The Perversity of U.S. Backing for the Gaza Retreat

By: Elan Journo

America's support for the Gaza withdrawal is morally corrupt.

In a step fraught with danger, Israel is uprooting its citizens and withdrawing its military from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. That Palestinian terrorists are rejoicing over this momentous pullout is hardly shocking. That the United States is also applauding is contemptible. Worse still, America is demanding more concessions of land: Secretary of State Rice has insisted, "It cannot be Gaza only."

Why is America urging Israel to make such perilous concessions? The rationale is that the withdrawal will open an unobstructed path for the "downtrodden" Palestinians toward a self-governed ethnic state. Such a state, Washington hopes, will alleviate their suffering and establish peaceful co-existence between Israel and the Palestinians.

But such a state will intensify the misery of the few genuinely freedom-seeking Palestinians by entrenching a tyrannical regime. The Palestinian Authority, a provisional governing body, has drained the lifeblood out of its citizens, trampled on their rights and, despite receiving billions in foreign aid, kept them in devastating poverty. Under the PA's anarchic reign, rival "security forces" arbitrarily seize property, arrest and jail people without charge, and summarily execute dissidents.

The actual victors of the withdrawal are terrorists and their vast legions of reverent supporters in the Palestinian population. The motto emblazoned on banners throughout Gaza expresses their belief, borne out in practice, that violence works: "Gaza Today. The West Bank and Jerusalem Tomorrow." The withdrawal has strengthened their resolve, not to achieve peace, but to destroy Israel. "We're going to keep our weapons," one terrorist told reporters, "because the battle with the enemy is a long one." A cleric allied to Hamas, which has carried out umpteen suicide bombings in Israel, observed that "when we offer up our children [as 'martyrs'], it is much better than choosing the road of humiliation and negotiations."

As some have observed, with a populace and leadership so hospitable to terrorists, in time the Palestinian territories may succeed Taliban-ruled Afghanistan as a training ground for jihadists, lusting to murder not only in the streets of Jerusalem and Baghdad, but also London and New York.

Israel's retreat from Gaza--rightly celebrated by terrorists--is neither a means of fostering peace, nor a solution for the plight of innocent Palestinians. Why, then, does America support it?

Because Washington holds that Israel has no moral right to assert its interests, but the Palestinians do. Their quest for statehood enjoys Washington's wholehearted support, encouragement and financing as an incontestable entitlement--even if they tyrannize themselves and terrorize Israel. But if Israel pursues its interests, by contrast, Washington considers that a moral transgression. Israel could, and for a time did, easily protect the lives and property of all individuals within its borders and the contested territories, by smashing aggressors and imposing its rule of law on Palestinians (which innocent Palestinians welcomed). But Washington refuses on principle to endorse such assertions of Israeli interests.

Why this double standard? Our leaders believe in altruism: the view that one's highest moral duty is to selflessly serve the needy--and thus that the world's "haves" must sacrifice for the sake of its "have-nots." The productive, on this abhorrent view, have no moral right to pursue their own interests; their only justification for existing is to serve the needy. Because Israel is strong and prosperous, it is thereby forbidden from imposing its will on the destitute Palestinians--even though it is the innocent victim of Palestinian aggression. Because the Palestinians are weak and poor, they may demand anything they wish--including a state with which to terrorize Israel.

It might seem that President Bush is being hypocritical: forbidding an ally, Israel, from fighting terrorism effectively even as U.S. forces wage a "war on terror." But observe that in fact he is being devastatingly consistent. For Bush, Iraqis are entitled to the sanctity of their Mosques--but our troops are forbidden from rooting out insurgents hiding and sniping from within; Iraqis are entitled to textbooks, hospitals, sewers, roads--but, in defending themselves, our troops must place the lives of Iraqi civilians (some of whom are or aid insurgents) above their own. Attesting to the cost of this sacrificial policy is the burgeoning U.S. death toll.

And Washington has refused to impose on Iraq a constitution that would make the new regime non-threatening--as we did in Japan after World War II. In the name of satisfying the poor Iraqis' demand for "self-determination," President Bush has pledged to recognize as sovereign whatever regime the Iraqis vote for--even a militantly hostile Islamic theocracy that, in unison with Iran's mullahs, clamors for "Death to America."

Neither Israel nor the United States can vanquish Islamist terrorism unless it repudiates the corrupt morality of altruism, which enjoins the sacrifice of the successful as an ideal. Victory can only be achieved if one is convinced of one's moral right to live and to act consistently to achieve one's goals. Every self-effacing step that Israel takes--in lockstep with America and with our blessing--encourages the terrorists with the belief that their success is achievable.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The 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

BOSTON -- For people with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis -- also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease -- movement is a precious commodity. The disease eats away at victims' central nervous system, slowly draining their ability to move, speak, or even blink their eyes, reported WCVB-TV in Boston. Now, a new technology -- an implantable brain chip -- is one step closer to giving ALS patients back a little movement and a lot of freedom.

