Ayn Rand correctly called environmentalists "anti-man" because they put nature above humans and human happiness.
This latest video from Gang Green vindicates her -- as if she needed vindicating. A nearly famous guy named David Elmore once said that subjectivists are subhuman and that they are insane because they detach themselves from reality and factual empiricism that makes us truly human with the breadth of human understanding and introspection that ennobles us.
Check out the latest Gang Green atrocity:
Showing posts with label Ayn Rand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ayn Rand. Show all posts
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Principles first -- Unschooling second
The headline on this blog post isn't meant to diminish the importance of unschooling. It's meant to establish the fact that I have to have principles in place first before I can determine if unschooling is the proper method for raising my child, Livy. I determined before her birth that unschooling was, indeed, the proper way to raise her.
In working out my principles in the early 1990s, I determined the propriety of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand that states four primary things: 1) reality is real and understandable to humans; 2) humans have free will and rational brains that can figure out reality by forming facts; 3) because humans can make mistakes while working with reality, they need a code of ethics (honesty, independence, integrity, etc.) to help guide their minds; 4) because humans are rational and work by a code of ethics, they are the only ones who know how to make themselves happy and are, therefore, entitled to be left alone by other humans and by governments.
Because of the above four true generalizations about humans and reality, I determined that the best way to raise my child was to honor her right to her own life, to not get in the way of her extraordinary fact-finding mission and personal trail to happiness.
I also expect her to respect my rights and others' rights as I respect hers. This means that there are rules such as "you've got to clean up after yourself," "noise levels are limited in a room where some don't want noise," "fix your own food, if I don't want to fix it," "always be honest with me," "do not take others' stuff or violate their right to be left alone," "don't expect others to share or do something for you simply because you wish it," etc. We have been talking with each other about these rules for years now, with me giving explanations many times on why I think they are objective rules of conduct for not only kids, but also for adults.
I don't see unschooling as "unparenting." An objective parent has much to teach and much help to give about the facts of reality and what is right. I see that as my role, with my longterm plans of helping create an individual who will be not only my bloodline writ large in her own way, but be among my best and dearest of friends for life.
That is what she has turned out to be so far, an amazingly independent, thoughtful, caring, insightful individual who knows that in order to be free to run her own life, she must recognize the same for others and their lives.
Livy is a joy.
In working out my principles in the early 1990s, I determined the propriety of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand that states four primary things: 1) reality is real and understandable to humans; 2) humans have free will and rational brains that can figure out reality by forming facts; 3) because humans can make mistakes while working with reality, they need a code of ethics (honesty, independence, integrity, etc.) to help guide their minds; 4) because humans are rational and work by a code of ethics, they are the only ones who know how to make themselves happy and are, therefore, entitled to be left alone by other humans and by governments.
Because of the above four true generalizations about humans and reality, I determined that the best way to raise my child was to honor her right to her own life, to not get in the way of her extraordinary fact-finding mission and personal trail to happiness.
I also expect her to respect my rights and others' rights as I respect hers. This means that there are rules such as "you've got to clean up after yourself," "noise levels are limited in a room where some don't want noise," "fix your own food, if I don't want to fix it," "always be honest with me," "do not take others' stuff or violate their right to be left alone," "don't expect others to share or do something for you simply because you wish it," etc. We have been talking with each other about these rules for years now, with me giving explanations many times on why I think they are objective rules of conduct for not only kids, but also for adults.
I don't see unschooling as "unparenting." An objective parent has much to teach and much help to give about the facts of reality and what is right. I see that as my role, with my longterm plans of helping create an individual who will be not only my bloodline writ large in her own way, but be among my best and dearest of friends for life.
That is what she has turned out to be so far, an amazingly independent, thoughtful, caring, insightful individual who knows that in order to be free to run her own life, she must recognize the same for others and their lives.
Livy is a joy.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The biggest "Ayn Rand" name ever
After driving more than 12,000 miles around America, one enterprising Ayn Rand fan made the lady's name big enough to read from the moon. Check it out HERE.
Amazing!
Amazing!
Monday, April 05, 2010
236,315 of us (so far) heading to Washington in 10 days
There's a whole passel of us liberty lovers heading to D.C. on April 15. We'd love to have you come with us. We're calling it an "online revolt," because that's how we're getting the word out. Check out the web site at http://www.onlinetaxrevolt.com/.
