Kelo? We don't need no steenking Kelo!

Although I am happy to say that Texas is one of the states leading the way in the race to undo the harm to property rights dealt by the U. S. Supreme Court in its recent Kelo decision, that knowledge is tempered by the fact that Texas is far from being a capitalist utopia for the property owner.

One glaring inconsistency in the state's protection of private property rights extends for the entire length of its coastline. In addition to forbidding structures past the vegetation line on the beach, Texas lays claim to all land seaward of the high tide line, which can shift dramatically due to beach erosion. This state of affairs has existed for quite some time, as witness these two strikingly similar stories which may be separated by nearly twenty-five years, but occur within the same county.

In the November 1, 1980 issue of The Intellectual Activist, Peter Schwartz reports the following.

Carl Clark owns a small beach house, which is his retirement home, in Surfside, Texas. The Texas General Land Office has temporarily ordered him to vacate his property because, it insists, all land seaward of the high tide line belongs to the government. It seems that Mr. Clark's land has been slowly eroded by the tides, to the point that his house -- built on stilts and unaffected by the water -- was officially on the wrong side of the high tide mark. "You are maintaining a structure on this State-owned land," he was told in a letter. "Further use of this structure will be regarded by the state as an unlawful infringement on its ownership rights."

Compare that story to this one, which I saw on the news Saturday. Note that the boldface I have added shows that, if anything, landowners on the shoreline have it even worse off now.

For 10 years, [Dick] Royer has watched the waves lap against his home on Brazoria County's Treasure Island.

"They not only want me to remove my homes, but also the bulkheads and all the land back to the street," Royer said.

The State Land Office, which said Royer's properties are in clear violation of the law, is suing to force Royer not only to remove his homes, but also to foot the bill for the work.

"My son's college education goes away," Royer said. "If we have to move it, our lives will change dramatically."

Officials with the state land office would not talk with Local 2 because of the pending lawsuit.

The suit claims Royer's properties violate two state laws -- the Submerged Land Law and the Open Beaches Act.

"They say if it were not for artificial means, I would be on submerged land," Royer told Local 2.

Artificial means refers to these two bulkheads holding back the Gulf. In the early '90s, Texas made it illegal to build bulkheads. But Royer's bulkheads were built nearly 30 years ago with permits from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Royer believes that makes his land grandfathered.

The Open Beaches Act says any structure that is past the vegetation line has to be removed.

According to the state coastal survey, Royer's land is not past the vegetation line. But, again, the [state] argues that if it were not for the bulkheads, the property would be in violation.

Royer said that state's not listening to his argument.

Officials with the land office said that they do not make the laws -- they just enforce them.

"It's been a drain for my family, both financially and emotionally. I have to apologize to them for not being able to make this monster go away," Royer said.

Royer told the Troubleshooters that if he loses the case, it would bankrupt him.

The state filed suit against Royer in 2004, but it wasn't the first time the two have been at odds with each other. Royer won the right to keep his land in 1999 when the Texas attorney general rules in his favor.

If the Texas legislature can tackle Kelo (first link above), to protect property owners from rapacious local governments, it should also consider some measure of relief for landowners like Royer in the short term -- and reform or repeal of the Submerged Land Law as well as the Open Beaches Act in the long term.

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Updates

8-1-05: Moved incorrectly-located HTML tag.

"A Liberal Neighbor"

[Warning to ladies, southern and otherwise, that some of the language, not mine, in this post may make you feel...faint.]

I received an anonymous, type-written letter and envelope via the postal service the other day in response to my recent Charlotte Observer letter to the editor. It is from "A Liberal Neighbor". I had to share it.

Italics are those of "Liberal". Regular text is mine.

Mr. Clarkson:

I am writing you in response to your letter to the editor published in the July 8th Charlotte Observer.

Until I read your letter I would have sworn no one, not even a Republican, could produce such moronic swill. I'm surprised you didn't use the analogy that since you have a microscopic penis, everyone else should have their cut down to size! [Slur against my wife removed.]

One, apparently, "Liberal" needs to go back to reading school. If "Liberal" had read the letter, he/she would have noticed that I credited the analogy to the thoughts of the Observer columnist C. William Grafer:

"C. William Grafer seems to think so. He says his goal is to end the "inequality" of Best Buy and Blockbuster having to charge a sales tax, while movie theaters don't."

Or, two, my analogy hit too close to home to "Liberal". See the following.

You're just another self-absorbed, greedy bastard who thinks the world owes them everything and they owe nothing in return.

Is that not the basis of liberalism? Get welfare checks and food stamps and other "social services" and public schools and transportation on demand just because you say you "need" them? From those who are able to provide them? By force? Me thinks you need a look in the mirror.

You think we should cut taxes so you can drive even bigger SUVs, take even more expensive vacations, buy even more gadgets and in general live the good life.

Of course, I am in search of the "good life". You are in search of the "bad life"? The "monk life"? The "serf life"? The "impoverished life"? The "under dictatorship life"? The "I like to be productive, but wish to have others make the choice with my earnings life"? Who in their right mind is not in search of the "good life"?

In addition, the taxes I wish cut are my money. Money for which I worked damned hard and saved like you wouldn't believe in order to get ahead. It is going, in your words, to bastards "who think the world owes them everything and they owe nothing in return." Right in line with your *liberal* philosophy.

I'll bet you even claim to be a Christian! Well, Spanky, you aren't even a shadow of a Christian and you probably haven't got the intellect to use all the gadgets you already own. [Slur against my family removed.]

I'll bet you are wrong! I am an advocate of reason as opposed to revelation. Thus, I am an atheist. I do not claim to be "even a shadow of a Christian." I am also not a Marxist.

Let's cut taxes and at the same time cut your services proportionately. Let's eliminate trash collection, public water, public sewer, public road construction and police protection for all Charlotte residents outside the 77-277 loop. Of course you don't want any of your freebies reduced or eliminated, you just don't want "those people" getting any of your precious money. Like I said, you're a greedy, un-Christian bastard.

Now this is hilarious. Note how most of these are items are not paid for by taxes and for which I do pay -- directly. Let's go one-by-one here:

Trash collection: I do pay for it monthly and not through taxes. It is not a "freebie". Why does Charlotte city government have a monopoly on it anyway? I would rather pay a private company in a completely competitive market who would assuredly be better and cheaper.

Public water: Uhhh..., the last time I looked I was getting and paying a monthly water bill in addition to taxes. It is not a "freebie". Question, why does government control the water systems?

Public sewer: Same. I pay a bill every month. It is not a "freebie". Has nothing to do with taxes.

Public road construction: Now there is a scam. Yes, definitely give my money back on that one and get Charlotte and the state of North Carolina out of road building. We are getting ripped off in case you have not been reading the news.

Police protection: Now that is one area that is funded by taxes, but is 10% of the city budget. The sheriff's budget is 7% of the county budget. And in case you were not aware, police protection is one of the few legitimate areas of government. So, yes, please cut all my taxes and I will happily chip in voluntarily my fair share of a few hundred dollars per year to fund the police.

"Liberal", what you left out is that most of our taxes (non-capital related) go to those "who think the world owes them everything and they owe nothing in return." Please cut these completely.

That would include Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools which clearly thinks it deserves an endless stream of money and delivers only failure. It is over 50% of the county budget (not including what I am forced to pay in fed and state taxes). It is not a "freebie" by any means. I have to pay into that den of nihilism and still pay for my children's private school. (I will do just about anything to keep them out of CMS.)

A Liberal Neighbor

As you can see, this letter is anonymous. That is the modus operandi of today's left. Spew venom -- anonymously. My name and picture and views are out in front of Charlotte on the Observer editorial page. Feel free to agree or disagree. But, at least, have the courage to stand by your views -- with your name.

Of course, this letter could be a weird joke, but I really don't think it is. It is the perfect example of the "tolerance" of the liberals today, their total disregard for reality, and thus their raw emotion-based screeds. And that is why liberalism, thank goodness, is dying.

Crossposted to the Egosphere

The Great Mecklenburg Oil Reserve

I thank the good Lord every day for the Great Mecklenburg Oil Reserve upon which all of us in Charlotte sit. The Great Mecklenburg Oil Reserve provides each and everyone of us with the oil to heat our homes and the gasoline to run our cars and trucks. Could you imagine what our lives would be like if we had to bring in the oil from somewhere else -- other North Carolina counties, other states, other countries? It would be unbearable...

Now you may be asking..."What Great Mecklenburg Oil Reserve? We don't have any oilfields in Charlotte. We do import all of our oil from other states and countries."

Correct. Just trying to make a point about another subject. That would be water. Our source of water here in Mecklenburg is the Catawba River and like some medieval village in the year 1005, not 2005, we live along the shores dependent on the whims of Mother Nature to provide us with too little or too much water. Even worse, politicians have grabbed hold of the water supply and in their oh so consistent style have produced their best product -- failure -- and use those failures against us to limit growth.

What are some possible long-term solutions to this problem?

1. Leave it as is. Long-term that is a no go. The city-owned system consistently admits its failure to produce water and they hold us hostage with their failure. Option 1 is a no go.

2. Either sell the water system to a private company and let them run it as a monopoly or maintain city ownership and outsource the management to a private company. The problem with option 2 is that there is still a government-controlled monopoly in place. That is no good, even with a private company in the mix. Option 1 is communism. Option 2 is fascism. Being a fan of neither, I would say they are both no go.

Now, that should be enough for most of us tuned into this channel. But, the less abstract among us need concretes so here we go.

In the case of Atlanta, the city handed off the management to a private company, things did not go well, and the city took management back. There is a lot of who-shot-who, but in the end, you know who is going to get the blame no matter what the truth is. The private company. The government came in as the savior though if you read the whole article that is not the reality.

There is a similar story in Argentina and I am sure many others. The lesson: everyone should stay away from government-controlled monopolies.

3. Option 3 is a politically and economically free water industry with companies developing, distributing, and selling water -- and free to compete without government hampering or assistance to limit competition. I was tempted to say just like oil companies, but they are so hampered by governments that they are anything but politically and economically free. So, let's just say like grocery stores, computer companies, and most industries who are for the most free of interference or just as important, do not rely upon government favors.

Unfortunately, that is a long way off. Every where you look governments are in control of water -- with their consequential failures - India, California:

Using the ocean to help meet California's drinking water needs could lead to destruction of marine life and turn a public resource into a private commodity, according to a California Coastal Commission report released Thursday.

And soon...everywhere:

Two out of every three people in the world will be facing water shortages by 2025, says a new report World Water Day (Thursday March 22nd,2001), by Christian relief and development agency Tearfund.

