Zeus

Mr. Laughlin is right. Still, I want to point out that a person may be "objectivist," in the sense that he has an objective epistemology -- which, of course, translates into an Objectivist epistemology (an unceasing mental oscillation between concretes and abstractions in the formulation of actionable principles, whilst keeping context and hierarchy). An Objectivist is someone who explicitly accepts and practices an objectivist (the Objectivist) epistemology.

Could someone please delete the other threads of the same title? Thank you. I had mistakenly posted in ">>>Activism>>>Marketplace" only to edit that post with a "Deleted" entry. Yet, even the "original" bad post shows up, alongside the others. Is there a way a user could delete his thread provided no-one else had posted a response? I'm much obliged.

David Franzoni, who wrote the screenplays for Gladiator, Amistad, and King Arthur, is slated to direct The Trial of Socrates. Which is very good news, in my book. More here and here. For those of you who may be interested in seeing Oliver Stone's Alexander, which opens next week, but are worried that Stone's film may present a faulty historical perspective, I highly recommend British playwright Terence Rattigan's Adventure Story as a very good take on the subject.

David Franzoni, who wrote the screenplays for Gladiator, Amistad, and King Arthur, is slated to direct The Trial of Socrates. Which is very good news, in my book. More here and here. For those of you who may be interested in seeing Oliver Stone's Alexander, which opens next week, but are worried that Stone's film may present a faulty historical perspective, I highly recommend British playwright Terence Rattigan's Adventure Story as a very good take on the subject.

I agree absolutely.

I saw the movie last night and enjoyed it immensely. However, perhaps because I'd read Scott's review, I couldn't help noticing the "don't think, it's in your blood" remark and the fact that the bad guy was an inventive genius who believed he could foster an egalitarian (altruistic) society by selling his inventions and making everyone "super" so that "no-one will be." I don't think that's a good ad for capitalism, because although he was going to first sacrifice the Incredibles in order to achieve this egalitarianism, his remark suggests that greatness is strictly inborn and non-volitional. And that creating and selling inventions to society (one essential component of capitalism) is somehow in pursuit of egalitarianism. I really don't know how that'll go down with kids, who are sure to see it again and again. That said, I thought the movie was fantastic! I enjoyed the technical wizardry and the story very much. The bits with Dash discovering the range of his powers were particularly exhilarating. I consider the film superior to many real-life action movies I've seen. And even if it does fall on the Nietzchean side of the ethical controversy, better that than the wimpy, its-no-use-being-a-superhero-whining that "SpiderMan 2" had to offer. If I had children, I'd much rather they saw a movie with strong, upright characters who self-confidently used their powers than with one who whined needlessly about his gifts. Even the villain in Incredibles seemed more motivated by "ego" than Alfred Molina's Dr. Octopus, who wanted to foster the "good of the society," blah, blah. Syndrome just wants to avenge himself.

ramKatori, Why Hilary over Guliani? I know he has a history of anti-business action but Hilary's history is worse. In any case, I'd like to know why you hold this view. Thanks.

I agree with this position, provided that it is a free or semi-free society. However, there are some countries where a machine gun is the most - perhaps even the only - effective way to defeat armed killers who come to people's houses in large numbers. Most of these countries are to be found in the worst segment of the Third World. I daresay that were I to be posted to any of these, a machine gun would be perfectly in order. In other words, I wouldn't frown at or convict an otherwise rational person who was found to have taken such license.

The New York Times' A.O. Scott said it had Ayn Rand elements. A link to that review is on the other "Incredibles" thread. But, Scott Holleran, an Objectivist, says the movie is Nietzchean and has an anti-business streak. But, if you can overlook that, it's pretty good. I've still gotta see it though, just to be sure.