By the time the 15th gets here, we'll probably be more than 300,000 strong. There'll be a lot of good speakers. It's officially a tax revolt, but most are probably from the Tea Party set.
It ain't an Ayn Rand rally, not yet. But it's a decent start to letting government know who's boss, so we of the objective strain can gain enough time to win the minds of millions of honest people seeking liberty and personal hegemony.
If you can't come along for the ride and fun, I'll be taking lots of photos and report back afterward.
By the time the 15th gets here, we'll probably be more than 300,000 strong. There'll be a lot of good speakers. It's officially a tax revolt, but most are probably from the Tea Party set.
It ain't an Ayn Rand rally, not yet. But it's a decent start to letting government know who's boss, so we of the objective strain can gain enough time to win the minds of millions of honest people seeking liberty and personal hegemony.
If you can't come along for the ride and fun, I'll be taking lots of photos and report back afterward.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Groundbreaking work by Harry Binswanger
Top Objectivist Harry Binswanger has created a new groundbreaking audio on methodology concerning the epistemological triumvirate of the objective, subjective and intrinsic, making clear distinctions among them. I think this subject is important because it allows the objective mind to be a better detective in fact gathering and in discerning irrationality in others. I've ordered the audio today from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. The information on it is below. Enjoy.
==================
Ayn Rand Bookstore
==================
New product!
THE OBJECTIVE VS. THE INTRINSIC AND THE SUBJECTIVE by Harry Binswanger
www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CB87M
The dismal state of today's intellectual life stems from the lack of a genuine concept of objectivity, the concept for which Objectivism is named.
The essence of Objectivism is not just a championing of objectivity but also the identification of a radically deepened concept of what objectivity is.
In the first lecture, Dr. Binswanger approaches the concept of objectivity by asking Ayn Rand's key question: What facts of reality give rise to the need for such a concept? The answer involves distinguishing the metaphysical from the man-made and the self-evident from the inferred. Then one must recognize the need for a concept ("objective") that goes beyond the simpler concepts of "logical" and "rational."
This leads to Ayn Rand's major contribution to epistemology: her recognition that the law of identity applies to consciousness--to man's means of cognition. Lecture one identifies three facts about the identity of man's consciousness, and discusses how they give rise to new principles of methodology.
Before Ayn Rand, theorists saw only two alternatives: the intrinsic or the subjective--i.e., revelation vs. whim. Either we are to remain mentally passive, hoping The Truth will flow in (intrinsicism), or we are mentally active--by embracing the emotional, the arbitrary, the socially approved (subjectivism). In short, either we relinquish control of our minds (intrinsicism) or we give up reality (subjectivism).
In the second lecture, Dr. Binswanger applies the trichotomy of intrinsic-subjective-objective to identify three corresponding schools of thought on concepts, essences, the good, virtue, the initiation of force, rights, and economic value, showing how, in each case, only the objective school, developed by Ayn Rand, provides a rational understanding of the issue.
(3 hrs.,6 min., with Q & A)
Audio CD; 4-CD set: $41.95
www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CB87M
==================
Ayn Rand Bookstore
==================
New product!
THE OBJECTIVE VS. THE INTRINSIC AND THE SUBJECTIVE by Harry Binswanger
www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CB87M
The dismal state of today's intellectual life stems from the lack of a genuine concept of objectivity, the concept for which Objectivism is named.
The essence of Objectivism is not just a championing of objectivity but also the identification of a radically deepened concept of what objectivity is.
In the first lecture, Dr. Binswanger approaches the concept of objectivity by asking Ayn Rand's key question: What facts of reality give rise to the need for such a concept? The answer involves distinguishing the metaphysical from the man-made and the self-evident from the inferred. Then one must recognize the need for a concept ("objective") that goes beyond the simpler concepts of "logical" and "rational."
This leads to Ayn Rand's major contribution to epistemology: her recognition that the law of identity applies to consciousness--to man's means of cognition. Lecture one identifies three facts about the identity of man's consciousness, and discusses how they give rise to new principles of methodology.