WASHINGTON: US researchers said on Monday that they have created a new human embryonic stem cell by fusing an embryonic stem cell to an ordinary skin cell. They hope their method will someday provide a way to create tailor-made medical treatments without having to start from scratch using cloning technology.

ANKARA - Turkish engineer Aydin Akdeniz has developed a new system which detects failures in fuselage of Boeing planes only in five minutes. Boeing firm is planning to make use of the ''Structural Resistance System'' in its new composite-fuselage B-787 planes, which will be introduced in 2008.

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

DURHAM, N.C. -- The leader of the Nation of Islam will visit North Carolina next month. Minister Louis Farrakhan will be in Durham on Sept. 9 to promote a rally in Washington, D.C., in October. That rally will mark the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March.

(PRLEAP.COM) With catchy agency phrases like “PR with a Higher Purpose” and “Kingdom Impact in the 21st Century,” it’s not surprising that what once seemed like an impossibility for Christian organizations, businesses, and ministry leaders is now a genuine reality—Christian News in the Secular Media.

VATICAN, Aug 24 (KUNA) -- Pope Benedict XVI expressed on Wednesday his appreciation for all religions, especially Islam, calling for cooperation between people of the different faiths for the good of mankind.

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

"Leftists do not understand who they're dealing with," said David Horowitz, author of the book 'Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.""In the real world, you say, 'You know, when these guys win, the first guys they're going to behead you.’ But leftists don't think that way. They have a kind of magical thinking."

The United Nations bankrolled the production of thousands of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the slogan "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem," which have been widely distributed to Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip, according to a U.N. official.

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq's southern marshlands -- nearly ruined under the Saddam Hussein regime -- have been making a "phenomenal" recovery, a U.N. agency said Wednesday. [Hmmmm. Not quite a priority with me. You?]

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Spare the Fetus, Execute the Physician

Presumed Guilty: The Injustice and Destruction of Sarbanes-Oxley

By: Alex Epstein

Imagine opening tomorrow's newspaper and reading this: "Citing all-too-frequent child abuse and neglect, Congress has proposed the Parenting Reform Act. Under the proposed law, all parents must sign a sworn statement pledging that they have not 'caused unreasonable physical harm or danger' to their children. To verify their compliance, all parents will be required to submit their children to a monthly full-body inspection by the new Parental Oversight Board, and account for every cut, scrape, and bruise that inspectors find. If a parent cannot prove the 'reasonableness' of any injuries to the Board's satisfaction, it could result in a loss of custody and 20 years in prison.

"'If a child has a bruised leg,' one of the bill's supporters said, 'we need to know about it--and we need to know how it happened. If it happened playing soccer, we need signed accounts from the coach and the referee. Otherwise, how can we be sure his father didn't just get drunk and beat him? And if a child gets a lot of bruises playing soccer, we need an explanation of why his parents continue to expose him to such danger.'"

Our reaction to this proposed law would be outrage. It is unjust and destructive, we would say, for the government to make arbitrary accusations of abuse and neglect, to conduct baseless investigations, and then to force an innocent parent to try to disprove them.

We should say the same about an existing law that perpetrates such horrors, not on America's parents, but on its businessmen: Sarbanes-Oxley.

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed three years ago, in the anti-business frenzy following the Enron and WorldCom accounting frauds--crimes that were characterized not as the work of a handful of cheats, but as a black mark on all businessmen. Instead of simply gathering evidence and prosecuting individual perpetrators accordingly, our leaders passed a law that forces all businessmen to prove to the government that they are not cooking their books.

Under Sarbanes-Oxley, the government, without any evidence of possible fraud, has free reign to scour a company's books to determine whether they "fairly" represent the company's finances and do "not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact."

What is "fairly"? What is "material"? Since these terms are undefined, they mean anything government bureaucrats want them to mean. Just as the government under the fictional Parenting Reform Act could declare a parent a child-abuser for enrolling his child in soccer, so the government under Sarbanes-Oxley can declare a CFO a defrauder for reasonably deciding to capitalize an expenditure instead of to expense it (there are many such judgment calls in accounting).

Further, how can the government hold a businessman criminally responsible for any mistake in a financial report, which is the product of hundreds of people making thousands of individual judgments and decisions? Sarbanes-Oxley says the mistake is "knowing" if the internal controls management establishes to prevent error and fraud are not "adequate." But since the government does not define "adequate," anytime a regulator decides there "should have been" still one more control to prevent even the most inconsequential of errors--management is guilty of fraud.