Take this 2025 date with a grain of salt. It is the United Nations scare year. The point is that with governments failing everywhere with water, why is there no completely private effort at producing water for human beings?

The good news is that there are some efforts and of course they are succeeding on private property -- primarily resorts and cruise ships:

A seaside resort in Egypt required an alternative to the costly and often undependable method of trucking fresh water into their facility. Without local ground water resources available, desalination was the only alternative.

and...

Savannah, GA -- TSG Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of TSG Water Resources, Inc., has completed the design, construction, and commissioning of a 1.25 million gallon per day seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant on the island of St. Kitts under a design-build agreement with the DeZen group based in Toronto, Canada. The plant provides both potable and irrigation water for the Marriott St. Kitts Royal Beach Resort and Spa, a 648 room hotel with an 18 hole golf course. The plant has been initially fitted with four trains of 250,000 gallon per day each for a total capacity of 1,000,000 gallons per day. The plant is designed so that a fifth train may be added to bring the total capacity to 1.25 million gallons per day.

It is impossible to predict the various ways a private industry could grow. It is all up to the thoughts and actions of the Atlases who build their own companies. It does seem natural that resort water production is a potential seed that could save the world. I can foresee a company such as Marriott (above) 20 or 50 years from now expanding from simply having to provide water to its guests to turning water production and distribution into a business.

And maybe, one day, potential companies such as Marriott and its competitors will eliminate the government-controlled monopoly in Charlotte.

P.S.: If you haven't noticed, there is plenty of water "out there". I calculated about 60 billion gallons for each person on the planet.

There's a whole lot of water on Earth! Something like 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons (326 million trillion gallons) of the stuff (roughly 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters) can be found on our planet. This water is in a constant cycle -- it evaporates from the ocean, travels through the air, rains down on the land and then flows back to the ocean.

Now, of course only about 2% is fresh water. But so what? Oil is useless until businessmen, scientists, and engineers discover it, drill it, refine it, distribute it across the globe, and market it.

BTW, the 2% of 60 billion gallons available per person means that on the planet there are about 1.2 billion gallons of fresh water per person. Is that enough for you?

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Lance Armstrong's Heroism Is a Moral Inspiration

By Andrew Bernstein

When Lance Armstrong rode through Paris on Sunday, crowning his unprecedented seventh consecutive victory in the grueling Tour de France, he put an exclamation mark on what is more than merely an extraordinary athletic career.

By this time, the entire world knows Armstrong's story--his remarkable recovery from what was feared to be terminal cancer, his exhausting training program, his legendary endurance, his dauntless determination, his unequalled dominance of cycling’s premier event. Millions around the world properly celebrate him and his lofty accomplishments.

But what explains the enormous interest in Armstrong's success--or that of any other sports hero? Why do sports fans set such a strong personal stake in the victories of their heroes? After all, little of any practical significance depends on such victories; a seventh Armstrong win won't get his fans a raise or help send their children to college. Why do sports have such an enormous, enduring appeal in human life?

The answer lies in a rarely recognized aspect of sports: their moral significance. What athletic victories provide is a rare and crucial moral value: the sight of human achievement.

Athletic competitions are staged with the goal of achieving victory. By their very nature, they seek and honor champions, i.e., those select few who, in a given field, outdistance their brothers and sisters. The result of this policy is that sports reward exceptional achievement, not equality; they glorify the elite, not the ordinary; they celebrate towering heroes, not "the little guy."

Sports do not seek to "level the playing field" in an attempt to give a less-talented competitor a better chance of defeating a superior rival. Properly, there are no penalties imposed on a champion for being superior to his foes. Lance Armstrong, for example, is not required to heft a twenty pound weight up the steep ascents of the Pyrenees. Michael Jordan was not banned from springing skyward. The PGA does not require Tiger Woods to use an inferior brand of clubs. The only equality permitted is that every competitor gets the same opportunity to showcase his talents and determination.

With artificial handicaps or advantages eliminated, sports provide an undiluted example of the pursuit of excellence. In an era when the anti-hero is dominant in intellectual culture, sports provide the purest arena in which to pursue, observe and appreciate human aspiration, achievement and greatness. The reality of an athlete striving to hone his skills to the utmost--enduring pain, overcoming injury, testing his mettle against the world's best--provides a noble vision of man's potential.

Those of us who, physically, cannot cycle 2,000 miles or run the 100 meters in 9 seconds can still aspire to significant achievements. The vision of Armstrong's magnificent abilities and dauntless determination engenders in the best of us the questions: What might I accomplish in my field and in my life if I embodied the same degree of dedication? How high might I go in my own life-promoting endeavors if I put into them the identical indefatigable qualities of spirit that Armstrong does?

The motto of the Modern Olympic Games is: Citius, Altius, Fortius--Swifter, Higher, Stronger. Lance Armstrong embodies these principles perfectly. A great athlete like Armstrong is inspiring, because he reminds us how much is possible to a human being. He is living proof that an individual can reach great attainments and that profuse exertion in pursuit of a daunting goal need not be fruitless.

Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Terrorists Chosen Over Police

The Will to Fight

A Brazilian man was shot dead at point blank range by police in London recently under suspicion of being a suicide bomber, but who turned out to be innocent; I can almost hear the wind crackling as the collective globe goes up in arms over London's 'obscene use of force.'

The moral indignation has even reached the nymph-infested, Islamist-sympathizing, third-world wasteland of Brazil, who's government is now "demanding an explanation." At least, though, the London police has defended its use of lethal force and hasn't capitulated to the pressure of widespread indignation over the event.

Notice that while most react with anger against the London Police over the matter, not many are stopping to wonder who deserves to be mad at whom, and for what. Well, let us have a look.

Why are the London police in this kind of situation in the first place? Well, as I've noted in my recent posts, because London and its allies have refused to make a war declaration against Islamists as such. Far worse, London has gone out of its way to appease its Muslim crowd, enabling them to preach their hatred on London's very doorstep. The London police are consequently tasked with using deadly force against an enemy their own country has not only refused to recognize, but also has allowed to flourish at home. What does this mean for Londoners?

Well, they are now in the line of fire, placed there by their own government, and thus by direct election, by their own hand. The moral guilt of this shooting therefore rightly rests on the heads of the people of England who elected a government that does not have the will to fight the enemy. The cops clearly have the will to protect London with the use of deadly force; perhaps London should learn a lesson from its own cops.

If I were the cop that shot this innocent man dead, I would be enraged, but my anger would not be directed at myself nor at my supervisors for ordering me to shoot to kill. No, it would be directed at the bastards behind these bombings and the people responsible for allowing them to engage the people of London in warfare. The London police force should be commended for having the will to define clear goals and for acting decisively to achieve them. Can you image if they were tasked with something as absurd and vague as fighting a 'war on terror?' The fight has come home, and how London reacts to this 'controversy' will be indicative of who is likely to win this struggle.

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Privatize Space Exploration

by Robert Garmong

As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government.

Two years ago, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America's expensive space program: complete privatization.

There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals.

The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing special interest groups, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors -- which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments -- which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well.

Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them -- but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.

There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam.

It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.

Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space -- it's been happening, quietly, for years. The free market works to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft. Commercial satellite launches are now routine, and could easily be fully privatized. The X Prize, which SpaceShipOne won, offered incentives for private groups to break out of the Earth's atmosphere.

But all this private exploration is hobbled by the crucial absence of a system of property rights in space. Imagine the incentive to a profit-minded business if, for instance, it were granted the right to any stellar body it reached and exploited.

We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making steps -- and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds.

The creative minds that allowed SpaceShipOne to soar to triumph have made the first private steps toward the stars. Before them are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best minds, as only the free market can do.

Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

An Aristotelian Foundation for Objectivity

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the second of today's Featured Articles by H. Acstonus. This brilliant article discusses Objectivity in today's world:

   Objectivity has been under attack for generations. Today, it's under a particularly destructive assault. Postmodernists reject the very notion of objective truth, and many hold that there are separate realities-as well as truths-for separate groups based of such things a economic status, gender, race, and culture. This approach is self-contradictory, and if taken literally would amount to the complete destruction of all knowledge. It has come to the forefront because of epistemological confusion: the concept of objectivity has not been properly understood, and is consequently in danger of being abandoned. This confusion is the fault of the philosophers.

   Rather than showing the other disciplines proper methods needed to acquire knowledge, philosophers for the last two hundred years have been proclaiming that knowledge is impossible. Kant, one of the most influential philosophers in history, proclaimed: "All attempts which have hitherto been made to answer natural questions ... have always met with unavoidable contradictions, we cannot rest satisfied with ... the pure faculty of reason itself." Once the possibility of real knowledge is rejected, only subjective or social "reality" is left standing. The world becomes an arbitrary social construct. Truth becomes mere fiction.

   Most of humankind's past has been spent mired in supernaturalism, faith, and tradition. For brief periods, like sparks in a sea of darkness, limited progress in epistemological methodology was made. But the Enlightenment changed everything-for the first time since Ancient Greece a rational outlook on the world became widespread. Rather than being a brief spark, the Enlightenment set the world afire. It seemed that humankind would finally be free from the constraints of superstition. But the scientific outlook on the world was incomplete, and it was not long before the Enlightenment came under attacks which its advocates could not defend against. Reason as a method of achieving knowledge was not fully understood, and could not be properly defended against critical scrutiny.

   As soon as it seemed the debate over science vs. faith had been won by the advocates of the Enlightenment, several thinkers dealt a series of crippling blows to the very notion of rational enquiry. Philosophical objections were leveled against science and reason by thinkers such as Hume and Kant, and these objections have yet to be answered by any prominent modern thinker. Consequently, an intellectual revolt against reason occurred during the nineteenth century, and by the twentieth century most intellectuals had abandoned the Enlightenment. One could even say that an Anti-Enlightenment Project has been under way-an intellectual assault on reason and science. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the assault continues.

   Because thinkers throughout history have overwhelmingly spent their efforts on the negation of knowledge rather than the search for it, little is known about how to attain it. Millennia dominated by supernatural views of existence, with comparatively little effort spent on developing a philosophy of reason, have left our civilization with an impoverished understanding of rational inquiry.

   What would a defense of objectivity, and of reason and science, consist of? Such a defense would have to do several things: it would have to answer the attacks on the validity of sense experience, ground the basic principles of logic in irrefutable first principles, formulate a proper understanding of causality, and show how abstract conceptual knowledge can correspond to an external reality. Twenty-four centuries ago the foundations for such a defense were already laid by the philosopher Aristotle, and it is from an essentially Aristotelian base that a modern attempt to refute the attacks against reason and science must be made.