While I have heard that Malkin's argument on the Japanese internment is much more credible than has been portrayed in many places, I do not approve of her in general. She always comes across, not as intellectual, but as someone trying to curry favor with the conservative mainstream. For example, much of her commentary is centered on immigrants. A lot of the time, she bashes illegal immigration, and I have never read one thoughtful argument by her on the issue. She takes the law as axiomatic, and starts from there, never stopping to proffer actual solutions to real-life problems and never taking a second look at history. Now, let's suppose that Ayn Rand had not been lucky to meet a hero like Frank O'Connor early on in her life and instead had to become an illegal immigrant or break the law in some form in order to become a US citizen. What would Malkin have thought of Miss Rand then? If Malkin had, God forbid, been in charge of some governmental entity concerned with such matters, she might have even deported Ayn Rand. America would have sinned against philosophy, to paraphrase Aristotle, who fled an increasingly immigrant-hostile Athens. Malkin's invective is only proper in respect to one aspect of immigration: it's use by terrorists. But, that connection is a no-brainer - even David Hume wouldn't deny it. The question is, do terrorists act in isolation or are they necessarily supported by the machinery of terror-sponsoring states? If it were truly the case that a person's crazy beliefs alone (Islam, for example) could make him an effective suicide bomber, hijacker, or assassin, then we would have to arrest all libertarians; for, in their midst we find the Timothy McVeighs. We would also have to arrest all Christians, for among them walk the abortion clinic terrorists. We would have no choice but to incarcerate all environmentalists, for they are of one mind with the Unabomber. Malkin does not consider all these: she just waltzes through the haze of frozen, floating abstractions commonly referred to as public opinion. We have seen the likes of Malkin before - because of their spirited climbing, they go very far in public life until something comes along to diminish their pseudo-self-esteem. For details, see Linda Chavez. One should not feed on the fears of others. This is especially true when those fears are irrational.

Well, here is his penultimate blog post in full [all emphases added]:

I think there might be some mistake. Jackson Crawford is anti-Kerry and pro-Bush. His website says it all: http://horrorunheeded.motime.com/ Jack Crawford, I believe, is the name of the person who sent the email out.

You are disregarding the full context of the relationship between the Brandens and Miss Rand. There was a split in the 60s, which surely you are aware of in some form. If you know about this, and a hunger for knowledge of the person of Ayn Rand is what you wish to satiate, why don't you first investigate Miss Rand's account of the facts of that situation? Isn't that the obviously proper thing to do?? If someone were to try to find out all they could about you after your death, is it rational for them to disregard the account of your friends and your own account and then go straight to the account of your enemies? And then make a big fuss about it by opening unproductive threads? Time that could have been used reading up more of her work? Is this any way of gathering reliable information? Is it objective? But perhaps the problem here is that you do not know what objectivity entails, which is why I say that you should first learn how to think rather than waste your time on losers who could not even invent toothpicks, talkless of the most revolutionary philosophy ever. As I have said, the proper way to go about improving one's knowledge of a philosophy is to try learning as much about the ideas as possible. Not about the opinion some eel had about anything. You have a LOT of literature regarding Objectivism to go through - and since much of the literature is very abstract, you have a lot of supporting literature to go through also - and I think it's a good idea for you to spend your time studying what can improve your life, instead of going by what you already think you know, which might or might not be properly understood. To make this last point clearer, even if one were to give this idea of "flaws" some attention, what would it entail? It would mean providing a solid validation and formulation of the concept "flaw", which is an epistemological task. It would mean a proper, valid method of concept-formation, a knowledge of which you seem very far from, judging by your posts on this thread. To analyze "flaw", you would have to have a proper understanding of "perfection", a concept which presupposes it. If you hold that there is only one reality and "perfection" does not exist in a world of Forms a la Plato, what would perfection then consist of? If one rejects an intrinsicist view of "perfection", and thus of "flaw", how then does one know when to use the term? Now, in the Objectivist literature, you don't get a lengthy discussion of the concept "perfection" till Dr. Harry Binswanger's "The Possible Dream" (The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 2, February and April, 1981.). But you won't even get to this stage of superior understanding if you put any store by ne'er-do-wells. Here again, context is dropped. The context I made that statement in is "in regard to Miss Rand and her husband's one-party dealings with the Brandens." Skepticism, as a philosophical concept however, holds the ultimate context, existence, as its field of operation. Context-dropping, by the way, is a logical fallacy. As I have written above, the Brandens were once close friends of hers but did not remain so unto her death. To deliberately forget that is mischievous. And no, you are trying to determine Ayn Rand's personality traits by using non-objective, non-trustworthy people. I do no such thing. I rely on those who are trusted to be objective. There is a lot of material from which to know Ayn Rand out today. There is the Michael Paxton documentary; there is her work, her speeches, her TV appearances; there are her papers which have now (all, I believe) been published by Dr. Peikoff; there is a biography by the Sures, who also knew her well; there are off-the cuff accounts by other honest people who knew her in various media. But, most of all, there is your own capacity for introspection. Consider all the spell-binding truths discovered and elucidated by Miss Rand. Truths which span the gamut of human understanding and achievement. Consider the hours of contemplation and application that it must have taken to produce them. Then project the type of person who could have done all this. In such moments, I feel as if I were at the birth of time itself, as if I were present when the Christians say that God made the World and that it was Good. It must have been a marvellous work indeed to behold. As is Objectivism, a marvellous work indeed. I don't think it is necessary to go over these points in detail as I have already done so ad nauseaum. The main points: (1) "Ayn Rand made mistakes" requires one to define "mistakes" in the proper context, etc. (2) The onus of proof is on you to first establish that this friendship was indeed restored -- it is wrong to take only one party's word for it, as I have demonstrated irrefutably. I have never heard that claim made by anyone till now.