If parents knew that the government could throw them in jail for every judgment call and innocent error that resulted in a skinned knee, they would avoid "risky" situations like trips to the park, and spend their time tracking their and their child's every move so that they could rebut the government's arbitrary accusations. The same is true for businesses under the potential guillotine of Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley--behavior practically mandated by the extensive testing and documenting of internal controls required by Section 404. Whole companies avoid any action the government might frown upon, and pour endless time and energy into monitoring and cataloging anything that a government inspector might conceivably believe is relevant to financial reporting.

Such behavior is now rampant in corporate America. One study documents businesses engaging in practices like "requiring an auditor to attend a meeting to prove it took place" and "proving that all of the physical keys to an office in Europe have been accounted for since it opened in 1995"! "Even a completely harmless error that nobody cares about," says a lawyer who handles Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, "takes up hundreds and hundreds of hours of the auditors, the CEO, the CFO and the audit committee."

That America's honest, productive businessmen are spending their time and shareholder money to "prove" they are not criminals--when they could be spending those hours and dollars on R&D, new product launches, or mergers and acquisitions--is a monumental injustice. Is it any wonder that misery among top executives is reported throughout corporate America, that top executives are departing at record rates, that businesses are "hunkering down"? Is it any wonder that the direct and indirect costs of Sarbanes-Oxley to shareholders have been estimated by a University of Rochester economist as $1.4 trillion?

Sarbanes-Oxley is a moral and economic atrocity. It is past time to repeal this monstrous law and start treating businessmen as American citizens: innocent until proven otherwise.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

The Relationship Between Philosophy and Science

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, identifies the relationship between “is” and “ought” — that what is, determines what one ought to do. Because people think that science identifies the “is” and philosophy says what we “ought” to do, that science (the “is”) determines philosophy (the “ought”). This is an error because science can only identify what “is” in terms defined by philosophy, and for reasons defined by philosophy. Science is a tool for man to accomplish goals, and is preceeded by philosophic conclusions.

Philosophy defines the concept “is” through the axiom of existence. The law of existence states that “existence exists”, or that “what is, is”. Without this philosophic premise, science cannot begin to ask the question, “What is there in the universe?”

The physical sciences, such as physics, can and must use mathematics as the means of inducing new discoveries. But mathematics itself presupposes a littany of philosophic conclusions, such as the law of existence and the law of identity. The numeral “1″, for example, is an abstraction representing the law of existence — that a singular thing exists as apart from the rest of the universe. Thus counting, multiplying, and all math are derived from and based upon a philosophic conclusion — the conclusion that entities exist apart from other entities — and could not exist without it.

Science uses induction as its method, and renames it the “scientific method”. Beginning with already established knowledge, a scientist asks the question: what do these facts suggest? He then constructs experiments to test his theories and discover the answers. But induction is only valid as a means of knowledge if philosophy can confirm it. Induction must be valid in order for the scientific method to be valid. There is no way to validate induction through any means other than a philosophic one, because you cannot use induction to prove induction (i.e. the fallacy of self-reference). Thus, math cannot be used, nor can any other scientific (i.e. inductive) process be used to do so. Only philosophy can answer the question: is induction valid? And thus, philosophic identification and validation is presupposed by all science, since science is applied induction. (For the philosophic validation of induction, and an illustration of induction as the “scientific method”, see Induction in Physics and Philosophy by Leonard Peikoff).

Indeed, the very purpose of science is a philosophic purpose! Man constructs the sciences in order to further man’s life. Physics, astronomy, psychology, sociology, and all sciences exist in order to make man’s life easier, more productive, and ultimately more pleasurable. If it were not for the philosophic premise that happiness is man’s goal, man would have no need for the sciences at all, and would never engage in their study.

As far as proof, science alone cannot prove anything. The concept of proof itself rests upon the foundation of an array of philosophic conclusions, such as consciousness and the fact that knowledge of the truth is possible. Without philosophy, there could be no such thing as “proof”, and science would have no purpose.

Philosophy tells us whether existence exists or not, it tells us what that existence means to man, it tells us what consciousness is, it tells us the proper means of knowledge, and it gives us a reason for seeking it. Without all of these prerequisites, science would never have come into existence. Without recognition of these facts, the short-sighted scientist is doomed to exclaim erroneously that “pure science” is necessary to prove or disprove the very philosophic premises which give rise to the existence of science in the first place. In reality, the best science can do is illustrate an already-established philosophic premise. It cannot suggest new ones or even prove any premises upon which the idea of science itself is based.