Aristotle is considered, along with Plato and Kant, to be one of the three most influential thinkers in the history of western civilization. But Aristotle's thought has never dominated western civilization in the way Plato's used to and Kant's does now. Lost for hundreds of years, his work was not even seriously studied by westerners until one and a half thousand years after his death, in the thirteenth century. After the re-discovery of Aristotle's major works, Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas began to incorporate certain aspects of his system into their religious views. A kind of Aristotle-by-proxy was consequently advocated by medieval scholastics.

   By the renaissance, philosophers and scientists were already beginning to reject Aristotle as part of their revolt against the dogmatism of the Catholic Church. But they threw the baby out with the bathwater. What they were rejecting was not really Aristotle's system at all, but the rationalistic fantasy of medieval scholasticism. Whereas medieval monks would argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, the real Aristotle collected biological specimens. Aristotle the earthly, ancient Greek thinker was never fully understood or discovered in the twenty-four centuries after his death.

   Aristotle was very much a this-worldly thinker. Between Plato, Kant and Aristotle, only Aristotle concentrated on the natural world of experience. Plato was a metaphysical dualist, dividing reality into an imperfect material realm and a supposed "higher" world of forms. Kant also divided reality in two. In his system there is a noumenal world of "things-in-themselves" and a phenomenal world of mere "appearance." A proper defense of reason and science would require a complete rejection of dualism in any form-an Aristotelian approach. It would require the discovery of principles applicable to everything which is.

   Aristotle grounded his first principles in what he called "being qua being"-the very nature of reality itself. Aristotle's world was not split in two, but a single whole. His first principles applied to all of existence. In his work Metaphysics, Aristotle says the job of the philosopher is to discover the most basic principles which are the foundation of all knowledge: "The discussion of these truths will belong to him whose inquiry is universal ... he whose subject is existing things qua existing must be able to state the most certain principles of all things ... this is the philosopher."

   To exist, according to Aristotle, is to be something in particular, as opposed to the nothing of a contradiction: "Evidently then there is a principle which is most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect." This formulation is known as the principle of non-contradiction. Everything which exists is what it is, and cannot be what it is not. Modern philosophy would decry this as a tautology, but Aristotle did not lock himself inside of language-he looked outward at the world. The modern objection to tautologies is a function of Kant's noumenal-phenomenal dichotomy, and would be dismissed out of hand by Aristotle.

   According to Aristotle, the contents of a human mind are not circular linguistic constructs, but abstract formulations derived from a straight-line relationship between the subject and external reality. Thus the principle of non-contradiction is not an arbitrary linguistic convention, but the understanding of a universal attribute of existing things qua existing. Aristotle derived the method of logic from the principle of non-contradiction. Logic is the non-contradictory integration of one's knowledge, and is therefore crucial to the foundation of a proper epistemology. In any analysis of one's thinking logic calls a halt when a contradiction is discovered. Thus logic is a check on one's understanding and a means of rooting out error. What is commonly called "common sense" is merely an implicit understanding of logic.

   Importantly for Aristotle, logic was a practical tool meant to be applied to the real world. The method of non-contradictory integration is to be applied to knowledge derived from sense experience. Aristotle identifies sense experience as simply a component of certain living organisms, a means by which they process information about the external world. All attacks on the validity of the senses have stemmed from the notion that because sense experience is a process, it distorts. But for Aristotle, the fact that the sensory apparatus apprehends the world via a certain process is not a disqualification, but a confirmation that the senses are valid. The sensory apparatus interacts in a necessarily predictable manner with the external world because that apparatus and the world are causally linked to each other. Thus, in whatever sensory form a particular organism is aware, that organism is aware of the external world, and its senses are valid.

   Causality, at least since Hume, has been conceived of as a chain of events, each antecedent event causing the other. This conception has led to confusion. While it is true that antecedent factors play a role, a proper conception of causality would have to incorporate a wider context. In Aristotle's view, cause and effect is rooted in the identity of acting things. What a thing is, says Aristotle, will determine what it does. An acorn can become an oak tree, and not a catfish, because that is its nature. The actions an entity can take are determined by what that entity is. On this view, when one billiard ball strikes another it sends it rolling because of the nature of the balls and their surroundings, not just antecedent events.

   The incompleteness of modern science lies in the fact that it rests on a purely mechanistic, non-Aristotelian view of causation. Consequently it cannot be defended against critics such as Hume. Aristotle's view provides a basis for a better understanding of cause and effect, and has the potential to ground science and induction in first principles. Aristotle has the potential to provide for modern science the philosophic foundations it never had.

   Aristotle also has a unique understanding of abstract knowledge. For him, knowledge does not exist in a vacuum, but is built on previous knowledge and must be related to the whole of one's understanding. Discovery is not a passive process of diaphanously absorbing truth, but an active process of identification and integration. This is why we need logic-because we need a self-correcting method of inquiry. Applied to sense data, logic becomes a powerful tool with which we can constantly check, double check, and adjust our abstract understanding accordingly. If a contradiction is discovered in one's understanding, Aristotle's approach calls a halt. If one's understanding contradicts the data of sense experience, Aristotle's approach calls a halt. One must always check one's premises, making adjustments when new evidence contradicts them. This is the proper foundation for science, and the basis for the scientific method.

   The scientific method has been criticized because, it is claimed, it can never arrive at certainty. But this objection is based on an incoherent formulation of the concept "certainty." The human mind is not omniscient; indeed the very notion is impossible. At any stage, the amount of knowledge a mind has available to it will be limited. This is not just an attribute of human consciousness, but of any consciousness. On the Aristotelian view a conscious organism, like any other entity, has identity. Because existing things qua existing must have a specific, delimited nature, any form of awareness must also have a specific, delimited nature. Thus any conception of certainty which demands omniscience is based on an impossible standard and should be rejected as nonsense.

   The fact that science does not lead to epistemic certainty-to infallibility-is not a valid objection to its validity. Rather than being a liability, it is the very self-correcting nature of the scientific method which gives it its tremendous power. It is precisely because of the fallibility of human understanding that we need a proper epistemological methodology. And only by using a proper methodology can we discover facts.

   Reality is not merely a "construct." What actually exists actually exists. But as long as the notion of objectivity continues to be attacked, our confidence in our ability to discover truth will be shaken. To be defended, objectivity must be properly defined and validated. What is objectivity? Metaphysically, it is the notion that facts exist independently of our understanding of them. Epistemologically, it is the notion that we can discover those facts.

   Postmodernism is the result of two centuries of post-Kantian philosophy. To refute it would require a counterattack against Kant and other philosophers such as Hume. Indeed the entire modern philosophic tradition which has been derived from such thinkers must be challenged. Of the great thinkers of the past, only Aristotle provides an adequate base for such a challenge. Any modern attempt to vindicate reason, science, and objectivity must therefore start with a re-discovery of Aristotle.

Source Material

Barnes, Jonathan. Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Cahn, Steven M. Exploring Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. (Translated by F. Max Muller). New York: Doubleday, 1966.

McKeon, Richard. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Modern Library, 2001.

---H. Acstonus (Crossposted to the Egosphere)

There is not so much Gold in the World

   When faced with destruction and disaster, most fear finds consolation in strength and stability. The desire, it seems, is to sacrifice almost anything in order to return to "the good old days". While in some cases this may be the proper course of action, in cases involving the loss of liberty this course is dangerously fatal; indeed suicidal. It is this suicidal course that the Russian People are taking now; some conscientiously, others blindly. Yet both parties are trading their new and holy liberty for a "momentary stability" in Putin that can lead only to another Authoritarian, repressive regime. Around 480 bce, the city of Athens received an offer from Persia. After enduring terrible losses from the Persians, the Athenians were offered peace, stability, and strength. Athens response to Persia is an invaluable lesson; one that the Russian people should take to heart.

   After subduing Ionia, Xerxes continued his conquest into Greece itself. He reached as far as Thermopylae before encountering any Greek resistance. Facing over 200,000 Persian forces, the 10,000 strong Greek contingent inflicted immense casualties upon the Persians before finally being betrayed and defeated. It was a major wound that the Greeks inflicted upon Persia's armies (and one of the most heroic battles of all time). Soon after the battle, the Persians continued on towards Athens. After inflicting immense damage to the Greek towns and countrysides, they reached Athens. Because the Athenians had fled to their ships, the Persians met little resistance. They destroyed the town and burned the crops around Athens.

   Soon, another major battle was fought at Salamis. This naval battle witnessed the victory of the Greeks over the Persians and the crippling of the Persian navy. Afraid of what an uncontrollable Greek navy could do, Xerxes "gracefully" departed from Greece with a large part of his army, leaving his general, Mardonius, and a force of 300,00 Persians behind to finish the conquest of Greece. This retreat allowed the Athenians to return to their city and begin the process of "rebuilding".

   Greece was not yet safe from Persia. After wintering in Northern Greece, Mardonius prepared to conquer the remaining Greek States. Before doing so, he sent a diplomat to war-torn Athens and, in exchange for submitting to Persia, offered Athenian land restored, the ability of the Athenians to take whatever land in Greece they wanted, the 'ability to be self-governed', and the rebuilding of all Athenian temples at Persian expense. This offer would have given the Athenians peace and stability. The Athenians, however, valued liberty above all else. Their brilliant response was:

"We know...as well as you do that the Persian strength is many times greater than our own: that, at least, is a fact which you need not rub in. Nevertheless, such is our love of freedom, that we will defend ourselves in whatever way we can. As for making terms with Persia, it is useless to try to persuade us; for we shall never consent. And now tell Mardonius, that so long as the sun keeps his present course in the sky, we Athenians will never make peace with Xerxes. On the contrary, we shall oppose him unremittingly, putting our trust in the help of the gods and heroes whom he despised, whose temples and statues he destroyed with fire. Never come to us again with a proposal like this, and never think you are doing us good service when you urge us to a course which is outrageous...there is not so much gold in the world nor land so fair that we should take it for pay to join the common enemy and bring Greece into subjection...we would have you know, therefore...that so long as a single Athenian remains alive we will make no peace with Xerxes." (Herodotus, 8.143)

So strong was their desire for liberty that the very idea of giving in to the stability that Persia offered was "outrageous"! Their eloquent response is a testament to the greatness of liberty, no matter the cost. Eventually, the Greeks defeated the Persians at the battle of Plataea, and soon the Persian wars were over. Greece had won her freedom, and had saved Western Civilization.