You might want to read the story of Benjamin Banneker, which doesn't make Jefferson look too good. Altogether though, I think Jefferson's strengths far, far outweighed his flaws. But, I'm probably more a fan of (John) Adams than of Jefferson anyway. It is interesting to note that Jefferson considered blacks mentally and physically inferior. Today, the latter part of his judgment is widely regarded as erroneous but the former still has some "validity" in many minds. The historical joke will be on those who do not realize that the former, too, is invalid.

Rights are based on a moral code? How is this so? What necessitates this moral code and how does it lead to rights? Then you say that "People are automatically citizens if they are born under that legal code". What legal code? This, in fact, is the question you are trying to answer: immigration law, including citizenship status, is part of the "legal code." You must show why such a legal code covers the issue of citizenship and how. In answering this point, I will take the "code" (which remains unvalidated) for granted. In war, an aggrieved or endangered nation (assuming it is morally superior) has the right to strike a potential or actual enemy. This means striking the governors and instruments of state primarily and may include "innocent" citizens of the offending state -- commonly referred to as 'collateral damage.' But immigrants are those who have explicitly, ostensively, renounced their citizenship of the offending state. They have said, in effect: "We want no part of this unholy nationality. We are Americans!" Viewed in this light, is it not a more fruitful policy to let them into the country? As a matter of fact, this was American foreign policy during the Cold War. You will recall the many "defectors" from Soviet states. These defectors proved very useful in fighting the enemy. They earned their citizenship. As I mentioned in an earlier post, immigration does not occur without context. Now, regarding the native-born in the free state, let us take the example of John Walker Lindh. Is this person to be protected by the state in wartime regardless of context? Just because he was "born under [the] legal code"?

I read some work he produced in this connection about two years ago. It was published on the web and provided a detailed analysis of the different accounts of the various breaks with Ayn Rand from the sixties till her passing. I don't think Mr. Valiant was/is being immoral in his attempt to seek justice. However, I don't think such an attempt will change the minds of those who are convinced that Ayn Rand's personality was "flawed." To attain an objective view of Ayn Rand's life, you have to understand (to a good degree), and accept, her philosophy. Those who are determined to put the cart before the horse will not even get to the point where they'll give Mr. Valiant's book consideration. In fact, they will most likely view a lengthy Objectivist "rebuttal" as an indication that there is some truth to the stories told by her enemies. While not a trained historian myself, I know that objective historians are quick to minimize or dismiss altogether any non-objective assessment of historical figures, especially if made by those with an axe to grind. In a formal clash of ideas (if the phrase is here applicable), one crucial error is to grant your opponent's premise, even if inadvertently as Mr. Valiant seems to be. I have already provided reason for the invalidity of this approach above.