The physical sciences, such as physics, can and must use mathematics as the means of inducing new discoveries. But mathematics itself presupposes a littany of philosophic conclusions, such as the law of existence and the law of identity. The numeral “1″, for example, is an abstraction representing the law of existence — that a singular thing exists as apart from the rest of the universe. Thus counting, multiplying, and all math are derived from and based upon a philosophic conclusion — the conclusion that entities exist apart from other entities — and could not exist without it.

Science uses induction as its method, and renames it the “scientific method”. Beginning with already established knowledge, a scientist asks the question: what do these facts suggest? He then constructs experiments to test his theories and discover the answers. But induction is only valid as a means of knowledge if philosophy can confirm it. Induction must be valid in order for the scientific method to be valid. There is no way to validate induction through any means other than a philosophic one, because you cannot use induction to prove induction (i.e. the fallacy of self-reference). Thus, math cannot be used, nor can any other scientific (i.e. inductive) process be used to do so. Only philosophy can answer the question: is induction valid? And thus, philosophic identification and validation is presupposed by all science, since science is applied induction. (For the philosophic validation of induction, and an illustration induction as the “scientific method”, see Induction in Physics and Philosophy by Leonard Peikoff).

Indeed, the very purpose of science is a philosophic purpose! Man constructs the sciences in order to further man’s life. Physics, astronomy, psychology, sociology, and all sciences exist in order to make man’s life easier, more productive, and ultimately more pleasurable. If it were not for the philosophic premises that happiness is man’s goal, man would have no need for the sciences at all, and would never engage in their study.

As far as proof, science alone cannot prove anything. The concept of proof itself rests upon the foundation of an array of philosophic conclusions, such as consciousness and the fact that knowledge of the truth is possible. Without philosophy, there could be no such thing as “proof”, and science would have no purpose.

Philosophy tells us whether existence exists or not, it tells us what that existence means to man, it tells us what consciousness is, it tells us the proper means of knowledge, and it gives us a reason for seeking it. Without all of these prerequisites, science would never have come into existence. Without recognition of these facts, the short-sighted scientist is doomed to exclaim erroneously that “pure science” is necessary to prove or disprove the very philosophic premises which give rise to the existence of science in the first place. In reality, the best science can do is illustrate an already-established philosophic premise. It cannot suggest new ones or even prove any premises upon which the idea of science itself is based.

The Morality of Sex with the Ideal Partner

Values
“Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one’s lifespan, it is a part of one’s life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days, or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand pg 44). Thus, the ideal goals of a man’s life are established in the context of his lifetime, not the range of the moment.

In the context of romance, this means that you should select a lifelong romantic partner. Only such a partner can learn about and understand your entire life first-hand. As you share more and more experiences with them, their value to you increases. You invest your time in the relationship, and the relationship gains value and increases your pleasure because of the investment. Planning to switch partners at some point in one’s life produces a cost — the time one invests in the first partner is lost when the first partner has left your life. With them goes all the value you gained in that partnership. In the context of planning your lifetime, even allowing for the possibility is equivalent to planning to do it — you expect that there is the potential for some greater partnership in your future. Instead of investing that part of your life in a throw-away relationship, you could instead invest it in gaining and keeping the ultimate one to which you aspire.

Romantic Love
Relationships between people progress along a natural continuum. The more values you share with a person, the more feelings you have for them. You initially are just acqaintences from being introduced. Later, as you discover some common values, you might become friends. A person can have many friends, with many different shared values. You might be friends with one person because you share your taste in music with them, while you might be friends with someone else because you are both honest — and one of those friendships will be closer and more important to you than the other. At the upper end of the continuum, where you have the entirety of your profound values emobodied in another person of the opposite sex, you have not a friend but a romantic partner. In other words, the romantic partnership is the ultimate form of social relationship between two people.

Love is an abstract value which gives a man profound enjoyment of his life. What is the definition of love? Love is “the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character.” (Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, pb 31). Romantic love is the specific type of love that involves sex. “Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another–an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values… Romantic love–the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act–is the living testimony to that principle.” (”Of Living Death”,The Objectivist October 1968, pg 2-3). Thus, for a rational man, sex and romance are inextricably linked concepts.

Sex
In dealing with sex, it should be obvious from the identification of romantic love that sex for a rational man is primarily an emotional experience, and not a physical one. It allows him to experience a specific emotion he does not feel at any other time of his life — a sexual emotion. How he feels about himself, his partner, and the universe in general are all big factors in that emotion. The man who merely experiences physical pleasure and thinks he has experienced sex as it should be is only lying to himself, no matter how “good” the physical sensation felt.

