A.West

"Globalization" is an inappropriate "package deal". Break it down into its components and evaluate each element independently. Free trade is one thing. The IMF and World Bank are totally separate issues with opposite consequences, but get lumped in with free trade as part of "globalization".

I'm a serious fan of South Park, but was disappointed by "Team America" (TA). South Park is consistently good at identifying and ridiculing bad ideas and trends in popular culture. TA isn't as sharp in mocking the stupidity related to the current events related to terrorism. Most jokes relate to satirizing action-movie conventions, or mocking Hollywood actors and directors. The best mockery was of how eager some actors have been to defend tyrrany in the name of "peace" or idiotically blame American policy on "corporations". Politically, the movie shows American force as blunt and crude, but necessary, portrays terrorists and dictators as self-evidently evil, driven by a hatred for human happiness, and shows liberals and peace activists as facilitators and dupes for evil. These points are not presented particularly well, however, and as they are not dramatized clearly, but are presented through an obscene analogy. I thought Kim Jong Il stole the show, dramatically, and visually. The North Korean palace was fascinating to see, and he had the most memorable song. Overall, the movie wasn't boring to me, but the jokes just weren't that great, especially compared to what these guys have done in South Park. I think this is because some subjects (such as political correctness) can be successfully attacked through humor, but things like world terrorism are so mortally serious that humor cannot penetrate the problem.

I'm a major South Park fan so I plan to see Team America soon. I ran across an interesting interview with the makers, Matt Stone and Trey Parker in Salon.com. In it, they made an impressive statement (considering they're in Hollywood): Stone: It's about optimism, though. That's the big thing about the movie; that end message is about American optimism. And that's the difference between America and the rest of the world, because if you go to Europe, people are not optimistic about the future there. And Americans do have a naive optimism about that -- it's not just us, and the fact that we live in this L.A. bubble -- I think all Americans have this naive optimism and have for a long time. And a lot of times it's naive, and it's unfounded, and it's even wrong, but it's somehow that optimism that keeps America looking forward and trying to make the world better. And I really do think that's something that's unique to America that doesn't exist in a lot of the world. And it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stone: Exactly. A lot of times it fuels the good things. Sure, it's stupid, and a lot of times it's a big smile while eating a big s**t sandwich, but you just keep going, you know? Parker: But another thing that goes along with the optimism part of it is basically the idea of, well, if I'm not going to have a f***ing great time and I'm not going to really appreciate and enjoy and say life is great, then there really is no hope. Because all of the hope for the world is that there can be a great life, and to me, I'm proof of that, that there can be a great life. And yes, it's all about trying to dole that out to as many people as possible, but it's also about, when you have a great country, and it all works, and your life is awesome, then be able to say so! But for some reason, it's almost taboo to say, My f***ing life is awesome, and I have a great time, and I have a sweet house and a nice car. People are like [using a scolding voice], "Hey, hey, hey, hey!" Stone: Especially the richest people in the world, which we know some of in this town, you know? [Angry voice] "The world is f***ed up!" Parker: Look, we were below middle class growing up, and I had a dream that someday things were gonna be better, and I assume that's the way it is in Third World countries. So, if you're not going to enjoy the dream, then there's no hope for anything.

Another novel I liked: Austen's "Pride and Prejudice". Both main characters were dedicated to justice and independence of thought, pursuing their selfish happiness despite others.

Well I've read the usual novels recommended by Ayn Rand, or featured in S.R. Books and its successors. Of the Hugo novels, I recall liking "93" and "Toilers of the Sea" the best. What have I liked that one might not expect? Nabokov: "Pale Fire", "Invitation to a Beheading", "Glory," "The Gift", "Bend Sinister", "Speak Memory", "Pnin". All interesting books stylistically, and Nabokov had a certain traditional respect for independence and pride, and disdain for collectivism. I liked "My Turn at Bat" by Ted Williams, an autobiographical book about pride applied to baseball. I liked Homer's "Odyssey"

neowhere, I'm surprised to find an actual NeoTech practitioner. I thought that NeoTech was all one big mass of linked webpages all written by just one guy sitting in his underwear in his mom's basement, pretending to be different people online, in between rounds of online poker. Maybe I'm wrong. Do you know if NeoTech writers are paid by the word? I notice a really low word to content ratio on those webistes. If you are looking to study Objectivism, read Ayn Rand's books first, that's a much better resource than this board. I assure you Ayn Rand makes no mention of Zonpower or Neo-Cheaters in her novels.