Before Ayn Rand, theorists saw only two alternatives: the intrinsic or the subjective--i.e., revelation vs. whim. Either we are to remain mentally passive, hoping The Truth will flow in (intrinsicism), or we are mentally active--by embracing the emotional, the arbitrary, the socially approved (subjectivism). In short, either we relinquish control of our minds (intrinsicism) or we give up reality (subjectivism).
In the second lecture, Dr. Binswanger applies the trichotomy of intrinsic-subjective-objective to identify three corresponding schools of thought on concepts, essences, the good, virtue, the initiation of force, rights, and economic value, showing how, in each case, only the objective school, developed by Ayn Rand, provides a rational understanding of the issue.
(3 hrs.,6 min., with Q & A)
Audio CD; 4-CD set: $41.95
www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CB87M
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Unschooling, bombs, and taking charge of women
Uhuh, that subject line hooked ya, didn't it? ;)
I've been an Objectivist now for 18 years and have had thousands of conversations with other Objectivists, from your average Joes to the very top guys and gals. They are the easiest people to talk with because we share a common philosophy, and we agree on the applications of Ayn Rand's seminal philosophy on most every point. (It goes without saying that we all agree fully on the philosophy itself -- and, yeah, I just said it anyway, right?)
But there are three points in which there is wide disagreement: If children must be schooled, whether we should bomb the hell out of all rogue countries right now, and whether men should largely take charge of the sexual experience in the bedroom with women.
The disagreement on these three issues re-emphasizes how difficult it can be to maintain objectivity always and to not bring undigested presumptions into arguments -- presumptions that are themselves complex and often almost invisibly lurking in one's subconscious. Those who are in the wrong on the above subjects often have a more fundamental problem, which precipitates the blindness to false presumptions.
The problem is that some people have not fully digested Objectivism and integrated it fully into their lives, thereby not creating full self-esteem, full cognitive visibility of thoughts, full connection to emotions, and a complete integration of virtue and values.
Here's how I think it plays out in life for those who haven't fully integrated. I'll start with my own error in the 1990s concerning men, women and the bedroom.
I had very long, and sometimes vociferous, conversations with several longtime Objectivists. They said that men naturally "dominate" women in the bedroom, and that was how it should be; men are dominate physically and more naturally aggressive, so that when it came time to get down to it, the man naturally took over, with the woman, of course, letting the man know what she wants and the man occasionally letting the woman do as she pleases with him. But the man rough-houses on occasion, as he is want to do -- and must do. He handles the woman.
These longtime Objectivists explained man's nature, but I looked at myself and didn't see that nature. I had not fully integrated Objectivism yet and was still soft -- ahem. I argued for the intellectual equality of men and women, and I supposed that that must translate to the bedroom. I discounted the physical. I heard other men talk of dominating women in the bedroom, but I was generally disgusted by this and held contempt for both parties who engaged in this rough-housing. At the time, I took some control, admittedly, but I felt guilty for doing so afterward. My psychology wasn't clean or right.
It wasn't until I got my own intellectual house in order that I -- for lack of a better way of putting it -- became a man. A full man. Filled with self-esteem. Comfortable with my more aggressive nature. Comfortable with handling a woman and enjoying watching her enjoy being handled. When I had integrated my virtues and values, pursued the right career, cleaned up my subconscious, and re-formed myself, the handling of women in the bedroom became natural. I couldn't imagine it any other way. I later told the longtime Objectivists that they were right.
The same unclean psychology comes into play with other issues, such as the schooling of children and the bombing of other countries.
With the schooling, many Objectivists (especially longtime ones, ironically) place a very high value on knowledge (as we all do) without considering it in the context of values -- in this case, the values of children. Many Objectivists think that children absolutely must obtain four things from adults early in life: 1) motivation 2) how to think 3) rigid structure 4) particular information.
They are wrong on all counts. Children free of coercion are self-motivated and huge value-pursuers. They are rational beings whose brains automatically put two and two together. They construct their own structures according to their value pursuits. And they decided what particular information they need relating to their value pursuits.