Metaphysically, sex is a celebration of the moral man’s efficacy at living, a “celebration of himself and of existence” as Ayn Rand wrote. When you celebrate, whom do you celebrate with? Would it be pleasurable to celebrate the publishing of a book you had written with people who know nothing of book authoring? Is it desirable to celebrate victory in a sporting event not with your colleagues in the sport, but with total strangers? The celebration only has meaning if it involves those who have first-hand knowledge of the values being celebrated. Otherwise, you could ‘’celebrate” all alone. The celebrator wants his joy to be understood and shared with those who have the same joy, because that enhances the joy in itself. Introspect on your past celebrations and you will find this to be true.

“Sexual feeling is a sum; it presupposes all of a rational man’s moral values and his love for them..” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff pb 344). The emphasis added is mine. It is no accident that Peikoff uses the word “all.” If it is not all, then how many? Is one moral value enough? Two? What percentage of your moral values in the “continuum” of your moral values are summed up in your sexual feeling, if not 100%?

In the same way that a romantic partner is the ultimate personal relationship, so sex is the ultimate celebration. Sex subsumes all other reasons to celebrate, under one unified action. It even subsumes all other celebrations! It encompasses all that a man is. Because of the nature of celebration, such a celebration only has meaning when done with someone who knows all that he is — his romantic partner: the personal relation which is his most personal, his most complete, and his most rewarding.

For a rational man regarding sex, “the guiding principle should be: select a partner whom you love on the basis of values you can identify and defend; then do whatever you wish together in bed, provided that it is mutally desired and that your pleasures are reality oriented.” (Ibid, pb 346). The key phrase here with regard to partner selection is “values you can identify and defend.” Suppose there is a moral value you hold which you can identify, but the potential partner you are evaluating does not hold it. Is it possible for you to imagine a partner that does? It should be easily imaginable: since you hold the value yourself, any person might hold that same value. This means that potential partner is not your ideal partner — they cannot know everything that you are, and cannot participate in your ultimate celebration. You can try to fake it with them, but something will be missing, no matter how hard you try to tell yourself it doesn’t matter.

The Ideal Partner
If your goal is to maximize your happiness, and all of your moral values are summed up in your sexual feeling, then all of your moral values should be considered in order to bring those feelings into existence in their fullest extent. It is your own moral values which go into the definition of your ideal partner. Each man has his own moral values and his own hierarchy of values (which values are more important than others to his life). There is not one ideal partner for all men — one “super partner” for which all men must compete. Men must not set goals for themselves they neither have the means to attain nor deserve to achieve. You should define your own indidivual ideal partner, from your own personal values, and act accordingly. If you match only 90% of your moral values to a potential partner, the feelings you have for them will only be 90% of the feelings you could experience if you found a 100% match.

You cannot feel emotions for which there is no trigger. You cannot make yourself feel happy just because you tell yourself “be happy.” There must be a causal factor to make you actually feel it. The same goes for fear, anger, and all emotions — including sexual emotions.

The idea of the ideal partner is that which you must morally seek. You must form your idea of your ideal partner from your own qualities of character, and then seek the person that matches that idea. You cannot meet a physically attractive person first and then try to wrap your ideas around the character of the person. This backwards approach I call “projecting” — trying to rationalize that your potential partner has qualities you would like them to have even though they really don’t, or if you have no reason to think they do. Since sex is primarily emotional, romantic feelings are triggered not by physical attraction, but by recognition of the values of the other person. Any other alleged “romantic feelings” due to physical attraction only are not actually romance, they are only lust. The more values of your own you identify in another, the more truely romantic feelings you have for them.

The idea that you form about your ideal then, the definition that you create from your own character, is your ideal partner. “Ideal” is only one letter away from being “idea”, and that is no accident. The ideal romantic partner is not a physical person, but a concept, the concept of a person you haven’t yet identified as matching your ideal. Only when you match a physical person to your ideal — your concept — your explicit list of moral values you hold yourself — should you engage in sexual activity. It is only then that you have realized the ideal partner by identifying your actual life partner, in every sense of the term. It is only then that you have achieved the life-long goal of finding the partner who will understand your entire life, all aspects of it — and from start to finish. It is only your ideal partner, in your ultimate personal relationship, that can properly participate in your ultimate celebration of yourself, of being alive, and of knowing how to live.