Ed, Looking at what you've written, if I were a teacher of Objectivism, and you were a student of Objectivism, I'd say you were a slow learner, in risk of earning a failing grade. I'd say the key problem is lack of conceptual integration, and the lack of effort in searching for contradictions. By what standard do you attempt to differentiate "true Libertarianism" from the actual Libertarianism we see around us in the world? "True Libertarianism," which I think you are claiming is consistent with Objectivism, couldn't be what is in the L.P. platform, because that's certainly not consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism. In any case, only Objectivist political theory is fully consistent with Objectivism, and it cannot stand alone without the whole philosophy. Well, this is a totally uninteresting topic to me. You claim to be fully aware of the problem, yet claim no problem exists. It's nice that so many people like Ayn Rand's books, it's too bad so few people understand them, and don't even realize that they don't understand her philosophy.

I noticed in the Bush/Kerry Debate #3 there was a question asked about religion. Bush's responses on religion were generally defensive, knowing that people might worry about him tying religion with politics. So he emphasized the idea that his religious beliefs shaped his personal values, that his political decisions were guided by those values, but that he thought people should be free to practice or not practice religion. Kerry's response reminded me of the "liberation theology" speeches I saw in the late 80s on college campuses. Liberation theology was (is?) popular amongst Latin American Catholic communists (and recall that Kerry was friendly to the Nicaraguan Marxist Daniel Ortega, and fought the rebel Contras). Kerry's message: Christ demands self-sacrifice to the poor, to the trees, and the sacrifice of the strong to the weak. Kerry was actually more agressive in connecting his religion to specific left-wing political policies. Bush fantasized about God wanting people to have "freedom" and valuing "life" but indicated he wasn't going to be very agressively anti-abortion rights. Kerry fantasized the God wanted altruistic actions implemented politically. That God would say America was way behind in loving their neighbors, domestically and internationally. This is a case in which I want the Christian whose religion is more disconnected from reality. I see Kerry's religious plan as more dangerously action-oriented. Here is what I pulled from the transcripts: Kerry stated: My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead. And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith. -------------- Bush was asked: I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions? First, my faith plays a lot -- a big part in my life. And that's, when I answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very -- it's very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for our troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls. But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to. If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America, is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency. I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, Well, how do you know? I said, I just feel it. Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else. But when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself, as manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we've unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march. And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me, and religion is a part of me. KERRY: Well, I respect everything that the president has said and certainly respect his faith. I think it's important and I share it. I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty. Everything is a gift from the Almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible -- and we all do; different people measure different things -- the Koran, the Torah, or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it. I was taught -- I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet. We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There's one for the people who have, and there's one for the people who don't have. And we're struggling with that today. And the president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith. KERRY: I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead. I think we've got a lot more work to do.

Keep in mind different people cite different statistics like GDP per capita, GNI per capita, median income, and all can give a different ranking depending on that country's economic structure. Here is the World Bank data source I referred to, you can look up definitions too : http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.html Here are good resources, with slightly older data (typically a 2 year lag), but with a focus on economic freedom: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/.../countries.html http://www.freetheworld.com/index.html

I am seeing Germany per capita gross national income at about $25k, vs $37k for the U.S. in 2003 at the World Bank site. Germany GDP per capita is slightly higher. Neither are exactly equivalent to average annual salary, because total production counted this way is not equal to total salaries. Germany is by no means a poor country. They were once among the richest, but have decided to focus on redistributing "slices of pies" rather than making more pies, and are thus gradually falling behind due to slow growth. Rather like the lazy heirs to an immense fortune, wasting that wealth on charities and modern art rather than continuing to compound the wealth through greater production.

#1. The section provided numerous concretizations of the decisions and choices these characters made in their self-development. What better way to develop fictional characters than to let the reader observe key moments of those characters' early character formation? Crucially, one is given numerous examples of Francisco's character, motivation, and talent, directly observed. This set up the mystery of Francisco's behavior in the novel, while planting clues to this mystery's solution. This also established why Dagny could rationally be torn about Francisco's adult character, it was not a fling, Francisco was indeed a great man. A quick, brief recollection could not have credibly established this. Incidentally, this is the section that I think made the biggest impact on me the first time through this book, because when I first read Atlas Shrugged, I was younger than these childhood characters! I was 8 or 9, and I remember reading about young Dagny and Francisco and thinking "that's how I'd like to be when I'm older!" Reading about Francisco hitting the baseball, driving the boat, solving physics problems, and outwitting Jim Taggart, he was a great hero to me. The childhood section made the characters much more real to me.