In the hierarchy of knowledge - and such a hierarchy exists, mind you - political principles precede legal principles, just as political principles precede economic principles. The purpose of the science of law is normative: the codification of objectively-determined rules of social conduct, which are to be supported by the use of force, a use delegated to government. But those rules require a moral foundation, which in turn requires an epistemological foundation grounded in reality. One cannot hold legal principles as primaries: they presuppose a huge context, as I have already indicated. Any proper law requires a moral basis. If you steal, you go to jail; if you kill, you face the death penalty; if you defraud someone, you face due punishment, etc. So, what you must do is validate the legal concept of citizenship by showing its moral roots. Now, I'm not saying there isn't a way to do this, and American political history provides instances of this validation. I just want to see how you would go about it. In doing so, you'll find your attitude to immigration duly tempered.

But, the point is, a new book is not required to make a decision on this issue. One need neither be a genius nor an Objectivist to see that the stories told by the Brandens cannot be taken as fact. If there are two parties - and two parties only - to a situation and one of the parties is mortally unable to present its perspective of the situation, and the side able to make its case is engaged in defamation, then it follows that the presenters' views are necessarily invalid, since all the facts of the situation cannot be determined. For instance, in a court of law, a plaintiff presupposes a defendant, and vice versa. No defendant, then no plaintiff. This is a very important principle, especially since the person being libeled is Ayn Rand. But the principle would apply to anyone, anywhere, at any time. Because this principle is metaphysical (the total facts being unknowable), it defeats any logical case one could make for labelling my point an ad hominem. In fact, her entire book is one gigantic ad hominem against Ayn Rand, yet you seem to have no problem with what it contains. This is an act of injustice. -------- The book to be published (by James Valiant) cannot present this other side, and this is so by necessity, as I have indicated above: He too was not party to these matters. All he can do is present contradictions in the noxious concoctions of these creatures. In doing so, he has to swim in the soup, hence conceding their immoral premises.

Why are you taking the word of people who only found the courage to speak against Ayn Rand after she was dead and could not provide her own side of the issues? Is that objective? Is that a way of attending to facts and forming valid conclusions? I mean, in all my time as a student of Objectivism, I've heard many reasons for why one should ignore the Brandens. But many of those reasons are actually unnecessary. All one need do is consider my statement above. Coupled with the fact that Branden did not respond to the accusations she levelled against him in sixties, I see no reason for any supposed "investigation" of the Brandens' side of the story. That would be granting sanction to slime.

No, you haven't answered it. What makes a citizen a citizen? not legally but objectively. This is what you have to show. Is it simply by virtue of being born here, or by a knowledge of the history of this country and its objective foundations? Or both? Or for other reasons which I have not stated here? And why is this - or are these - the case? Please provide concretes.

I saw it when it was in the theatres. My initial impression (I have not seen it since): it was a glamorization of the man that evaded crucial historical facts, especially facts from the history of science. Still, it provides a good visualization of the events of the time and will help anyone who proceeds to an objective evaluation of that period by reading or watching better histories.

But you have written positively, even if tentatively, about not letting them in, an opinion on the current law which rests on a deeper premise: the idea that a position held by an individual, or by a group of individuals, can be, or is, a threat to national security. If all immigration law is based on the need to maintain national security and immigration is only one side of the regulation of the national demographic, why not extend the same principle to emigration, the other side of the coin? Migration, if you are not aware, occurs in two ways: emigration and immigration. Just as Albert Einstein was an American immigrant, so could a rational Germany have forcibly emigrated Immanuel Kant, a progenitor of evil ideas, who was remarkably law-abiding. After all, what makes a native more special than an immigrant? Is it simply a function of being born on American soil? How does that confer metaphysical importance by itself? Human beings are not plants. A is not non-A. But, with all due respect, your position on this issue is not particularly well-reasoned, even if some conclusions may be consonant with reality. Many of your propositions are unsupported by concretes, which is a point I have tactfully tried to convey throughout this thread. You came out with: "noboody has a right to immigrate to our country", an unfortunately jingo-esque statement, even if you did not intend it so. Although I have not worked through the argument thoroughly, for lack of time, I am almost certain that one could make a case for the following position: Unless evidence of a person's threat to a nation is produced, any person has a right to immigrate anywhere. Note that it does not matter what nation's security is being threatened: a man whose ideas and associations are a threat to America is a threat to any man anywhere -- a threat to individualism and all it entails, as such.