   The year 1991 witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia endured many trials in order to become a free state. However, in 2000, Russia elected Vladimir Putin as their leader. It is Putin that has, through many means, sought to destroy Russian Liberty. According to Ariel Cohen, "...the Russian oil and gas sector's new paradigm can be summarized in two words: 'state domination'". He goes on to explain how Putin's government has begun to centralize the Russian energy sector by finding obscure faults with the companies and then nationalizing them. Putin's efforts in nationalization are backed by funds from the Chinese government! Ariel Cohen also mentions how the Russian government has been, "...buying up strategic infrastructure companies, such as pipelines, refineries and electric grids, as well as ports in Georgia, Hungary and Ukraine...". These transgressions of individual liberty in favor of state ownership are not the only examples of Putin's move to Authoritarianism.

   According to the Washington Post, Putin has also, "...limited the power of regional governors, who often defied Putin's predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. In 2000, Putin removed the governors from the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Parliament. He then undercut their power by creating seven presidential envoys to supervise them." The article continues with:

"Putin announced a new plan that would appoint regional governors with the approval of regional legislatures, thereby ending the popular election of regional governors and independent legislators. In addition, Putin's plan would abolish elections of legislators in individual constituencies to the lower Russian legislative house, the Duma, and instead elect all members of the Duma on party lists, by proportional representation. As of now, half of the deputies are elected in constituencies and half by party lists."

This is a disturbing trend away from direct election via the people, and towards appointment via the President. In effect, Putin is taking away the power from the Russian People and handing it to himself. What is more disturbing, however, is that the Russian people reelected Putin by a landslide in 2004! Clearly working against liberty, the Russian people (like the Germans of Hitler's time) are voting into power their own destruction.

   In the last decade, Russia has been beset with difficulties. Extreme poverty, rebellion (Chechnya), terrorism, hunger, and many other transitional difficulties have plunged the Russian people into despair. Similar to Athens, the Russian People are faced with the horrible prospect of "rebuilding through the rubble". And just like Persia, Putin has offered them strength and stability in exchange for ceding over their liberties. What the Russian People don't realize, however, is that they are being herded into a trap; a trap that will ultimately take away the very freedom that they so recently won, and in exchange give them a "leader" with the power to send them back to Siberia.

   It is time for the Russian people to remember the words of the Athenians when faced with such a prospect. They should realize just how precious a thing their freedom is; how wonderful it is to be a human as opposed to an animal. They should remember what life was like in the Soviet Union, an authoritarian regime that killed over 30,000,000 of its people. They should remember what it was like to be denied freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; to have to wait in line for hours to receive bread; to wear faded clothes and drive broken cars. They should remember that they won their freedom in 1991, and they should stand boldly and proclaim that Putin's actions are not only immoral, but an outrage! It is time for the Russian people to say that, "...there is not so much gold in the world nor land so fair that we should take it for pay to join the common enemy and bring [Russia] into subjection...we would have you know, therefore...that so long as a single [Russian] remains alive we will make no peace with Putin." It is time for Putin to go, and may the next election halt the wave of authoritarianism in Russia; may the next elections be a victory for liberty.

-Jason Roberts (Crossposted to the Egosphere)

Republican Generals

I am proud to present our first Feature Article! Enthusiast Jeff Luebcke wrote a great article about the exploits of generals under Republican Governments. Here it is:

A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty
Is worth a whole eternity in bondage.
-Cato by Joseph Addison

   Scipio Africanus was born in the year 236 BC as the son of Publius Cornelius Scipio the Elder. He was a minor character in Roman history until the middle of the 2nd Punic War. In fact the fame of that era for the Scipio family was borne by his uncle (Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio) and father who were generals in the Roman army campaigning against Carthaginian and Numidian armies in Spain. His heroism was first shown when in 218 BC, he risked his life to save his father during the battle of Placentia. Sadly this effort was in vein, for he lost both his father and his uncle 6 years later (212 BC) when their forces were all but annihilated by the combined forces of two armies under the command of the Carthaginians. One year later Scipio managed to convince the senate to appoint him to the command of Roman forces in Spain.

   One year later the course of the war shifted dramatically. Scipio led a new Roman army across the Ebro comprised of 25,000 foot and 2,500 horse and set out for victory in Spain. This is were the true brilliance of Scipio shows. With adequate information on the locations of the two enemy armies, he was able to maneuver his army as to avoid confronting them, and go straight to the heart of Carthaginian power in Spain: New Carthage. When he arrived at the city walls he went about developing a strategy to take the city. His first effort was a frontal assault on the walls. His first assault was all but repulsed when he learned that at that point in the day where the water had receded enough that there was now a navigable marsh leading to a part of the city that insufficiently protected He led a force of 500 men into the city while he continued with initial assault on the opposite side of the city. Scipio came up behind him and with pressure from both sides consumed the enemy. He soon followed this successful campaign up with several more victories at Baecula (209 BC), Illipa (206BC ), and Locri (205 BC).

   In 203BC, Scipio leveled the greatest blow to the armies of Syphax and Hasdrubal of the war. In the dead of night he led a force to the Numidian camp and burnt it to the ground, and soon followed this up by burning down the Carthaginian camp. This caused the largest one day loss for Carthaginian forces at a staggering 40,000 dead. After Scipio's stunning victories, the Carthaginians wanted to regain the initiative and engaged the Romans in a Naval Battle, they were quickly defeated. After this defeat the Carthaginians sent out peace envoys to Rome and an armistice was signed. The Carthaginians soon violated the peace terms and the final battle that would determine the fate of the western world would soon be fought on the aired plains of Zama between Hannibal Barca of Carthage and Publius Cornelius Scipio the Younger of Rome.

   When the two forces aligned themselves for battle Hannibal asked for a conference with Scipio and said the the following (again according to Livy), "It is for him who grants peace, not for him who seeks it, to name the terms, but perhaps it may not be presumptuous in us to assess our own penalty. We consent to everything remaining yours for which we went to war-Sicily, Sardinia, Spain and all the islands that lie between Africa and Italy... As I was responsible for beginning the war and as I conducted it in a way which no one found fault with until the gods were jealous of my success, so I shall do my utmost to prevent any one from being discontented with the peace which I shall have been the means of procuring."

   Upon hearing Hannibal he responded by saying, "...I should have acted in a high-handed and arbitrary spirit if I had rejected them. But now that I have dragged you to Africa like a reluctant and tricky defendant I am not bound to show you the slightest consideration. So then, if in addition to the terms on which peace might have been concluded previously, there is the further condition of an indemnity for the attack on our transports and the ill-treatment of our envoys during the armistice, I shall have something to lay before the councils. If you consider this unacceptable. then prepare for war as you have been unable to endure peace."

They both departed, and prepared for a battle that would echo through history. The forces arrayed on the Carthaginian side included 5,000 cavalry, 36,000 infantry, and 80 elephants. On the roman side there were 6,600 cavalry and 29,000 infantry. First the Carthaginians sent their elephants at the Roman lines. The Roman general was prepared for this: he had his men form gaps in the Roman lines for the elephants to charge through. His strategy worked and the elephants were completely ineffective. The two forces soon collided and the battle was on. Scipio realizing his lines could hold, moved his first line of Hasitati to the flanks to overlap the flanks of the enemy. He began to completely envelope the Carthaginian forces. If this was not bad enough for Hannibal, the Roman cavalry had defeated the Carthaginian cavalry and there was no force between his rear and the Roman cavalry. As he feared the Roman cavalry slammed into the rear of the Carthaginian forces. It soon turned into a massacre. The Romans in this battle lost 1,500 men, while the Carthaginians lost over 40,000 men (killed, wounded, and captured). Hannibal was forced to flee in disgrace. Scipio soon returned to Rome under the new title of Imperator (the first man to gain this title).

   The second character I will discuss is George Washington who was born in 1732 AD to a fairly well off father by the name of Augustus Washington. He first came into the lime light in American affairs during the French Revolution, when he tried to hold out against the French and Indians at Fort Necessity, but eventually had to surrender. Later in 1758 he led a 700 man force along side General John Forbes and finally captured Fort Duquesne. The height of his fame was reached during the American revolution when he commanded Colonial forces to victory against the overwhelming numbers and power of the British war machine.

   George Washington scored his first decisive victory against the British on December 1776 at the Battle of Trenton, when he crossed the Delaware to attack a Hessian camp. The casualties were more of less one sided, with Washington losing a few to the cold. Over 700 enemy soldiers were killed and captured. He followed this up in early 1777 with a swift victory against the British at Princeton in New Jersey. These two battles combined resulted in over 8,000 new recruits for the Continental Army in the spring of 1777.

   Washington realized that he could not fight the war in the manner of the British, so he had to resort to out maneuvering the enemy, engaging the enemy only when the conditions were overwhelmingly in his favor, and consequently extend the war for as long as he can. The way to victory was to make it so costly to the British that they would no longer deem it in their interest to continue the war. By doing this he was buying time for the French army and navy to arrive.

   Washington's true genius was shown in the last great battle of the American Revolution: the battle of Yorktown. In order to distract other British forces, his force along with the French (Rochambeau) left around 2,500 troops in a fort on the outskirts of New York, to make the British believe the entirety of their force was stationed there. At the same time they took their remaining force of some 17,000 men and moved down to Virginia and surrounded Cornwallis' camp. At the same time the French concentrated a large amount of their ships in the area so as to overwhelm the British navy which was spread out all over the colonies. After receiving heavy fire Cornwallis realized he had no option but to surrender, and in October 17th he offered his surrender. Although not a climatic battle like that of Zama, it accomplished just as much.

   These men stood against an overwhelming enemy and not only came out victorious but changed the shape of the world forever. Scipio Africanus and George Washington are two of the most important men in Republican history. The formers actions during the 2nd Punic War spread the power of Rome's republic all over the Mediterranean world. The later created and nurtured a young republic which would soon spread across the New World. These two men are the highest standards of republican virtue who recognized the gravity of the situation, that there were two options: liberty or slavery, as Washington clearly understood, "The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."

   That is the lesson from all of this. We must display the same virtues that these great mean displayed; when Scipio charged against the enemy to save his father and when Washington crossed the Delaware in the dead of night to destroy the enemy. It is by great mens virtue (or vice) that we live or die. What makes these men great is not that they were brilliant at killing, but because they fought for liberty. A man gifted in the art of war, without the moral courage of a free man is impotent against a man that does. They echoed the same spirit of two captured Spartans who, when asked why they would not submit to the king of Persia, responded, "The advice you give us does not spring from a full knowledge of the situation. You know one half of what is involved, but not the other half. You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too."

It is the ax which free men hold- the ax of liberty.

-Jeff Luebcke (Crossposted to the Egosphere)

EGO STAMP

I have added the following new products to the EGO online store:

• EGO Hooded Sweatshirt
• EGO Sweatshirt
• EGO Tile Coaster
• EGO Tile Box
• EGO Black Cap

Would you be interested in sending your snail mail with the EGO stamp?