Oldsalt, I think you make some good points. We have a two front fight, and it's not clear what is the best way tactically to fight it as Objectivists. There is the war for Reason versus intrinsicism(religion) and skepticism. There is also the war for U.S. safety from its enemies. I'm not convinced that Bush is the driving force behind advancing religiousity. If this were the case, Alan Keyes would be the Republican candidate, or would have at least been able to keep his TV show on the air. Stop Bush, and another similarly religious person will take his place, because he's not the source and root of this religious movement. Tactically, I suggest Objectivists identify and take on the real root of the religious movement, rather than one of its typical products. In regards to U.S. security, of course I agree that Bush could be better on offense. But I don't think Kerry would do better, more likely he would increasingly institutionalize the U.N.'s control over U.S. foreign policy. Furthermore, I think a Bush defeat would be really bad from one particular perspective. I see the current situation as a hostage situation - right now much of the world (e.g. China, France, Germany, practically every global journalist) is saying to the U.S. - we won't cooperate with you if you don't get our agreement on your military endeavors, we will do what we can to cause any president who even appears to be a "unilteralist" to loose his election. If Kerry wins, they will perceive that their strategy worked, and the rest of the world will be emboldened to use this power again and again. This is similar to paying for hostage returns, you get one back, and ten more hostage-takers are encouraged. The argument for Kerry that resonates most with me is that if failure is a foregone conclusion, then it would be better for it to fall in the lap of a vacillating appeaser so that policy can take the blame. I had similar thoughts before the 2000 election, I figured a recession was a sure thing, and thought it might be better for tax cuts and alleged "free marketeers" to take the blame. I work in Manhattan, and having had to already step over pieces of people on the sidewalk once, I would vote for a candidate who would reduce my chances of being killed over the next for years, if such a candidate existed. I personally have to survive in the short-run in order to see how the long run plays out. I think Bush probably is slightly ahead in that regard, though I'm not sure because Kerry hasn't really focused on that issue that I have seen. That said, I'm increasingly disgusted by Bush's moral (mis)justification for war, driven by duty and sacrifice, which ties in to the Neoconservative and religious-altruist philosophy of the Bush administration. And I think that more than anything may lead to Bush's defeat. I hope and think that the country is willing to go to war for selfish reasons. But when people hear that the U.S. is fighting out of duty and self-sacrifice, then that's implicitly telling them that the war is of little or no benefit to them personally. That's like advertising a candy bar by telling the customer about the factory employees' poor hungry kids - if you're not telling me it tastes good, it must be bad candy. What's my conclusion? Objectivism needs to take on lots of bad ideas in the world. Is the Bush administration the locus and driving force for bad ideas in our culture, requiring that Objectivists focus their philosophical efforts at stopping it? I'm not sure.

I grew up in a "spiritualist camp" full of people who thought they were communicating with the dead. (Cassadaga, Florida). My mom was and is a "psychic" there. That was their profession. As far as I could tell, none were self-consciously con-men. It was self-deception pure and simple. Every possible piece of "evidence" in favor of their beliefs was retained, treasured, and re-told. Every bit of contradictory evidence was immediately forgotten. Some are drug users, and that can explain some of their visions and self-deception. I suspect a number of them are really crazy, as in chemically imbalanced brain-malfunctioning crazy, which also helps to explain some things. They all have troves of "evidence" for what they believe, but I spent about 15 years there, surrounded by "spiritualists" and never saw anything at all our of the ordinary except for but a lot of gullible and deluded people talking about nonsense to one another. When I was 11 or 12, I went out looking for some solid evidence of stuff people around me were talking about. I didn't see or hear anything, didn't accomplish any magic spells, didn't summon ghosts, etc. I spent about 6 months trying this, mostly because some neighbor kids were alleging various supernatural abilities. Well, I wasn't as good at self-deception as they were, and after that, I had absolutely no interest or respect for people who believed in that kind of mysticism, or religion in general. But I have no doubt that your friend could come and within a week find all sorts of "ghosts" there. When a person is willfully distancing themselves from reality as a "ghost hunter" must, and are emotionally invested in fooling their senses, I think there is nothing you can do except distance yourself from them. You can check back on them in a year or two, to see if they reclaimed their committment to reality.

The link above indicates the corporate tax rate is not unusually high. However, keep in mind that the government prefers taxation through regulation, with lavish pension & retirement benefits, barriers to entry and exit, short work-weeks and long vacations, regulations against firing workers that are no longer necessary, and probably numerous add-ons like unemployment, social security, dividend tax, etc. So a tax rate in Germany isn't necesarily comparable to a tax rate in the U.S. What matters is the total cost and attractiveness on doing business, not just the income tax.