As with my errors in the sex issue, the facts in this issue are there, so why don't many Objectivists I respect see them? I can't accurately psychologize on it, but I can extrapolate that they have issues themselves that make them contemptuous of children's hegemony over their lives. Their self-esteem is somehow getting in the way. Perhaps they wish to have trophy children for display, which would indicate a second-handedness, which would indicate some lack of integrity. Perhaps it's a need to lord over a nearly helpless kid. Who knows? All we can say is that if the facts are out there for one to see, and one has looked long at the issue and still is committing severe errors, then some philosophical and psychological problems still lie unexamined.
As far as bombing outlaw countries (such as Iran, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.), many Objectivists have shown a tendency to pull back from the brink, stating that America "can't just go around bombing the hell out of other countries."
Why not? These countries are openly terroristic, export their terrorism, put Americans in danger by their very existence. Even some top Objectivists don't think we should just go around "blasting people to hell."
I think this shows a lack of justice, which should be a hallmark of the full Objectivist mind. Harsh justice for the bad. Effusive complimentary justice for the good. The mind that shies away from full justice is the mind that won't do justice to itself, won't search itself fully, won't completely fix itself and blinks when it knows something is wrong.
And lack of justice on any part indicates a lack of self-esteem.
So, if all us Objectivists were perfectly integrated (completely virtuous and in full pursuit of values), would we disagree properly? Yes. Sometimes the facts of a situation are momentarily too complex (What is the proper marketing strategy in a different culture?) or determining something is a bit intangible (How many years do you put a rapist in prison for?). These conclusions are based on highly complex formulas and information. We can agree to disagree or to keep our minds open for more facts.
But in some cases, we just got to get our minds right -- as the prison warden says in "Cool Hand Luke."
I've been an Objectivist now for 18 years and have had thousands of conversations with other Objectivists, from your average Joes to the very top guys and gals. They are the easiest people to talk with because we share a common philosophy, and we agree on the applications of Ayn Rand's seminal philosophy on most every point. (It goes without saying that we all agree fully on the philosophy itself -- and, yeah, I just said it anyway, right?)
But there are three points in which there is wide disagreement: If children must be schooled, whether we should bomb the hell out of all rogue countries right now, and whether men should largely take charge of the sexual experience in the bedroom with women.
The disagreement on these three issues re-emphasizes how difficult it can be to maintain objectivity always and to not bring undigested presumptions into arguments -- presumptions that are themselves complex and often almost invisibly lurking in one's subconscious. Those who are in the wrong on the above subjects often have a more fundamental problem, which precipitates the blindness to false presumptions.
The problem is that some people have not fully digested Objectivism and integrated it fully into their lives, thereby not creating full self-esteem, full cognitive visibility of thoughts, full connection to emotions, and a complete integration of virtue and values.
Here's how I think it plays out in life for those who haven't fully integrated. I'll start with my own error in the 1990s concerning men, women and the bedroom.
I had very long, and sometimes vociferous, conversations with several longtime Objectivists. They said that men naturally "dominate" women in the bedroom, and that was how it should be; men are dominate physically and more naturally aggressive, so that when it came time to get down to it, the man naturally took over, with the woman, of course, letting the man know what she wants and the man occasionally letting the woman do as she pleases with him. But the man rough-houses on occasion, as he is want to do -- and must do. He handles the woman.
These longtime Objectivists explained man's nature, but I looked at myself and didn't see that nature. I had not fully integrated Objectivism yet and was still soft -- ahem. I argued for the intellectual equality of men and women, and I supposed that that must translate to the bedroom. I discounted the physical. I heard other men talk of dominating women in the bedroom, but I was generally disgusted by this and held contempt for both parties who engaged in this rough-housing. At the time, I took some control, admittedly, but I felt guilty for doing so afterward. My psychology wasn't clean or right.
It wasn't until I got my own intellectual house in order that I -- for lack of a better way of putting it -- became a man. A full man. Filled with self-esteem. Comfortable with my more aggressive nature. Comfortable with handling a woman and enjoying watching her enjoy being handled. When I had integrated my virtues and values, pursued the right career, cleaned up my subconscious, and re-formed myself, the handling of women in the bedroom became natural. I couldn't imagine it any other way. I later told the longtime Objectivists that they were right.
The same unclean psychology comes into play with other issues, such as the schooling of children and the bombing of other countries.