Ayn Rand was an avid stamp collector. You could read her article, Why I Like Stamp Collecting, in The Ayn Rand Column: Written for the Los Angeles Times. I collected stamps as a teenager. I wonder how big Tammy's stamp collection is now... Read Robert Tracy's thoughts on stamp collecting. I bought several sheets of Ayn Rand stamps and first day covers. Here is a photo from my old apartment in Troy, Ohio.



[Editor's note: This post is crossposted to the Egosphere.]

Human Organs for Sale?

The right to buy and sell organs is included in the right to life.
By David Holcberg

As athletes from around the world gathered for the 2005 World Transplant Games in the city of London, Canada, a record 87,000 individuals who did not share the athletes' good fortune stand on the U.S. national waiting list for organs. Of the 82,000 waiting for kidneys or livers, about 6,000 will die in the next twelve months. Yet no one is considering a simple way to save many of these people: legalize trade in human organs.

Let's consider it.

Millions of Americans have exercised the right to give away their organs by signing organ donation cards. But very few made the legal arrangements necessary to ensure that their organs can be harvested after death. Many more would make such arrangements if their families were to be paid for the donated organs. It may work as a type of life insurance for the benefit of the deceased's family and would create a mutually advantageous situation: the deceased's family gets needed money while the transplant patient gets a vital organ.

A few people, on the other hand, may choose to sell an organ (or part of one) during their lifetime. This may seem like a radical idea, but it need not be an irrational one.

According to the Mayo Clinic, the extraction of a section of liver, for example, carries a risk to the donor's life of less than 1 percent--not negligible, but not overwhelming. In the case of a kidney donation, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that the risk to the donor's life is even smaller: just 0.03 percent. Moreover, liver donors can usually count on their healthy liver’s ability to regenerate and regain full function. And donors of kidneys usually live normal lives with no reduction of life expectancy.

A person may reasonably decide, after considering all the relevant facts (including the pain, risk and inconvenience of surgery), that selling an organ is actually in his own best interest. A father, for example, may decide that one of his kidneys is worth selling to pay for the best medical treatment available for his child.

But those who object to a free market in organs would deny this father the right to act on his own judgment. Poor people, they claim, are incapable of making rational choices and so must be protected from themselves. The fact, however, is that human beings (poor or rich) do have the capacity to reason, and should be free to exercise it. So long as a person respects the rights of others, he ought to be free to live his life and use his mind and body as he judges best, without interference from the government or anybody else.

Of course, the decision to sell an organ (or part of an organ) is a very serious one, and should not be taken lightly. That some people might make irrational choices, however, is no reason to violate the rights of everyone. If the law recognizes our right to give away an organ, it should also recognize our right to sell an organ.

The objection that people would murder to sell their victims' organs should be dismissed as the scaremongering that it is. (Indeed, the financial lure of such difficult-to-execute criminal action is today far greater than it would be if patients could legally and openly buy the organs they need.)

Opponents of a free market in organs argue as well that it would benefit only those who could afford to pay--not necessarily those in most desperate need. This objection should also be rejected. Need does not give anyone the right to damage the lives of other people, by prohibiting a seller from getting the best price for his organ, or a buyer from purchasing an organ to further his life. Those who can afford to buy organs would benefit at no one's expense but their own. Those unable to pay would still be able to rely on charity, as they do today. And a free market would enhance the ability of charitable organizations to procure organs for them.

Ask yourself: if your life depended on getting an organ, say a kidney or a liver, wouldn't you be willing to pay for one? And if you could find a willing seller, shouldn't you have the right to buy it from him?

The right to buy an organ is part of your right to life. The right to life is the right to take all actions a rational being requires to sustain and enhance his life. Your right to life becomes meaningless when the law forbids you to buy a kidney or liver that would preserve your life.

If the government upheld the rights of potential buyers and sellers of organs, many of the 87,000 people now waiting for organs would be spared hideous suffering and an early death. How many?

Let's find out.

David Holcberg is a media research specialist at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

People Of Reason, People Of Faith, People Of Force

A quick look to see what individuals from the three philosophical groups have been up to recently.

People of Reason: represent objective reality, primacy of existence, reason, logic, Aristotle, Ayn Rand, The City of Man, Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, The Age of Enlightment, science, The United States of America, rational self-interest, capitalism, individual rights, Atlas Shrugged

July 20, 2005—Thirty six years ago today Neil Armstrong became the first person to set foot on another celestial body, the moon. "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," he said before imprinting his boot in the lunar dust. About half a billion people watched the images seen in this video.

ALVISO, Calif., July 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Joining the esteemed ranks of inventions such as the toothbrush, seat belt, computer and alarm clock, several TiVo inventions are featured in a new year-long exhibit at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Museum in Alexandria, Va., beginning July 13.

Her remote control gadget is fitted to the arm of her grandfather's wheelchair and allows him to move the chair around when he is not using it. Geoffrey said his grand-daughter's invention had made a huge difference to his life. "There's nothing more frustrating for me than having to rely on other people all the time for help and I'm grateful for anything that gives me more independence," said Geoffrey.

People of Faith: represent two worlds, primacy of consciousness (supernatural version) faith, revelation, Plato, Augustine, Kant, Hegel, The City of God, The Dark Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, sacrifice, theocracy, serfdom, The Bible, The Koran

BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - Claiming Ward Churchill is possessed by demons, a Christian group diverted their protest to march on the University of Colorado professor's office. [That is just too funny!]

"The Hollywood elites' eyes widened big time," Waliszewski said. "They said, 'I thought the church was dead. I didn't think people cared. Is it possible that we don't know what's happening in state after state?' And the answer is a resounding yes."

Anti-terrorist detectives now believe Jermaine Lindsay, who changed his name to Abdullah Shaheed Jamal when he converted to Islam, may have been the most senior of the four bombers.

People of Force: represent force, primacy of consciousness (social version), Democritus, Marx, a gun or a club focused upon your head, Communist China/former Soviet Union, duty, Nazi Germany, totalitarianism, taxes, environmentalism, The Communist Manifesto

So how did Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer miss such a rock solid foundation of American law? Perhaps they didn't. Perhaps they chose to ignore it in favor of another agenda. Specifically, Agenda 21.

Havana, Jul 20 (PL) Cuba has sharpened the wits of 8,324 teachers to graduate from 16 teaching universities to keep the island’s educational system in top shape, reports Granma daily. One thousand received yesterday their bachelor’s degrees from several Havana teaching institutes at a ceremony in the Karl Marx theater.

An Earth First! Journal boasts: "Life is sacred, but many of us doubt that multinational takeover artists who liquidate old growth forests to pay off junk bonds qualify as Life-forms. Such Robotoids, should be classed with damns, dozers and drillers. A 'Hit List' is available upon discreet inquiry. "

Crossposted to the Egosphere

More on the Upcoming Medicine Debate

Diana over at Noodle Food recently blogged about the latest salvo in the fight to enslave the medical profession: a state-by-state effort. In addition to this, a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reminded me that the effort to enslave the medical profession continues unabated, even perhaps with renewed vigor, now that many are distracted by issues of graver immediate concern (e.g., the war).

The state-by-state implementation reminds me of nothing more than the "incrementalism" that Democrats resigned themselves to after the defeat of Hillary Clinton's proposed system of socialized medicine in the early 1990s. In addition, although the news article does not depict an initiative intended to appeal to conservatives (say, as a "states' rights" measure), it does bring to mind an alarming possibility: Might this "incremental" approach be augmented by Democrats appealing to conservatives? Might the push for socialized medicine be aided not only by the distraction of its usual opponents, but also gain renewed vigor as advocates attempt to turn some of these erstwhile opponents into allies?

We need not pose this as a rhetorical question. I have already discussed one such attempt, that by Ezekiel Emanuel and Victor Fuchs, who propose a fascist voucher program for universal coverage. Of this proposal, they say:

Conservative health-care reform has little if anything to offer Democrats, even moderate ones. [This voucher plan], because it enhances consumer choice while offering clear benefits to Republican constituencies such as large insurers and business, has a good chance to draw enough Republican legislators to get over the top.

This, in addition to the fact that its financing mechanism, a value-added tax, supposedly would present a chance to abolish the income tax, is supposed to make the plan appeal to at least some fiscal conservatives! I'd always imagined that social conservatives would be more vulnerable to the universal coverage pitch. But don't worry. Appeals to them are, unfortunately, also being made, as you will see.

So what did I find recently while skimming through a recent issue (July 7, 2005) of my wife's subscription to the NEJM? Two letters to the editor in response to another issue's four editorials urging "universal coverage"! Neither letter objected to this idea, but both did find fault with the universal coverage proposals for allowing even a remnant of free enterprise to be left standing! The letter by Arnold S. Relman provides us with the following quote, which presents the gist of the argument presented by both letters, as well as the level of the debate.

The two sounding board articles, by Emmanuel and Fuchs [Yes. The very article I blogged about also appeared in the NEJM in March. --ed] and Morgan and Lee, state that more federal taxes would be required, but neither suggests a unified insurance plan [italics added] to replace the costly mix of government entitlements and multiple for-profit plans and neither considers the possibility of changing the organization of practice or the system for compensating physicians in order to reduce costs and improve the quality of care. (NEJM 353: 96)

And at what level is the debate occurring, if we take the NEJM as an indication? The debate seems to be over as to whether the government should take over medical care, and the discussion has devolved into nitpicking over how, exactly, this should be done.

This is not surprising given that all four articles in the March 2005 NEJM argued in favor of government programs to implement universal coverage. While this is hardly a surprise, one article in particular is notable in formulating the issue in a way designed to appeal to social conservatives. In "Do We Really Want Broad Access to Health Care," James J. Morgan and Thomas H. Lee begin their assault on the "antitax movement" as the "main enemy of those who truly seek to meet the needs of the 45 million uninsured Americans" by stating the following.

One might have thought that an election that hinged on "moral values" would generate serious discussion of one of our most fundamental "value" issues -- that is, whether we really believe that broader health insurance coverage should be a high priority. The candidates were asked to debate on the basis of such issues as abortion, stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage. But their rather marked disagreement on how to increase access to health care was never treated as a "values" issue, perhaps because voters we unwilling to have their own values tested on this topic. (NEJM 352: 1260)

The plan, described as "higher taxes and possibly rationing," is the same old snake oil. But it has been repackaged to appeal to the religious right. Watch for socialized medicine (or at least its fascist twin) to be presented this way in the next presidential election.

What can one do? Engage in intellectual activism or support those who do. Become familiar with both the new arguments in favor of government-run medicine and with the many arguments that have been made (here and here, for example) in favor of freeing the medical sector from government interference. Join the debate in whatever forum is available to you. Most importantly, contest the idea that "free" health care -- that is, physician enslavement -- is a moral ideal. Support organizations that will fight for free medicine, like the Ayn Rand Institute or Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.