The Immoral
An immoral act is one which causes damage to your life. Imagine that you are considering a potential partner, and they do not possess some moral value that you do. How will you feel? If you feel anything but disappointment, then you should reevaluate your alleged moral value. You should be disappointed that they will not be able to fully understand you, and that you will not be able to share that part of yourself with them. Is disappointment something you should celebrate? Even if its a minor moral value, you’ll know that any celebration would not involve that one particular value, which will leave you wanting. If you then have sex with this person anyway, you will know that something is not as it could be. This will generate a negative emotion — or should, unless you begin evading the moral value you identified as absent in your partner (in which case the consequences will be delayed, but they will still occur when reality eventually wins out over the evasion). You will make yourself unhappy to some degree, and that is the very essence of immorality. Since all of your moral values are summed up in your sexual feelings, then “partially satisfying sex” by definition also means “partially frustrating sex”. The only way to avoid the frustration is to not have this “sort-of sex.” You will be wanting to bring into existence all of your sexual feelings, but you will be unable to with a partner with which you do not share all of your values.

If any negative emotions result as a consequence of a sexual union, it is because you knew something that you didn’t identify explicitly (and could have) or you evaded it. There is no such thing as an emotion without a premise, since emotion is caused by the subconscious integration of one’s premises. In the case of failing to explitize an implicit moral value indentification, disappointment is still the result, and thus an immoral choice has still been made.

Discover the concept of your ideal partner, seek it out in physical form, accept no substitutes, and reap the rewards!

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.

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

British entrepreneur, Sir Richard Branson, has teamed up with aerospace designer, Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites to form a new aerospace production company. The new firm will build a fleet of commercial suborbital spaceships and launch aircraft.

(Liz Bonis) 08/10/05 -- It's taken years, but researchers Dr. Jose Cancelas and Dr. David Williams have discovered the "switch" which moves stem cells out of the marrow or center of the bone into the blood.

IRVINE, CA--At the opening banquet of the annual Objectivist Conference (OCON), Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), announced receipt of a gift to ARI of one million dollars from a donor who prefers to remain anonymous. "This gift is for ARI's high school book project, which we began a couple years ago to provide free copies of The Fountainhead and Anthem to high school teachers that wanted to assign the books in their classes but could not afford it," said Dr. Brook.

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

(CBS/AP) The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote.

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- Iran has broken the seals on equipment at an atomic processing facility amid Western fears Tehran could use its technology to build a nuclear bomb.

Scholars of the Islamic world all agreed that female circumcision is a Sunnah and is an honour, generosity, respect and a measure of control of their sexual desire for men. [Any excuse for brutality apparently.]

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

SHANGHAI, China - To get an inkling of how China controls and sanitizes the Internet experience, it helps to step into any Internet cafe in Shanghai. Each incoming user must give a name and address, then hand over identification to a clerk. Closed-circuit TV cameras monitor from overhead. Every computer terminal is loaded with software to track all activity. If a user heads toward a prohibited Web site, cafe employees know right away.

THE UNITED Nations has said that the US must hand over control of the Interweb to an international body.

The massive conversion of the world's natural landscapes to agriculture and other human uses may soon begin to undermine the capacity of the planet's ecosystems to sustain a burgeoning human population. [The scare tactics never end.]..."Land use has multiple causes. We recognize the need for food, water and shelter," says Foley. "But it also has multiple outcomes, and scientists need to look at the big picture. [With the goal of control of private property. Nice of them to recognize some human needs -- food, water, shelter.]

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Forecast Correct

Awhile back, I blogged about a prediction that a concerted effort to demagogue global warming would occur this summer. That post is worth rereading. Here's the gist of Jay Lehr's prediction.

In early May, newspapers across the country reported that a team of "adventurers" from Minnesota was setting off to "document climate change" at the North Pole.

According to newspaper reports, they aim to "draw [attention to] the gradual warming of Earth's climate" and "hope to convince skeptics, especially in the Bush administration, that global warming is real...."

In other words, this summer will bring a barrage of misinformation about the Earth's ice structures provided by non-scientists who make casual observations and then claim they know what caused the situations they are observing.

Now, via Drudge, comes a report that a team of intrepid U.S. senators has declared the scientific method dispensable. Instead, we are to defer to the expertise on the matter that they have developed through ... "anecdotes from Alaskans and residents of the Yukon Territory."

This is a truly ghastly article. I'll point out a few choice quotes.

(1) McCain, accompanied by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., spoke to villagers in Canada whose spruce trees are being attacked by the northward spread of spruce beetles. On Alaska's northern coast, they met Native Alaskans dealing with melting permafrost and coastal erosion.

(2) "If you can go to the Native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening," [Senator Graham] said.

(3) McCain said the trip has been valuable for the accumulation of evidence that can be used to push the bill. Ultimately, he said, Americans will demand laws to decrease emissions, just as they demanded campaign financing reform.