With the schooling, many Objectivists (especially longtime ones, ironically) place a very high value on knowledge (as we all do) without considering it in the context of values -- in this case, the values of children. Many Objectivists think that children absolutely must obtain four things from adults early in life: 1) motivation 2) how to think 3) rigid structure 4) particular information.
They are wrong on all counts. Children free of coercion are self-motivated and huge value-pursuers. They are rational beings whose brains automatically put two and two together. They construct their own structures according to their value pursuits. And they decided what particular information they need relating to their value pursuits.
As with my errors in the sex issue, the facts in this issue are there, so why don't many Objectivists I respect see them? I can't accurately psychologize on it, but I can extrapolate that they have issues themselves that make them contemptuous of children's hegemony over their lives. Their self-esteem is somehow getting in the way. Perhaps they wish to have trophy children for display, which would indicate a second-handedness, which would indicate some lack of integrity. Perhaps it's a need to lord over a nearly helpless kid. Who knows? All we can say is that if the facts are out there for one to see, and one has looked long at the issue and still is committing severe errors, then some philosophical and psychological problems still lie unexamined.
As far as bombing outlaw countries (such as Iran, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.), many Objectivists have shown a tendency to pull back from the brink, stating that America "can't just go around bombing the hell out of other countries."
Why not? These countries are openly terroristic, export their terrorism, put Americans in danger by their very existence. Even some top Objectivists don't think we should just go around "blasting people to hell."
I think this shows a lack of justice, which should be a hallmark of the full Objectivist mind. Harsh justice for the bad. Effusive complimentary justice for the good. The mind that shies away from full justice is the mind that won't do justice to itself, won't search itself fully, won't completely fix itself and blinks when it knows something is wrong.
And lack of justice on any part indicates a lack of self-esteem.
So, if all us Objectivists were perfectly integrated (completely virtuous and in full pursuit of values), would we disagree properly? Yes. Sometimes the facts of a situation are momentarily too complex (What is the proper marketing strategy in a different culture?) or determining something is a bit intangible (How many years do you put a rapist in prison for?). These conclusions are based on highly complex formulas and information. We can agree to disagree or to keep our minds open for more facts.
But in some cases, we just got to get our minds right -- as the prison warden says in "Cool Hand Luke."
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Compravotantes -- The Vote Buyers
Ayn Rand wrote a stunning nonfictional piece on the comprachicos (the child buyers) in 1971. The comprachicos were a 17th century nomadic group in Spain that bought children, horribly disfigured them and then used them as circus freaks to make money.
Ayn used the comprachicos as a metaphor for the New Left's progressivism and its deforming of young American minds in classrooms with moral relativism, obedience and group conformity, thereby assaulting the cognitive faculties and making zombies of children, thereby softening them up for the acceptance of the tyranny of the altruistic Left. (Ayn made some mistakes in her attacks on "free expression" in children, but that's a conversation for another day.)
The comprachicos have expanded their mind-destruction with environmentalism in recent decades, but there's another hideous branch of these parasites feeding on Americans.
The compravotantes. The vote buyers.
The compravotantes are politicians and their backers of the right and left who court the support of interest groups with the promise of wads of cash stolen from hard-working Americans. The interest groups comprise individuals who are willfully poor, lazy, in bad health, or are of a certain skin color, of a certain sex, of a certain age.
As conduits and receptors for the stolen booty, the politicians and their backers become wealthy demigods with supreme power over individuals, as we see in the upward tilted head and smug smile of Barack Obama or the sullen superciliousness and giddy pugnaciousness of Nancy Pelosi.
The victims of the compravotantes are not just those Americans being openly robbed, but also those receiving the booty, who become addicted to apathy, lethargy, entitlement, anger and regular streams of free cash to continue to not pursue virtue and value. They become ever more psychologically corrupt, ever more the pawns of the compravotantes, ever more demanding of the slavery of their moral betters who wish only to be left alone, and ever more insistent of more power in the hands of the compravotantes.
The compravotantes gladly abide as they buy their souls, helping to create hideous humans who pleasurefully mock those they steal from with condescending looks at grocery stores, with shouts of "racist" or "sexist" or "insensitive" or "selfish" or "rich bastard" or "corporate chieftain" or "not a group player" or "egotist," with demands for even more money for ever more conditions of the "less fortunate."