So far, the enemies of freedom are dominating this debate. Fortunately, it is far from being too late to change that.

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere

THE RECONCILIATION

I went to Border's during my lunch break and discovered an interesting book, God's Politics, by Jim Wallis. Wallis's argument is that it is liberalism, not conservatism, that is consistent with religious principles. From an interview with Wallis:

I think the Right has made a serious mistake in adopting a moral-values strategy, because theyÂ’re winning in the short run. [But] in the long run, theyÂ’re going to lose this debate because they wonÂ’t be able to restrict it to two issues. Once you open that door to a values conversation, itÂ’s going to undercut a right-wing economic agenda, which values wealth over work and favors the rich over the poor, or resorts to war as the first resort and not the last.

been saying over and over again that religion cannot lead to capitalism, and that any attempt to justify capitalism on religious grounds has to fail. Instead, it establishes the premises that underlie socialism and the welfare state. Wouldn't you know it? I'm not the only one who realizes it.

Crossposted to The Egosphere

G8 Should Support Victims of Terrorism, not Perpetrators

By David Holcberg

The G8 leaders' decision to give billions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority in the aftermath of the terrorist bombings in London will only encourage more terrorism.

A large portion of this money will no doubt find its way into the coffers of terrorist groups that will use it not only against Israel but against Western nations, including England. Remember, the Palestinian Authority is a corrupt semi-government that has actively promoted terrorism against Israel and that has numerous connections to Islamic terrorist groups.

This monetary prize handed to a state sponsor of terrorism will not appease the terrorists--or their sympathizers in the Arab and Muslim world. They will see this handout as a sign of moral weakness, and they will be right.

If the G8 leaders are really concerned about fighting Islamic terrorism and ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they should begin by supporting the victims of terrorism, not the perpetrators.

David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute

Unocal: A Must-Read

From the Camel's Mouth

By: David Holcberg

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, President Bush declared: "These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith."

But the Muslim murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh knows better than our president, and recently explained in court: "I acted purely in the name of my religion." So did the September 11 highjackers and the terrorists that bombed Madrid and London.

Consider the Koran, for example, which Muslims believe is the word of Allah revealed to Muhammad, his prophet. There is no shortage of passages in the Koran that, taken literally, demand just that kind of savagery (e.g., "And slay them wherever you catch them . . . and fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah.").

In fact, no fewer than 36 different verses sprinkled throughout the Koran call on Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims (e.g., "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.").

It is easy to see how Muslim fanatics who believe that these verses are the literal truth feel justified in their evil actions. They hear in these verses the demanding voice of Allah calling on them to act. And they seem willing to oblige.

If we want to understand the enemy and win this war, we must take these terrorists at their word and stop pretending that, in President Bush's characterization, "Islam is peace."

The truth is that "Islam" does not mean peace, as President Bush and many others would like to believe. Literally and existentially, "Islam" means surrender. Surrender to Allah--by the word or by the sword.

The Strawman

Over the years, I've heard quite a number of egregious misrepresentations of Ayn Rand's views. Last fall, I endured two in the course of TA'ing for "Introduction to Ethics." The professor casually described "Ann Rand" as a psychological egoist in lecture. Far less excusably, the assigned reading on ethical egoism from James Rachels' book The Elements of Moral Philosophy included a wholly invented argument against altruism attributed to Ayn Rand, with refutations indicating a failure to grasp the basics of her ethics. Those incidents were annoying at the time, but not particularly noteworthy.

This smug commentary on "Ayn Rand (ianism) and Loneliness" is worth singling out, however. It truly deserves The Grand Prize for the Most Egregious Misrepresentation of Ayn Rand So Far Managed by a Philosophy Professor. Below a substantial Amazon link to The Virtue of Selfishness, "James D. Carmine PhD" writes:

Every semester I ask first-year college students what they would do if they suddenly had infinite money. Rare is the one who can come up with anything better than the piggish pursuit of pleasure: cars, sex, houses, vacations, bling and more cars, sex, houses, vacations and bling. They imagine that pleasure, buying the fetishistic trinkets of our consumer culture, will make them happy. But happiness is not pleasure. Ten more minutes on the playground will not make a child happy, nor will a house in Aspen make an adult happy. Oh certainly these will provide pleasure, and so will heroin. Grandma was right, money cannot buy happiness, and only the childish, or the Ayn Randyian egoist would think otherwise.

The resurgence of contemporary Ayn Randyianism comes naturally with the demise of communism and the realization that individual moral agency is superior to the mindless amorality of various "collectivisms," which include death-worshipping extremists, radical religions, as well as communism. But despite the Ayn Randyian's notion that the individual is the locus of responsibility, their glorification of childish egoism, eliminates for them anything other than personal pleasure. Happiness will forever elude me, me, me Ayn Randyians.

Happiness, unlike pleasure, comes only from fulfilling your most personal human gifts. Happiness, as 2,500 years of Western Culture teaches, comes only from being fully human and that means being virtuous, or more simply, by being a good human being, a really human, human being, and only the fully human, human being can love. Randyians are left to love no more than their own appetites. They have reduced themselves to a variety of egoistic loneliness that is utterly inhuman. Love is not merely objective self-love. Human love always entails love of something or someone beyond oneself. Only the human being would sacrifice his own life to save his child or his friend or even to protect his ideas. Only a human being can recognize the moral fittingness of the behavior one's hated opponent. "I may hate that jerk, but I recognize he is a good father, good mechanic, good tennis player, etc." A loveless objectivist egoist could not recognize the goodness of others unless it served them personally. For the world of the egoist is a most primitive animal world of personal appetite and personal gain. Randyian Objectivism is ultimately solipsism it seems.

Imagine a handsaw and ask yourself if it would be happier if it were dull or sharp. Imagine a dog, would it be happier in locker room or a hay field. Now imagine yourself: Would you be happier acting like a pig or a person? As a fool who only knows appetite, or a human being who recognizes that the clarity of intellect is best used in the service of those you love beyond yourself? I urge you then: pursue happiness with all your reason and discover that there is reason in loving others. Love others, dear Ayn Randyians, and thereby be human too.

I presume -- or at least I hope -- that I do not need to explain why the above misrepresents Ayn Rand's views. (If you aren't clear on that, all that you need do is read the book so prominently linked at the top: The Virtue of Selfishness.)

However, I did want to note the smooth rhetorical slide from derogation of the hedonistic pursuit of mindless pleasure to the advocacy of selfless altruism -- all in the name of promoting human happiness. The genuinely Objectivist position -- in which the moral person pursues his own life and happiness by means of long-range, fact-based, life-promoting, rational moral principles -- is never even considered.

I must admit, I'm pretty darn impressed by that handsomely dressed strawman.

Crossposted to The Egosphere.

Miss Manners on Sacrifice

This is the most amazing Miss Manners column ever. If you are at all interested in the psychology of altruism, you simply must read it. Here's the letter:

Dear Miss Manners:

Please help my friend see how rude and wrong she has been.

Jean's husband went blind from an illness. She was wonderful in the situation. She always wore perfume since he couldn't see her. Arranged the house for his convenience. She read the paper to him every day and they did the puzzle together.

When he died, I knew she would be perfect for a male friend of mine who is also blind. She overreacted and said she would never go through that again. She had let her appearance go since he couldn't see her, and she liked to read the paper to herself.

But taking care of her husband brought out the best in her, and that is when people are really happy. So I invited my blind friend over to try Jean's home cooking. She is really a spectacular cook. I brought all the ingredients and then invited Jean over. When she arrived and found Zachary here, she said, "Oh, no" and walked out.

How do you think that made him feel? My husband and myself had made plans to go out so they could be alone, so we had to ask Zachary to leave.

When I scolded Jean the next day, she jumped on me for making him go home alone and without any dinner. She claims Zachary was our guest, not hers. But we invited him for her because they would be good for each other. Now she won't talk to me at all.

Why is it that those who try to make the world a better place end up unappreciated?

Here's the reply:

Could it be because they have no compunction about grossly insulting and humiliating their guests under the guise of doing them explicitly unwelcome favors?

Miss Manners can hardly count the etiquette atrocities you committed. She tries to remind herself that you meant well, but frankly she can't manage it. If you had given your friends' feelings any thought at all, you would never have done this.

You attempted to trap a guest into a blind date she wished to avoid and into cooking dinner when you had invited her.

You led another guest to believe his company would be welcome when you knew it was not, and you threw him out of the house hungry.

Worst of all, you made it clear to supposed friends that the outstanding characteristic of one was his blindness, and of the other her sacrifices -- discounting that they were done for love of her husband rather than a love of sacrifice -- so it didn't matter whether they really had anything in common.

And you call them unappreciative?

The pushy, demanding altruism of the writer defies belief, particularly given the context of a romantic relationship. Yet Miss Manners manages to undercut it in just a few words about the motive of love of husband rather than love of sacrifice. I'm in awe.

Crossposted to The Egosphere.

Blogger Hits Instalanche, Misses Point

People Of Reason, People Of Faith, People Of Force

Just a quick look to see what individuals from the three philosophical groups have been up to recently.

People of Reason: represent objective reality, primacy of existence, reason, logic, Aristotle, Ayn Rand, The City of Man, Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, The Age of Enlightment, science, The United States of America, rational self-interest, capitalism, individual rights, Atlas Shrugged

If we are not proud of what we are doing, there is a vital piece missing. A note of caution: pride is not an inheritance or a legacy. It has to be earned.

HP has introduced a new ink jet technology that, it claims, will revolutionise the ink jet print market over the coming years. The new print head technology not only provides more accurate printing but also cuts HP's manufacturing costs by half.

The real solution is not money. It is freedom. It is freedom from oppressive regimes that rape their economies and bloodlet to keep power, and it is freedom for productive Africans to compete in the global economy, rather than sell to their corrupt governments, which then reap most of the profit from the exports.

People of Faith: represent two worlds, primacy of consciousness (supernatural version) faith, revelation, Plato, Augustine, Kant, Hegel, The City of God, The Dark Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, sacrifice, theocracy, serfdom, The Bible, The Koran

Abugre said: "World leaders have failed to exploit this window of opportunity. This debt deal is nowhere near what the African Union demands, namely that all of Africa should see a universal, unconditional and unselective removal of debt."

Author William D. (Will) Bevis says Roy Moore, Jr., the TEN COMMANDMENTS JUDGE, should be urged by all Christians to run for Governor of Alabama in that state's upcoming election.

