive language in retaliation. For this, then, I cannot blame you. Nevertheless, your argument is completely shallow, and someone stuck-up. It's as if you can flame and call for a proper debate standard at the same time. Still, legitimate concerns about what in this ruling in particular is of concern to me - specifically - I will address in the next post. Keep in mind that after a vigorous, or even a short discussion, it may become clear that this most recent Prob 8 ruling is not the best example of the principle I had wanted to discuss. I think it is, with the knowledge I currently have, but the discussion is still relevant and useful. Finding out that this ruling doesn't apply to the principle I've set forth to discuss would be a good conclusion to the discussion, as would finding out that it does. The purpose, though, isn't to come to a conclusion on the board - but to provide an opportunity for board participants to come to their own conclusions. That is one thing that differentiates this format from a debate - where an outcome is sought, if not achieved. I will contradict (seemingly only) what I wrote earlier, and say that Objectivists ought to be intellectually 'liberal'. Yes, establishing concretes is important, but assimilating broad ideas is a necessary part of tying concepts to reality. That means that incessant criticism is a bad policy in a discussion - and I think that I have been too aggressive in my response to it. By criticism, I mean a consistently critical approach whereby one consistently attempts to point out the flaws in any given argument, and generally seems to view discussion as a competition. This is different than seeking understanding. In other words, "I cannot comment on your post until you have provided a more detailed description of what specifically you find wrong in this particular ruling." would have sufficed. I will address that issue in the next post.

Thanks, good reply. I think there is a risk of viewing this ruling from a pragmatic 'ends justify the means' attitude. When in fact the remaining institutions in our political system that barely still protect any individual rights are being dismantled and undermined. I see this ruling as a victory for one right, but a defeat for potentially many others because of the continuing political implications of a judge justifying an argument on specious grounds merely because he supports the political issue. I'm not a legal expert, so my argument lives or dies on this next point depending on the legal reality. I could only be for this ruling if its specific justification for overturning democratic and constitutional outcome is based on an appeal to individual rights in general that could then legally become a more or less binding precedent that would apply in more broad situations. That's they only way this is a victory. But I doubt this ruling will have any bearing on: eminent domain, environment regulation, enactment of Obamacare, even free speech in the UC higher education system (the politically incorrect kind). It seems like it's the judge deciding this time on this issue that individual rights apply, by whim. That is a mockery and defeat of the principle of individual rights. That is also why I mentioned the Arizona ruling. Again, a controversial issue - but it seems that the judge ruled by political whim more than anything else. When politics enters the judiciary, it's a big problem, because that's when rights die. No, Objectivists are not conservatives - but that's just a basic conclusion of the law of identity. Please don't conclude that my use of 'conservative' and my discomfort with this ruling means that I am implying that Objectivists should be in favor of 'traditional institutions like marriage' and against 'radical, uncouth, repugnant mockeries of tradition like gay marriage'. I can see that connection being made. But that is absolutely not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the protection of rights is an achievement of society. The 'institutions' I refer to are the result of centuries of political discoveries, hours and months and years of hard work and study by professionals, and a lucky combination of social forces that support and uphold these institutions. Objectivists ARE radicals, but not anarchists. In today's political climate, being 'conservative' in that context - of defending the institutions we have today from that which threatens them today - is something I think is consistent with objectivism. In other words, in this political climate, Objectivists should oppose Prop 8, and they should advocate for a judiciary that regards and respects individual rights more. But they should not support a ruling that is justified in a manner not consistent with that attitude after a fair and free debate and vote on the issue. While the 'system' supports rights in general - if it hasn't gotten to the point where revolution is necessary - then it is proper to put up with the rights the system does not allow. But if only this issue were that broad. It's so obvious and narrow - a judge ruling by whim and not principle is not good for individual rights - even when he rules in their favor!!