Germany is closer to socialism than the U.S. You can check overal levels of economic freedom at: http://cf.heritage.org/index2004test/country2.cfm?id=Germany Germany has had below average economic growth over the past 10 years. Even Socialist Party members are beginning to acknowledge that its labor regulations are overly restrictive, resulting in poor employment and welfare spending numbers. However, there are some people who still defend Germany's socialist policies even though impartial observers would say it has underperformed economically over the past 10-15 yrs. Those are the people who want to defend employees from having to face global economic changes and competition, and just want to preserve their priveleges on the back of those who suffer from the system, and there are those who prefer the enforcement of altruist policies as "moral" even when it conflicts with economic growth. (There is a significant Green Party element there that favor slower growth, and would like to just redistribute the wealth and industrial base that already exists in Germany). Your teacher probably is thinking back 15 years ago when economists like Lester Thurow applauded Japan and Germany for their government "industrial planning" and "lifetime employment" policies. Even since then, each of those "model countries" has underperformed in global economic terms. The Euro vs. Dollar movement is a very complex thing to analyze, but I don't think any examination of the past 5 yrs of US$/Euro movements would lead one to draw a positive conclusion regarding Germany's socialist/welfare state tendencies. That's like pulling something out of a hat and hoping it quiets the opposition.

This AM (10/11/04) at 7AM I was listening to NPR's "Morning Edition" show on the train, and they kicked off the show by stating it was Columbus Day and said something to the effect that the Ayn Rand Institute suggested we proudly celebrate Columbus day and Western values rather than focus on guilt over native Americans. It was a pretty good one-sentence summary of the ARI position, I think. I checked the Morning Edition show at NPR.org but couldn't find that part on the replay, so I can't get the exact quote. The announcer pronounced "Ayn Rand" properly, so someone on the production staff must have exerted some effort to make that opening ten seconds of the show work.

It's a good idea to suggest to people that they read Atlas Shrugged, (or The Fountainhead, etc.) I've done the same throughout my life, and I've probably spurred 10 or 12 people to read. But if these people already know you and your values and are reticent to read the books, then I would guess that they have already shut off certain intellectual posibilities for themselves. Of the ten people I may have convinced to read Atlas, none became serious students of Objectivism. My wife, who is very fond of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but hasn't studied it in depth beyond the major novels and going to a couple of Summer conferences. Of the others perhaps a few for a few years said nice things about Ayn Rand. The rest, they either disliked or didn't really get much out of it (and I generally assume that if someone read Atlas and said little about it to me, then they probably disliked the novel and/or philosophy but didn't want to argue about it with me.) I think that someone truly predisposed to be very impressed by Objectivism will start themselves down that path with just the slightest encouragement. Anyone you feel you have to push hard on, I suspect you'll be disappointed with the results. This is just how things go for most young fans of Objectivism (I was one 15 years ago). You start off alone, and you try to recruit some friends to it, a few seem to like it, but in time veer away. Perhaps you'll meet some more serious students of Objectivism in college (and perhaps not). Focus on practicing Objectivism in your own life, building your own career and success in life, and then you'll be able to afford to go to Summer Objectivist conferences and meet some really serious students of Objectivism.

1. Keep in mind that objectively, Eddie Willers is still a top 5% sort of person in most regards. He has reached at a young age professional success and high standing in a major corporation, he's smart, and he's virtuous. But he is to some degree a follower, not a leader. 2. Ayn Rand didn't spend is much time with the internal life of Eddie Willers as the main characters. We're aware of his love for Dagny, friendship with Galt, but we pretty much observe it from outside rather than inside his head. So we're not as intimate with his thoughts. Perhaps Ayn Rand didn't want to probe too deeply into a confusion that she wouldn't resolve in the book. 3. Given the context, some people saw their lives and country failing due to an abundance of altruism, and Galt's speech clarified their understanding of the source of evil. Given how their lives were falling apart, perhaps they didn't really care that they were violating someone's rights with a punch in the mouth. In chaos and civil war, a spokesman or courier for evil is lucky to leave with their life. The choice to fight back represented the idea that those people saw the ethical question (egoism vs. altruism) as a life or death question to them. If you had just lost your life savings in a government crisis and someone came to tell you to cheer up because money was the root of evil, wouldn't you want to kick them in the nuts? Sometimes moral justice is worth risking a charge of battery.