In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood. "We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

People of Force: represent force, primacy of consciousness (social version), Democritus, Marx, a gun or a club focused upon your head, Communist China/former Soviet Union, duty, Nazi Germany, totalitarianism, taxes, environmentalism, The Communist Manifesto

Recognizing this, the questions persist: Why, in the face of pervasive inequality and injustice, is there not broad support for the socialist agenda? Why are not thousands of people, even hundreds of thousands, mobilizing for a sustained struggle against the selfish and bellicose class now controlling the planet?

Santa Cruz, California was the first sustainable community, transformed through a process they proudly called "Local Agenda 21." Because of the association with the United Nations, proponents now avoid any recognition of Agenda 21, and use names such as "Pacific Ring Initiative." The process is the same. The goal is the same. The result is the same: loss of control by elected officials, loss of property rights and value, and the emergence of a managed society.

Air Supply are performing for two nights in Cuba, adding the communist country to a list of exotic venues including North Vietnam, Lebanon and China. Vocalist Russell Hitchcock said the rock group, which rose to popularity in the 1980s with the song "All Out of Love," produces music that is able to transcend language...A second performance was scheduled Friday at the Karl Marx theater.

Crossposted to the Egosphere

BLASTING DOWN THE WALL

Matthew Yglesis points to this column by David Brooks and notes, "The actual point of the column is that there should be less separation of church and state." Quoting Brooks:

McConnell (whom I have never met) is an honest, judicious scholar. When writing about church and state matters, he begins with the frank admission that religion is a problem in a democracy. Religious people feel a loyalty to God and to the state, and sometimes those loyalties conflict.

So he understands why people from Rousseau and Jefferson on down have believed there should be a wall of separation between church and state.

The problem with the Separationist view, he has argued in essays and briefs, is that it's not practical. As government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres. The Separationist doctrine leads inevitably to discrimination against religion. The state ends up punishing people who are exercising a constitutional right.

eed for a wall of separation between church and state has, as Ayn Rand pointed out, the same basis as the need for a wall of separation between state and economics: to the extent that the state interferes in either, it destroys man's ability to think and to act on his own rational judgment. Government control in either of these spheres means mind control. It means the substitution of a gun for an argument.

This is the fact McConnell alludes to when he notes that, "As government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres."

What he is noting is that government interference into spheres of man's life beyond the protection of his rights requires the government to take sides with respect to ideas: if the government is excluded from endorsing a particular viewpoint (such as a religion), then in those spheres of life under government control, private citizens will be barred from expressing, advocating, or acting on that viewpoint.

(As an aside, note the intimate connection between intellectual and economic activity, and how any attempt by the government to control one, necessarily involves control of the other. Yet it is precisely this fact liberals and conservatives alike evade: they want to leave man free in one realm and control him in the other.)

Yet McConnell's solution is not to restrain the government to its proper functions. Rather, it's to have the government finance and support all organizations, no matter their philosophical viewpoints -- which means in practice, to extend government control to the realm of the intellect across the board and as a matter of principle:

McConnell argued that government shouldn't be separated from religion, but, as Madison believed, should be neutral about religion. He pointed out that the fire services and the police don't just protect stores and offices, but churches and synagogues as well. In the same way, he declared in Congressional testimony in 1995, "When speech reflecting a secular viewpoint is permitted, then speech reflecting a religious viewpoint should be permitted on the same basis." The public square shouldn't be walled off from religion, but open to a plurality of viewpoints, secular and religious. The state shouldn't allow school prayer, which privileges religion, but public money should go to religious and secular service agencies alike.

u missed it, the argument goes like this: As the government expands its control over ever more aspects of man's life, more and more of man's activities (e.g., "health, charity, education and culture issues") will take place in "the public square"; if the government tries to erect a wall between religion and state, religion will be pushed out of these crucial issues; the solution, however, is not to exclude government from these areas, but for the government to be neutral with respect to ideology.

The entire argument is flawed, but the conclusion represents the Big Lie, since government neutrality here does not mean the government refuses to inject itself into philosophical issues, but rather that it should give "public money" to "religious and secular service agencies alike."

The idea that the government can remain neutral in a situation where it controls the purse strings is worse than a delusion, and the idea that it is proper, morally speaking, that some men should be forced to finance the ideas and activities of other men is worse than a travesty. Yet this is what Brooks holds up to us as "a perfect example of how a forceful advocate -- a person who can make broad arguments on principle and apply them in practical ways -- can have a huge influence on the law."

In a sense, Brooks is right: such a person could have a huge influence on the law, by breaking down any pretense of a barrier between state and religion, paving the way for a theocracy, all based on an argument which takes as its unstated, unquestioned, not-to-be-challenged premise the fact that government is expanding further and further into every aspect of man's existence, and that our top concern must be to ensure that this growth not interfere with religious expression.

Brooks concludes by writing, "Ideas drive history, so you want to pick the person with the biggest brain." I agree emphatically that ideas drive history, but with all due respect to Mr. Brooks, the implication is not that one should pick the person with the biggest brain, but the best ideas.

Crossposted to The Egosphere

Everyone Uses Some Good Philosophy (Including You!)

You want to be happy, don’t you? Everyone wants to be happy. The moral purpose of your life is to make yourself happy; that is the reason everyone does everything they do, whether it be getting a job for yourself or giving charity to complete strangers — the main goal of your actions is to give yourself a good feeling about living. The purpose of philosophy is to give you a guide to follow in making the choices that should result in your happiness.

Philosophically, the “good” is that which furthers your life and makes you happy. For example, obtaining and eating food definitely furthers your life and makes you happy. Everytime you eat something, you are following a philosophic premise that you hold in your mind — the premise that you want to live, and you know that eating is a necessary requirement for achieving that goal. If you didn’t know that, you would never eat a single morsel. The physical sensation of hunger would hold no meaning for you. But your mind does tell you what you should do about your hunger, doesn’t it?

Creating and producing is something that gives you pleasure as well. Whether you enjoy doing arts & crafts, or you have an idea and build a huge software company which provides jobs and services the world over, you enjoy the process of setting and achieving goals. You know implicitly that achieving a creative goal is to provide for your own life and your own happiness, because you feel proud of what you have done. Who hasn’t done something creative and then felt proud of that achievement?

Enjoying the fruits of your labor is something else that virtually everyone in our culture knows — even those who explicitly proselytize the opposite. Even preachers (outside the Catholic church) have other jobs to provide for their worldly needs. They know that in order to have anything besides mere survival — if they want to watch television, eat higher quality meals, or have a decent place to live, they must work to earn it. No one gets everything they need to be happy from charity. They must provide for their own selfish, worldly pleasure, because ultimately it is up to them and no one else. You do these things too: whenever you go the grocery store and buy chocolate ice cream, whenever you purchase a music CD, whenever you go to a movie, whenever you go kayaking or mountain climbing — you are doing so for your own selfish pleasure, to enjoy your life on this earth. You do use your own paycheck to give yourself worldly pleasure, don’t you?

Seeking out the company of other people who share your values is another thing that everyone knows will further their life and happiness. Bicyclists seek out other bicyclists to ride with. Philosophers seek out other philosophers to discuss ideas with. Clubs, professional associations, even most USENET newsgroups and IRC channels are examples of people seeking the pleasure of sharing common values. If you did not implicitly know the premise that it is good to share common values with others, then you would not do so. You would never seek out companionship and would instead remain isolated. You would never know the joy of being understood. But you do know it, don’t you?

Since you know these are the things which make life happy and enjoyable, then why would you want to prevent yourself from doing them? The pain and suffering of most people comes from being inconsistent — from doing good things sometimes, and bad things at other times, and not knowing what the difference is. This is where philosophy comes in. Philosophy increases your happiness by being the guide for what is good and what is bad.

Considering the things previously itemized which you have already agreed are good and provide you with happiness, what things would prevent you from doing them? Think to yourself about what is good, introspect on it, and then you’ll easily be able to identify what is bad. You’ll then be able to achieve consistency rather than being inconsistent. You’ll develop explicit principles to live by — a set of rules you set for yourself to follow — rather than living haphazardly in the range of the moment, never quite knowing what you should do. You’ll spend less of your time in pain or conflict, and more of your life in a state of happiness!

Crossposted to The Egosphere

Note: My participation in The Egosphere does not consist of a sanction of the ideas of the other pariticipants in the Egosphere.

OAC Application Deadline Fast Approaching

By Dan Norton

The deadline for applying to the Objectivist Academic Center for the 2005–06 academic year is August 1. The OAC offers a systematic program of instruction in the essentials of Objectivism and in the nature of objective thought and communication. For information about the OAC, and to apply, please visit our Web site: www.aynrand.org/academic.

"Hey, Sprawl Boy! You're Joking...Right?"

Got a letter from a reader in Michigan who is a little shocked and confused about my Rhino Times article on sprawl. I thought the following would help. Italics are the reader's comments. The rest is Sprawl Boy's.

Hi Andy. I read your article proclaiming your pride of sprawl. However, I think that your view is short-sighted. While I agree that some environmentalists are definately (sp?) too extreme - I don't know what vandalizing a lot of Hummers really does in the end, I think that your views could benefit from a more informed background of information, instead of citing a literary fictional novel from the 1940's.

Nice try. I am guessing that is a shot at "The Fountainhead". Since when is the age of a book its relevant aspect? Moslems cite the Koran (age 1400 years), Christians cite the Bible (1700 years) and enviro-Marxists cite, well, you know. Maybe you should consider judging a book, not by its age, but by...its ideas.

If you have time, you may want to read Paul Hawken's book, Natural Capitalism. It recognizes the benefits that an industrialized society has provided for people, but realizes its shortcomings and provides examples of how many things in our life can be improved while using a more responsible approach to land usage almost effortlessly. It recognizes that economics is still very important, but there is vast room for improving capatalism (sp?).


Hawken is an advocate of "sustainable development" which is just a glossed up version of environmentalism. Think of environmentalism as an unbathed, bearded, torn blue jean freak. Think of sustainable development as the same freak after a shower, a shave, and a business suit. The freak is still the freak with the same fundamental ideas:

"That planet is not growing, so the somewheres and elsewheres are always with us. The increasing removal of resources, their transport and use, and their replacement with waste steadily erodes our stock of natural capital."

As to improving capitalism, it is the same old Marxist forced-back "improvements":

"In communities and towns, churches, corporations, and labor groups promote a new living-wage social contract as the least expensive way to ensure the growth and preservation of valuable social capital."

You should also define your terms. Capitalism is the social system that defends your individual and property rights. Hawken wants to "improve" your rights by improving the "rights" of "water, minerals, oil, trees, fish, soil, air, et cetera"? Typical environmentalism -- clean air and water for air and water's sake. Not for man.