Only democracy, the rule of law in general. His argument is specious. At this moment in time, his political movement happens to think gay marriage should be allowed. Didn't my reference to Obamacare register with you? If this was an instance of individual rights being upheld by a judiciary that does so consistently, I would be more than happy about it. But the decision, in light of the broader liberal agenda in America, is capricious - it's all about rule by whim. The political institutions - judiciary, legislature, executive, the constitutional structure that acts as an interface between democratic sentiment and law must guard against whim so that the rational have the capacity to act towards the preservation of their interest. True, that makes this an odd case - because the proponents of Prop 8 are themselves in error - but the decision to rule against Prop 8 was made for reasons that destroy, not preserve, the institutional safeguards against whim. The difference is that the whim of an elite took precedent over the masses. Reason and objective judgment by the elite is supposed to be the last bulwark against the masses. Our government is so illegitimate that I don't expect it to consistently stand up for all individual rights - but I do rely on it to protect those that exist. I need the government to be institutionally sound for that to happen. Otherwise, you get Obamacare and that sort of thing - which a judge could easily rule in favor of because 'morally healthcare is a right despite the constitution' which is essentially what this judge did regarding gay marriage - our system of government doesn't explicitly designate many rights beyond a few ammendments. So I do rely on democracy to protect some rights. At least then there is a process to advocate for rights and make changes - but when you convince a million minds of the importance of rights, what good is it when one elite has the power to overturn you? The process is destroyed, made arbitrary, and you can only hope that whatever it is that is popular with the government-academia crowd will be in favor of your rights. But chances are it won't, for reasons as obvious as those demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged. But I think you're just being a smart aleck - "institutions" in quotes implies that you are mocking my concern. Which means that either you aren't intelligent enough to extrapolate from my earlier comment what I meant - or it means that you did, but you live in some unserious world where you choose to pidgeonhole any and all opinions into convenient labels to be referenced for the sake of convincing yourself incorrectly that you have the intellectual high ground. Please, if you're going to make a comment like that - especially after a fairly long and articulate post - provide more details. If you disagree, then explain why you don't think any important institutions are threatened by the legal mentality behind this particular ruling.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1">http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1</a> It should be obvious which side of the general issue of gay marriage an objectivist should take. The issue is a legal living arrangement between two consenting adults (or more theoretically). I know the legal issue could be broader - it takes a male and a female to procreate, and it makes legal sense for biological parents to have a stake in their children (custody, for example). So a legal institution that is 'gender discriminatory' might itself be theoretically sound. But I'm not sure that applies to marriage. Still, I don't want to discuss the legal or moral issue - rather the political issue is what I find significant. I'll discuss the issue broadly first, then address the Prop 8 situation. I would say that while "Conservatism" is in many ways antithetical to Objectivism, Objectivists ought to really be more 'conservative' than 'liberal'. First of all, any worldview based on reason would inherently be more conservative and less radical. For example, it would not make sense to eliminate 90% of the federal government overnight. Ignoring the issue of potential chaos in society, an individual has self-interested reasons for not desiring this. For one, many important components of 'life infrastructure' come through the government. If there's no Dept. of Transportation, or no FAA, and so forth, then there has to be something. A rational person would seek out that something - by demanding as a consumer certain standards - by contributing to private organizations - by settling matters of liability in the courts over time to establish precedent that takes the place of regulation - and so forth. Reason alone imposes a 'conservative' approach to politics - although it also demands some radicalism. Secondly, in today's political culture, Objectivists have cause to be conservative. This is because the political opposition liberals come from an intellectual culture that seeks to destroy, eliminate, disintegrate, deconstruct. And this is where Prop 8 comes in. Consider that, legitimately or not, the vast majority of California voters voted for Prop 8, and the entire legal and constitutional framework of the state support this outcome. In that context, I tend to see this political battle (from the liberal point of view) as not necessarily an attack on the institution of marriage - but an attack on institutions! Why would I say this, when the principle of individual rights is so clearly on the side of gays? Because the same political coalition that would reveal private donors' addresses and threaten some amount of violence - at least go so far as to make a very big fuss, or campaign very aggressively - the same coalition that insists that the issue of rights trumps democracy and the proper function of political institutions (a vote, struck down, a constitutional ammendment voted on, struck down) - this coalition is aggressively and unitedly in favor of sweeping government control over healthcare, industry, energy, diet, and anything else you can think of. Consider the judge in Arizona that struck down their immigration law. The issue legally was, "if the federal executive isn't enforcing law enacted by the federal legislature, then a state is not permitted to enforce that law." Which is ironic, because Obama Admin. says they're enforcing the law, but 'their' judge's argument rests with the proposition that they aren't. I mention that example because I know Objectivism favors open immigration politically (more or less). Being in favor of open immigration doesn't mean legitimizing the deconstruction of political institutions that mostly uphold the law (by deporting criminal illegal immigrants). The Arizon example is almost as bad as the Obamacare situation where those in favor argued that a mandate wasn't a tax, but rather a cost-cutting measure. Then when a court said a mandate was unconstitutional (thank god, by a reasonable appeal to democracy, precedent, and the commerce clause of the constitution), the Obama lawyers say it's not a mandate, it's a tax!!! A civilization cannot survive when its political institutions are so badly desconstructed. At the end of the day, the most important thing the government can do is protect 1)Speech 2)Economics 3)What you do in your own home - from interference. All other issues are secondary, and will ultimately be swept aside if the first are guaranteed. My point is that while I wouldn't support Proposition 8, I cannot support this ruling, nor the Arizona ruling, unless and until the reason lies with an institutional respect for individual and property/economic rights within the judiciary. And as far as I know, many institutional 'conservatives' aren't so worked up about gay marriage as you might thing (though admittedly a great many are very much so). But I just don't care so long as gay people have lower taxes, can freely express themselves, can do whatever they please economically and with their property, and are free to do what they want in their homes. What the hell is wrong with that? That's why I see the political hysteria over getting 'gay marriage' for gays as much more of a post-modern deconstruction of societal institutions than an issue of individual rights. Which is specifically why the ruling of this judge is abhorrent. He isn't ruling, despite his language, in favor of individual rights, he's stabbing his own government in the nuts. So, what's the political strategy I advocate? Cut down Atilla first, then strangle and starve out the helpless mystics. Law is anathema to Atilla - when it applies to him - and once Atilla is gone, the mystics lose power over law.