Let me put this scenario to you. A man is shipwrecked on an island. The island is completely in the control of one man who insists that the stranded fellow must return to the deep blue sea. His justification? He has private property rights to the island and will not part with his property in any form or manner. What should the stranded man do? Return to sea or kill the landed gent? ------ Immigration is not simply a case of physical movement of a human entity across national boundaries devoid of context. Immigration, like rights, presupposes an entire metaphysical, moral, and political context. The immigrant must be able to sustain himself in his new home. If he is unable to find work and there is no welfare state, then he will starve and perish. If he is employed, does not pose public health issues, and agrees to abide by the laws of the state, he has every right to stay. A man who has violated other mens' rights, or is party to such violation (such as a card-carrying but non-violent member of Hamas), has negated his own rights. A man with a clean record, however, retains his rights. This applies in the immigrant's native society or his adopted one. Individual rights are universal. If one is restricting the rights of immigrants just because they harbor the wrong ideas, then one might as well throw out most of the philosophy professors in America's universities. If one is restricting the rights of immigrants just because they are immigrants, then it is a case of who smashes the other first. Morality ends where a gun begins; the immigrant faces the gun in his native land; so, why not face it here where he might be able to appeal to reason? The rights of the non-immigrant property owner who is looking for someone with the immigrant's skills cannot be abrogated to suit a poor foreign policy -- a policy that appeases enemy states but is concerned to deter moral individuals. The reason why immigration raises such a big problem today is the rise of the welfare state and the mortal dangers raised by a mixed foreign policy. Whatever conclusions one comes to on this matter, I would propose that we temper our arguments against unrestricted immigration appropriately, so as not to land in the lap of xenophobes who are looking to turn the nation to Fascism.

You have not here specified context. Do you mean if an immigrant within the United States is attacked by rogues in a parking lot and cries for help within the hearing of two cops, the police officers should calmly tell him while he's being stabbed that "government is not obligated to protect the rights of foreign aliens." No-one is talking about sending soldiers to Iraq to fight "for the Iraqi people" which is the context your proposition addresses. How is it a sacrifice to let a Western-Civilization sympathizer into a rational society? Let us even say that he were not pro-Western-Civilization. Is the true battle against him or the states that sponsor him? Now, I'm not arguing against keeping out men with known ties to terrorist groups. However, if a person has no ties to these groups, it would be fruitless to keep him out (one might be keeping out an Ayn Rand or an Aristotle, just to name two very important immigrants). End the evil states, not the good men. And note that the man has no control over his "native oppressors" - reason is an individual faculty. I do not believe in open-borders either, and I'm sure you are not referring to me when you use the word "libertarian." However, my views are much less jingoistic than many people I have met. I have a strong aversion to jingoism (or any kind of rationalistic feeling), and it's not just because I'm foreign.

But what if immigration is the only way to secure the inalienable rights the person does "obviously" possess (to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)? What does the person do? Sacrifice himself to a set of "airy" laws? What about reality? What about the Western-Civilization sympathizer in Iran brimming with a need to fully live all of his benevolent-universe-guaranteed 70+ years on earth? He's been a pro-freedom activist in Iran, and he's seen Western pragmatism fuel the mullahs; he admires America and Americans but sees that they suffer from bad leadership relative to their historical context just like the rest of the world does. He's surmised that, looking out for yourself, so long as it doesn't hurt others, is all that's important in one's limited time on earth; and so, he's decided to immigrate to America and die in the process if need be. (Just like Kira in We The Living.) What about this fellow? If his record is clean and he knows that life is all you have and that you can't eat legal principles, should he ignore all the possibilities open to him regarding immigration just because America has banned all Iranian immigrants? What if America does not bring down the mullahs? Is he to dwell in despair for eternity (i.e. his life)? ----- Note that, in the above, I'm trying to draw out proper principles for immigration. Many people today speak about immigrants and immigration in such a way that one sometimes forgets that immigration is one of the country's building blocks. It is easy to fall prey to this "patriotism," so I think it's a good idea to validate the principles by starting from concretes.