As for your car comments, being a Detroit native and automotive engineer, the automobile is a prime example of an integral part of our American culture, but also is a great example of what we can improve, but for a myriad of reasons, haven't. Things are starting to change for the better by embracing alternate technologies (which are 40 years old themselves) and more efficient manufacturing methods and material usage.

I am all for more efficient manufacturing methods, but your buddy Hawken dismisses the capitalist system that creates those technologies. Hawken's "living-wage" approach above is going to not only kill freedom, but its consequence of productivity.

I hope that your article wasn't written just to try and get a reaction out of people. Here in Michigan, similar tactics have been used (during a recent presidential election) to scare people into thinking that a Democratic government will try and take their guns away. That campaign, and your recent article, to me, is of an insult to my intelligence. I think that responsilbe (sp?)journalism should give equal weight to opposing sides of an issue, not try and drum up fanatical support.

Defending the individual and property rights of human beings is an insult to your intelligence? Hmmmm...Here is what I said:

"Remember that each time someone attacks sprawl, they are attacking you, your human nature, your independence, the civilized aspects of your culture, and your life of freedom. Be proud of your sprawl, be proud of your home and land, be proud of human civilization, and be proud of the capitalist influences in our culture that result in sprawl and make the environment safe for you."

A social system that makes the environment safe for man sounds intelligent to me. Much more so than a Marxist system that keeps the environment safe from man.

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Socialism Is Bad for Your Health

Okay, this is not good news: Universal Health Care Push Being Revived. Basically, socialists are pushing government control of health care on a state-by-state basis, rather than nationally. At least that allows doctors and patients to vote with their feet, as many doctors already do with medical malpractice law. (Colorado is one of just six states that has decent malpractice laws, largely thanks to dollar limits on pain and suffering. In contrast, the other 44 states are either in or headed into malpractice crisis.)

Certainly, it's worth watching out for this new state-by-state strategy, as it might soon endanger your own health.

Crossposted to The Egosphere.

Reason Roundup

Welcome to the Reason Roundup. Celebrating Independence Day, the beautiful Vietnamese, Icarus finished, teenagers, "Sex and the Single Guy", and more...

***

Martin Lindeskog at EGO celebrated Independence Day with friends, links, and pro-American cartoons. Check it out.

*

Cox and Forkum celebrated the spirit of Independence Day...and also poked at those who oppose the war on terrorism.

*

Robert Tracy at Illustrated Ideas says:

Does it matter that for some genetic cause the Vietnamese happen, in my opinion, to be the most beautiful creatures on earth.

I would agree. The Chinese are up there also I would say.

*

Damon Denys at The Artist’s Studio at Quent Cordair Fine Art has finished "Icarus":

Well folks, that's pretty much how you paint Icarus, in 21 easy steps. Like baking a cake, really, only with far less call for shortening, eggs, or a small child to blow out candles.

"Easy" for him maybe. Take a look.

*

Dr. Hurd on raising teenagers:

The way to prevent a negative teenage experience is to teach your child how to think for himself and how to value good things in life before he or she becomes a teenager.

See his thoughts, he has more.

*

Blair at Secular Foxhole has a link to the following story:

Islam gaining a foothold in Chiapas...

Not good.

*

[Heads up: This is not work-safe. Save it for home.]

Dwayne Bell at Body In Mind takes a historical look at the attack on beauty and youth:

Both in the past, and today, these are the people who actually deliver their daughters to the executioners. How many times have you heard on the news that a young girl has been kidnapped, raped and murdered by someone who had committed such crimes before and had been released anyway?

You hear it all the time. Keith Larsen on WBT yesterday went through a list of sex offenders in Charlotte for whom there are outstanding arrest warrants.

*

David at Truth, Justice, and The American Way says:

Motorists face having their cars fitted with a spy device that stops speeding.

Do the modern-day Puritans have no end in sight? Of course, some will claim that this effort is for "safety". I don't believe it and neither do you. It is just sick control. Soon...a device a satellite operated device that shocks you if you are having too much fun.

*

Felipe at d'Anconia Online has a challenge and offering a reward for those who provide the correct answer. I think he should rename his challenge "Sex and the Single Guy."

*

Gus Van Horn on Chinese internet censorship:

It's kinda funny that so soon after China hired Microsoft to "embrace and extend" censorship of the Internet, that a major Chinese Internet "security firm" has been hacked!

Justice. I hope there is lots more of it. I also hope Microsoft and others back out of China so that the government can no longer use technology against the people there.

*

I asked:

If your neighbor's home is burglarized, is it not fair that you and your home receive the same treatment? If the car of a friend of yours is stolen, should not the thieves steal your car just to make sure that you now don't have some advantage over your friend?

Wouldn't that be "equality"? Read 'em and weep.

***

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Ensuring The Equality Of The Looting In North Carolina

[UPDATE: A slightly different version of the following appeared in today's Charlotte Observer.]

If your neighbor's home is burglarized, is it not fair that you and your home receive the same treatment? If the car of a friend of yours is stolen, should not the thieves steal your car just to make sure that you now don't have some advantage over your friend?

C. William Grafer is a guest columnist for The Charlotte Observer. He seems to think so in his column about a prospective tax on movie tickets...

...Essentially, seeing a movie in a theater has a tax advantage that is not shared by Blockbuster or Best Buy. Renting a movie or purchasing a DVD will incur the wrath of the sales tax, while actually going to the theater to see a movie will not.

Yes. Would anyone have thought of this if North Carolina wasn't facing a budget shortfall? Probably not. But contrary to what the theater industry is arguing, the tax is really just fixing an inequality between movie tickets and other types of movie entertainment.

It is fascinating how one's premises are revealed through positions on concretes. If you share the tribal premise, then of course, you would want everyone to be looted equally.

My immediate response was to stop the looting by the North Carolina government so that there would be no tax on movie theatres -- and we could drop the taxes on your purchases at Blockbuster and Best Buy...and elsewhere.

Crossposted to the Egosphere

People Of Reason, People Of Faith, People Of Force Update

Just a quick look to see what individuals from the three philosophical groups have been up to recently.

People of Reason: represent objective reality, primacy of existence, reason, logic, Aristotle, Ayn Rand, The City of Man, Ancient Greece, the Renaissance, The Age of Enlightment, science, The United States of America, rational self-interest, capitalism, individual rights

NASA’s dual Mars rovers – Spirit and Opportunity – are wheeling about in their respective zones of exploration: Gusev Crater and Meridiani Planum. The Opportunity Mars rover is headed north right now, but only for a little while, said Cornell University’s Steve Squyres, lead scientist on the Mars Exploration Rover program.

Bull's-eye! The Deep Impact mission was a remarkable scientific achievement and deservedly sparked applause for the people who planned and built the spacecraft, including the folks at Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. in Boulder. On Sunday, about midnight Denver time, one part of the space probe smashed into comet Tempel l, while the other recorded the spectacular collision.

SEOUL (AFX) - A team of South Korean scientists said they have developed a new circuit board using fibre optics that can dramatically increase a computer's data transmission speed. Park Hyo-Hoon, a professor at South Korea's Information and Communications University in Daejeon, and Lee Yong-Tak, a professor of Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, developed a new printed circuit board (PCB) wired with both optical fibre wires and traditional copper wires.


People of Faith: represent two worlds, primacy of consciousness (supernatural version) faith, revelation, Plato, Kant, The City of God, The Dark Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, sacrifice, theocracy, serfdom

On TV3's 60 Minutes current affairs programme on Monday night, Dr Choudhary said the Koran was "correct" to advocate stoning homosexuals "in those societies", meaning those practising sharia (Islamic canonical law), fundamentalist law from the Koran and related Muslim texts.

With all of the current talk about the “Death of Environmentalism,”[1] it should not come as a surprise that some environmentalists are reaching out to people who specialize in resurrections. “The Greening of Evangelicals: Christian Right Turns, Sometimes Warily, to Environmentalism,” the Washington Post reported in a page-one story in February.

Enrollment Rises in Christian Schools; Expert Lists Factors The student enrollment rates in higher educational instututions - particularly Christian schools - skyrocketed in the past decade.

RELIGION OR BIOLOGY? More science teachers are being pressured to teach creationism alongside Darwin's theory of biological evolution.

People of Force: represent force, primacy of consciousness (social version), Democritus, Marx, a gun or a club focused upon your head, Communist China/former Soviet Union, duty, Nazi Germany, totalitarianism, taxes, environmentalism.

Ahead of the G8 conference in Gleneagles, Ireland, this week (July 6-8), a spate of poverty-relief efforts have sprung up to huge public attention. The One Campaign has been the most prominent, supported by pop icons like Bono and George Clooney and Christian leaders like evangelical pastor Rick Warren. [Faith and force hand-in-hand]

"I showed the president my most recent Super Bowl ring," Kraft said in a statement released yesterday. The Russian president "was clearly taken with its uniqueness," Kraft said. "At that point, I decided to give him the ring as a symbol of the respect and admiration that I have for the Russian people and the leadership of President Putin," Kraft said. [This has to be one of the silliest moves of all time. Giving a Russian leader an American Super Bowl ring covered with diamonds.]

His influence may have waned on the global political stage, but Karl Marx seems certain to be voted the world’s greatest philosopher in a new poll. He is racing ahead of rivals two weeks before voting ends in the poll of listeners to the BBC Radio 4 discussion programme In Our Time.

A California Energy Commission study estimated wind turbines in the Altamont kill 881 to 1,300 birds of prey a year, including as many as 116 federally protected golden eagles. [I would like to suggest an alternative energy source -- nuclear.]


Crossposted to the Egosphere

Another Unwelcome Amendment

Eminent Domain Is Eminently Immoral

by Dr. Andrew Bernstein

IRVINE, CA--The recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which extended the government's power to force individuals to sell their property against their better judgment, represents an egregious violation of individual rights, said Dr. Andrew Bernstein, senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute.

Morally, the greatness of the American system lies in recognizing the inalienable right of each and every individual to his life, his property, and the pursuit of his happiness. If someone does not wish to sell his property, it is criminal to force him to do so. Just as it is a crime for a burglar to seize your television set even if he leaves behind a $20 bill and declares that that represents "fair compensation"--so it should be a crime for the government to do so.

In a free society, the terms on which a man sells his property are his to determine, not the government's. The converse view is based on the idea that a man's life and property belong to the state--and has no legitimate place in America.

The upshot of the Kelo decision will be that many more individuals will be forced off the land on which they wish to continue living, so that local governments can eagerly expand their tax revenues.

Bernstein warned that a government moving toward dictatorship usually does so by seizing more and more control over its citizens' property.

Dr. Andrew Bernstein, a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, is available for interviews on this topic.