(4) Graham couched the argument for climate change, as well as another major Alaska issue, petroleum drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as a national security measure. Continued dependence on foreign fossil fuels makes America vulnerable, he said.

(5) "You just keep saying something no matter how untrue and unfactual it might be, over and over and over again, and try to drive the politics to meet your ideological or commercial agenda," she said. "That is a grave disservice to our country." [Indeed. --ed]

In the whole puffball piece was one sentence to the contrary: "Opponents of the legislation, including Sen. Ted Stevens R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, attribute warming to cyclical geophysical forces."

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere

U.S. Must Stop Iran from Developing Nuclear Weapons

By David Holcberg

Gerhard Schroder's suggestion to "take the military option off the table" in dealing with Iran's advancing nuclear program should be dismissed. No amount of "negotiations" and "incentives" will persuade the Iranian mullahs to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

Iran's claim that their reactors will be used for civilian purposes is absurd. Iran has more oil to generate electricity than it could possibly consume. Moreover, Iran's desire to destroy the United States (the "Great Satan") has been made clear by more than two decades of "Death to America" chanting in state-controlled mosques.

The Iranian mullahs are ideologically committed to spreading Islam throughout the world by force, and they will not abandon their murderous goal for political "concessions" or financial aid. Even the threat of war against Iran is unlikely to stop the mullahs from developing nuclear weapons. Deterrence only works against those who value their own lives. As the hordes of Islamic fanatics who blew themselves up in recent years have amply demonstrated, these people value death, not life. We can't risk our existence on the mullahs being an exception.

Iran is an avowed enemy of the United Sates and a major state sponsor of terrorism. It finances, trains, shelters and equips terrorists from organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran is currently waging a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and killing American soldiers by the dozens.

Once Iran gets hold of nuclear weapons, the United States will be an easy target for blackmail and a likely target for mass destruction. We cannot let that happen.

David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute

Multiculturalism vs. 14th Amendment

It's Not Rockin', But It Is Rollin'

[editor's note: I have posted this one also at EGO also where, with others, I am guest blogging this week.

So what is the great American pop song? Pop song meaning "popular" and not the narrower current meaning. Here is your first hint. It's not a rocker, but it is a roller:

Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Though the streams are swollin'

And it covers the two most important parts of your life. One, is productive work:

Keep them doggies rollin'
Rain and wind and weather
Hellbent for leather

And two, the girl:

Wishin' my gal was by my side
All the things I'm missin'
Good vittals, love and kissin'
Are waiting at the end of my ride

And there is nothing more American than the cowboy:

Move 'em on, head 'em up
Head 'em up, move 'em on
Move 'em on, head 'em up
Rawhide
Count 'em out, ride 'em in
Ride 'em in, count 'em out
Count 'em out, ride 'em in
Rawhide

Keep movin', movin', movin'
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep them doggies movin'
Rawhide
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope 'em, pull and brand 'em
Soon we'll be living high and wide
My hearts calculatin'
My true love will be waitin'
Be waitin' at the end of my ride

Says Dr. Andy Bernstein of the cowboy:

What we honor about the cowboy of the Old West is his willingness to stand up to evil and to do it alone, if necessary. The cowboy is a symbol of the crucial virtues of courage and independence.

The original cowboys were hard-working ranchers and settlers who tamed a vast wilderness. In the process, they had to contend with violent outlaws as well as warlike Indian tribes. The honest men on the frontier did not wring their hands in fear, uncertainty and moral paralysis; they stood up to evil men and defeated them.

Read the whole thing. The song "Rawhide" provides for me a vivid mental image of the great American cowboy.



Crossposted to the Egosphere

2005 Ayn Rand Society

Hooray! The 2005 meeting of the Ayn Rand Society looks fantastic! It will be held during the Eastern Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, in New York City, on Thursday December 29th from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the New York Hilton.

Under the general topic of "Ayn Rand as Aristotelian," the meeting will consist of the following speakers and topics:

James G. Lennox (University of Pittsburgh), "Axioms and their Validation"

Allan Gotthelf (University of Pittsburgh), "Concepts and Essences"

Fred D. Miller, Jr. (Bowling Green State University), "Values and Happiness"

Robert Mayhew (Seton Hall University), "Literary Esthetics"

Happily, the announcement contained the following note: "The program will be chaired by Professor John M. Cooper of Princeton University. Professor Cooper is Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Princeton and is a world-renowned scholar of ancient philosophy. He was chairman of Princeton's Philosophy dept. from 1984 to 1992, and was President of the APA Eastern Division in 1999-2000."

If you want to attend the meetings or just receive copies of the papers presented, you ought to become a member or contributor. For those interested in academic Objectivism, it's well worth the few bucks.