CapitalistSwine: I anxiously await your elucidation. I saw the movie twice and was nearly convinced that the whole thing was a dream. I felt like Cobb's conversation on the phone with his kids was too metaphorical/psychological - "I can't come home" - despite the fact he was talking to kids. Also, the kids didn't age, and were wearing the same clothing. The only time they were different was when they were younger on the beach with Mal - in Cobb's memory. Plus, funny you should claim Minotaur's labrynth as a shout out to Batman - maybe true - but keep in mind that Ariadne led Theseus(right?) out of the Labrynth in mythology. Plus, the labrynth is basically the 'symbol' of the movie in the opening shot and in the typeface used in the title. I like your wedding ring theory. I think that has to be correct, and Ariadne was obviously the one performing inception. In which case Ariadne is an alias - though it could be a real-world alias and not necessary a dream character. Still, I didn't notice the ring enough to know the mechanics of it: please elucidate. That'll help me know if the final world was real or not. From what I do know for certain, I'd say the film message in part was anti-rationalist. Holding on to the past as the only reality, the existing content of the mind, leads to inescapable regret, which in turn prevents life's pursuit. But I'm not sure the message was very Objectivist, as I'm not yet convinced that the message wasn't: "It doesn't matter if reality is real."

I'm sort of optimistic after above video. If you think about it, Ayn ("An" Rand - doh!) Rand fleshed out her philosophy somewhat in the context of seeking a heroic, romantic ideal. Certainly that's the case considering Atlas Shrugged. So it's entirely possible that the director will accidently get it right. He may not be devoted to the philosophy, but if he gets the basic aesthetic (individualism, heroic individuals) and is devoted to portraying that (as a profession artist), the movie might turn out well. Not great, but well. And I think he said this movie will be on the first 127 pages anyway. Weird, but maybe we'll see a 10-movie 'tv miniseries' after all. Mad Men is popular, so maybe there will be some 'real men' aesthetic that's captured. In any case, only the first 10th of the movie will be ruined if this is a bomb.

" He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. " Translation: He that is, must not be. He that is not, I am. This means your mind and YOU are evil. Knowledge, self, are illusions, evils, diseases, sins to be healed. God, Jesus, death, are what is real. Matthew 10 " And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. 20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? 21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. 22 ¶ And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. 23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. 24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? 25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? 26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? " Luke 12 The idea I guess is that there is a supernatural afterlife. And the message is that God created man's nature to possess volition - not to provide for himself - but to choose to obey. So the 'rational animal' survives by obeying, whereas the bird has to work... I'd personally like to see what Jesus would say if I donned one-cubit heels. And answering his inevitable response I'd say: "Can God created a stone so large that even he cannot lift it?" In other words, is A, A? Or is it not? Going backwards: When dealing with omnipotence, 'can' is not the right question, rather 'will' is the correct question. Thus, God with all his omnipotence still must abide the law of identity. (Jesus would ask: "But who created the trees that provided the wood for your shoes?") And so I would end up saying that God created man with volition - a rational mind and hands to build. Therefore, it is man's nature as such that demands he provide for his life by these tools. To say otherwise - to say that the tools are just temptations to use volition in disobendience - is saying that man should use his mind to curse his mind. It is to say that the fowls of the air were given the gift of flight, so that they could reach a height sufficiently dangerous whereby falling would break their own wings. Whooo, I'm starting to get drawn over to the Inception thread with this train of thought.