The compravotantes took their macabre game to a new level on Sunday evening (a day that will live in infamy), as the U.S. House of Representatives (I dare you not to cynically laugh as you speak that name) voted a virtual takeover of humans' health in the United States of America (I dare you not to become anxious in speaking that name).
The compravotantes care not a wit about humans, much less human health. If they did, they would withdraw to chambers, eradicate every piece of Leftist legislation in the last 130 years and then become invisible to the public eye. They care only about power -- coercive power. Or, as Ayn called it, pull.
They court the detritus of America and use it as flesh-pile to smother individuals who dare to live in liberty, to earn their own way, to be happy in their egoism, to pursue their dreams unencumbered. In turn, the flesh-pile of sordid and grotesque psyches trudge to the ballot box with smirks and irrational chips on their shoulders anticipating revenge upon those more "privileged."
And then they are repaid in full for their complicit deceit. With the new legislation outlawing free commerce in one's health, they will get free dialysis, more free prescriptions, free visits to hospitals, free service from health professionals -- while once-free individuals work diligently in a nearby office with a government gun to their temple and an agent demanding, "Work harder! We need more cash!"
The compravotantes are smiling now. They are throwing parties. They laugh into the TV cameras. They shake hands and pat backs. They have won.
Or ... they think they have won. It is a Pyrrhic victory. Being corrupt, they have the disease of the corrupt: the underestimation of the moral, the miscalculation of the certitude and fight of the virtuous. They have won a battle but will lose the war.
They will, in a decade or two or three, be relegated to do the thing they despise the most: work. They will have to work and sweat for a living -- without the rush of powerlust, without the luxury of coerced booty in their wallets and purses, without the sly grin of knowing someone else must work with a gun to his head.
They won't know it immediately, but they will earn back some of their self-esteem. After I and millions of my friends in objectivity imprison the politicians, chase off their malicious minions and establish and ordain individual rights in a new and glorious America, we will be free -- for the first time in history, be free -- and the compravotantes and comprachicos will be deceased.
Ayn used the comprachicos as a metaphor for the New Left's progressivism and its deforming of young American minds in classrooms with moral relativism, obedience and group conformity, thereby assaulting the cognitive faculties and making zombies of children, thereby softening them up for the acceptance of the tyranny of the altruistic Left. (Ayn made some mistakes in her attacks on "free expression" in children, but that's a conversation for another day.)
The comprachicos have expanded their mind-destruction with environmentalism in recent decades, but there's another hideous branch of these parasites feeding on Americans.
The compravotantes. The vote buyers.
The compravotantes are politicians and their backers of the right and left who court the support of interest groups with the promise of wads of cash stolen from hard-working Americans. The interest groups comprise individuals who are willfully poor, lazy, in bad health, or are of a certain skin color, of a certain sex, of a certain age.
As conduits and receptors for the stolen booty, the politicians and their backers become wealthy demigods with supreme power over individuals, as we see in the upward tilted head and smug smile of Barack Obama or the sullen superciliousness and giddy pugnaciousness of Nancy Pelosi.
The victims of the compravotantes are not just those Americans being openly robbed, but also those receiving the booty, who become addicted to apathy, lethargy, entitlement, anger and regular streams of free cash to continue to not pursue virtue and value. They become ever more psychologically corrupt, ever more the pawns of the compravotantes, ever more demanding of the slavery of their moral betters who wish only to be left alone, and ever more insistent of more power in the hands of the compravotantes.
The compravotantes gladly abide as they buy their souls, helping to create hideous humans who pleasurefully mock those they steal from with condescending looks at grocery stores, with shouts of "racist" or "sexist" or "insensitive" or "selfish" or "rich bastard" or "corporate chieftain" or "not a group player" or "egotist," with demands for even more money for ever more conditions of the "less fortunate."
The compravotantes took their macabre game to a new level on Sunday evening (a day that will live in infamy), as the U.S. House of Representatives (I dare you not to cynically laugh as you speak that name) voted a virtual takeover of humans' health in the United States of America (I dare you not to become anxious in speaking that name).
The compravotantes care not a wit about humans, much less human health. If they did, they would withdraw to chambers, eradicate every piece of Leftist legislation in the last 130 years and then become invisible to the public eye. They care only about power -- coercive power. Or, as Ayn called it, pull.