Crossposted to The Egosphere.

On Its 70th Birthday, Put Social Security Out of Our Misery

By Alex Epstein

This month marks the 70th birthday of Social Security. In the program’s old age, many politicians are worried about its health and debating about how to cure it. One side, led by President Bush, says that Social Security is in mortal peril, and must be saved via “partial privatization.” The other side says that Social Security is just a little sick, and needs only a little tinkering to be restored to health.

Both sides, however, agree on one absolute: Social Security should be saved. While it may have financial problems, they believe, some form of mandatory government-run retirement program is morally necessary.

But is it?

Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them “risk-free” financial security in old age.

This is a fraud.

Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income -- approximately 12 percent -- for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries -- with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.

Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes -- it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants -- observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.

If Social Security did not exist -- if the individual were free to use that 12 percent of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. He might choose to work far past the age of 65. He might choose to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.

How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual -- and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves.

And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?

The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.

Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.

Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Is shuttle captain a foam fan?

Virtue in Action: Aristides and the Illiterate Man

    A certain incident in the 1990's serves as a perfect example of politics today.  No, I'm not talking about politicians having elicit affairs with random workers; instead, I am talking about the trend of politicians to do whatever it takes to remain in power.  Instead of politics and government being a tool intended to serve the people, it has become a tool intended to serve the politician.  If this requires giving up truth, integrity, honesty, and justice, then so be it.  The power of government seems to have a corrupting effect, whether you are Adolf Hitler seeking absolute rule or Ted Kennedy seeking eternal Senatorship.  George Washington noted the dangers of government when he stated, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  It is for this very reason that being in a position of power requires the utmost degree of virtue.

    The Persian Wars thrust Athens into a very prominent position after the battle of Marathon, making it a rival to Sparta as one of the great Greek city-states. Aristides was an Archon, or leader, of Athens during the Persian wars.  He was elected by the people to lead them through this difficult time. 

    It is stated of Aristides that:

"In all the vicissitudes of public affairs, the constancy he showed was admirable, not being elated with honours, and demeaning himself tranquilly and sedately in adversity; holding the opinion that he ought to offer himself to the service of his country without mercenary views and irrespectively of any reward, not only of riches, but even of glory itself." (Plutarch)

For this reason he was known as "a most determined champion for justice".  His fame and power did not come unattested.  Themistocles was the rival of Aristides, a rivalry that began in their childhood.  Themistocles was equally loved by the people, especially because of his brilliant victory at Salamis.  Thus Aristides found himself in a most chaotic time.

    There was a practice in Athens called Ostracism.  This practice allowed the Athenians to banish, by means of voting, any citizen they deemed a hazard to their city-state.  The practice is described as follows:

"In January of each year, the assembly took a vote on ostracism. If at the designated assembly meeting there were at least 6,000 ballots cast, whichever citizen received a simple majority of the votes was exiled for ten years, under which he could not return to [Athens] under penalty of death . The citizen lost the right to participate in politics by virtue of his absence, but his property was not confiscated, and he could appoint a manager to deal with his affairs and forward any income." (a correct description from Wikipedia).

The Athenians would ostracize any person they considered a threat to Athenian democracy.  Slander from Aristides' arch-rival Themistocles led the Athenian citizens into believing that Aristides was for dismantling the democracy in favor of an aristocracy.  Thus the people put Aristides up for ostracism.

    Because he was Archon, it was Aristides job to oversee the Ostracism and tally up the votes.  Plutarch states that:

"As therefore, they were writing the names on the sherds, it is reported that an illiterate clownish fellow, giving Aristides his sherd, supposing him a common citizen, begged him to write Aristides upon it; and he being surprised and asking if Aristides had ever done him any injury, 'None at all' said he, 'neither know I the man; but I am tired of hearing him everywhere called the Just.'  Aristides, hearing this, is said to have made no reply, but returned the sherd with his own name inscribed."

When the votes were tallied, Aristides held the majority of votes.  He gathered up some of his belongings and complacently left Athens. He gave up his land and power for the good of the State (only to be recalled later on).

    What is amazing about this action is the justice and honesty that Aristides displayed.  He could have written any other name to save himself from a 10 year banishment and loss of all power.  Instead, Aristides remained true to what was just and wrote his own name.  In essence, he aided in his own banishment; he helped in dissolving his own power.  It was men like Aristides that Washington sought to emulate when he stated, "I have no other view than to promote the public good, and am unambitious of honors not founded in the approbation of my Country."  What a shame that our modern politicians don't exhibit such virtue.

-Jason Roberts (Crossposted to the Egosphere)