Edit noted. I think that as RationalCop said military and police are willing to expose themselves to risk in the pursuit of a career that they value. They're not there to sacrifice their lives. Note also that in the U.S., pursuing a career or spending time in the police force or military is consistant with rational values. It's part of their work to occasionally enforce some actions that wouldn't pass the Objectivist test. Think of it this way. Ayn Rand enjoyed the show "The Untouchables" because it was about people who were passionate about enforcing justice and the rule of law. It just so happened that the primary law in question (abolition) was a misguided one. People in the military should be judged similarly. The best ones are in there to promote their values, but occasionally some missions may be questionable. But a military person passionate about his work wouldn't and shouldn't quit over every mistake of presidential or other leadership, as long as it wan't an outright evil choice, such as say, fighting jointly with the Chinese army to defeat the Taiwanese army. They're not there for the purpose of dying or sacrificing themselves to anything, and the risks they take are generally for the sake of their overall values, not the specific mission they're on. I think a proper tribute to a fallen soldier is something to the effect of: "he risked and lost his life fighting to protect and promote America's distinctive values" And I think this can be true even if the specific battle or war this soldier was involved in was misguided or altruistic. I happened to think that Bush's formulation about soldiers sacrificing their lives for the country and of the American military serving some oft-repeated "duty" to the world, was disgusting.

First, don't put words in Ayn Rand's mouth. Quoting her is fine, but you are projecting your thoughts into her when you say "Would Ayn Rand still say that our soldiers are behaving amorally." Perhaps you should rephrase your question.

My thoughts too. None of the things I enjoy go better with impaired mental capacity. I don't enjoy the influence of alcohol on my mind, I just have the feeling that words come more slowly to me. I don't feel "happier" at all. Plus most alcohol just plain tastes bad to me, so it pretty much needs to be in a really good tasting mixed drink for me to be happy about drinking it. Occasionally I find a glass of wine to be not entirely unpleasant tasting, but I'd avoid drinking more than about one glass, to escape its mind-dulling effects. The worst thing about socializing with alcohol is that most people around me become increasingly dumb without realizing it, start finding dull jokes humorous, etc. There's also inevitably someone who sees it as a mission to ensure that everyone gets as drunk as he is. When I was younger, in college, socializing over coffee late at night, discussing ideas with friends, that was much more interesting than alcohol-based socializing. I knew an Objectivist who owned a coffee distribution company and ran the Tampa Bay Objectivist club, who was a big proponent of coffee as a mental stimulant. He was certainly a rapid and sharp thinker well into his sixties when I last saw him. [Edit: Corrected the quotes.]

Look closely and you'll also find a subtext of "class struggle" in that movie.

Hi, I graduated from UCF in '91. If your experience is anything like mine, you should get used to not meeting anyone interested in Objectivism there. Most people lived off campus, worked in their off time, etc, and weren't real active with many campus activities. I studied business, and my peers weren't much interested in reading any novels at all. There were some smart people there, but they just weren't intellectual. Back then there was a small Orlando area social group that met occasionally, and Stuart Daw had a Tampa Bay Objectivist group at his offices. Occasionally an ARI speaker would lecture at U of F, and I'd drive up there. Put in an advertisement or write an essay for the school newspaper and find out if any of the other 41,000 students at UCF are thinking the same thing as you are. There probably are at least a couple. I never noticed any Catholicism on campus.

Yes, Hollywood actors probably understand Atlas Shrugged even less than TOC. I think it would be a good thing if Hollywood actors started thinking Ayn Rand is "hip". No matter how you slice it, it's free advertising for books that can sell themselves to rational people, regardless of the means of the introduction. Even negative publicity is better than no publicity when it comes to Atlas Shrugged, most likely. I'd guess that Jolie can relate to certain aspects of Dominique's personality, but that's a bit of groundless speculation. Given a brief look at her history, she looks like the type to become obsessed with a subject, for a short time at least. People like that can go from being a Marxist to a capitalist in a month (Like me in junior high school). If she can read and complete both novels and say something nice about them, she still gets a star. Maybe she can use it to help put her erratic life on a better track, that would be a nice data point. Given the money she makes, maybe ARI could send a donation mailer to her before she moves on to Kabbalah. If I recall correctly, Dr. Binswanger found and pointed out a passage in East of Eden that sounded very Ayn Rand-novel-like.

What if stepping on a crack will break your Mothers' back? What should you do? A. Avoid all sidewalks B. Only transport yourself with a wheelchair C. Amputate your own legs to protect your mom D. Walk carefully around cracks E. Proceed as normal These modern ethicists so worried about all these hypothetical situations should get out of the philosophy departments and go get a medical degree so they can work in ambulances responding to emergencies. Those folks deal in life and death emergency situations all the time, follow rational guidelines, do the best they can, and aren't constantly wringing their hands about it.