They court the detritus of America and use it as flesh-pile to smother individuals who dare to live in liberty, to earn their own way, to be happy in their egoism, to pursue their dreams unencumbered. In turn, the flesh-pile of sordid and grotesque psyches trudge to the ballot box with smirks and irrational chips on their shoulders anticipating revenge upon those more "privileged."
And then they are repaid in full for their complicit deceit. With the new legislation outlawing free commerce in one's health, they will get free dialysis, more free prescriptions, free visits to hospitals, free service from health professionals -- while once-free individuals work diligently in a nearby office with a government gun to their temple and an agent demanding, "Work harder! We need more cash!"
The compravotantes are smiling now. They are throwing parties. They laugh into the TV cameras. They shake hands and pat backs. They have won.
Or ... they think they have won. It is a Pyrrhic victory. Being corrupt, they have the disease of the corrupt: the underestimation of the moral, the miscalculation of the certitude and fight of the virtuous. They have won a battle but will lose the war.
They will, in a decade or two or three, be relegated to do the thing they despise the most: work. They will have to work and sweat for a living -- without the rush of powerlust, without the luxury of coerced booty in their wallets and purses, without the sly grin of knowing someone else must work with a gun to his head.
They won't know it immediately, but they will earn back some of their self-esteem. After I and millions of my friends in objectivity imprison the politicians, chase off their malicious minions and establish and ordain individual rights in a new and glorious America, we will be free -- for the first time in history, be free -- and the compravotantes and comprachicos will be deceased.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Rights don't obligate you to DO anything
Ayn Rand once noted that a definition of individual rights can often effectively be put in the negative: to be free from coercion (the initiation of force) by other men (including the men of government).
That means other people must always keep their hands off of you, your money and your property, as long as you do the same. It is a big "don't." Don't interfere with someone else's right to be let alone, to fully govern their own lives and well-being.
Conversely, a right does not obligate you to DO anything. You do not have to be productive, you do not have to be moral, you do not have to help others. You are free to run your life toward happiness or run your life into the ground.
But if you decide upon the latter (or former, for that matter), you cannot demand that others take care of you. They have the same right to "don't": to do nothing for you, to stand by as you self-destruct or fall into abject poverty or poor health. They don't have any obligations to you that they haven't signed in a contract to do for you. Your immorality does not obligate them to surrender their rights to self-determination. They can morally say, "I have a life to live. I care more about me, my friends and my family than I do you. So, good luck and get lost."
Rand gave a perfect definition to rights:
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
With all of the above in mind, the American welfare state is an immoral travesty. It assumes that individuals have an obligation to DO something for other Americans -- be it for housing, food, medicine, old age, health, etc. -- to surrender their individual rights.
The modern politician and 99% of Americans have bought into this philosophy of altruism -- and its stepson: political altruism -- instead of the philosophy of rational self-interest that recognizes each human's fundamental right to pursue his values for his own happiness and sustenance.
Once the sacrificial philosophy of altruism is embedded in the human mind, that mind then demands that humans sacrifice their self to other selves, that they must surrender their goals for others' goals, that they DO something for others, whether they like it or not. (What irony is it that these altruists think it is OK for us to make others happy but not ourselves?)
This is, fundamentally, the philosophy of skepticism: the belief that humans are not fully rational, not efficacious, not capable of being fully happy by themselves, not nice. Once this belief in the "fallen" human (usually via religion or neo-Marxism) is swallowed and ingrained, the mental house of cards falls, and the landscape of liberty is littered with the wreckage of coercive altruists, who seek some redemption for their mental confusion by pretending to overly care about others. It's the Jesus syndrome. "I've come here to save you." It's the heady "savior" mentality to compensate for their own lost identity.
The fix is singular: Recognize that reality is real (not supernatural). Recognize that humans are rational and capable of understanding reality. Recognize that humans can guide their own lives and develop a rational morality to be that guide. Recognize that governments have only one job to do: to protect rational beings from being interfered with on their free paths to wherever they wish to go.
In other words, the fix is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You don't have to read and study Rand. You don't have to DO it. But if you don't, I'll never be free of you and your demand that I DO something for you or those you allegedly care about.
Study Rand. Hold your head high. Let's shake hands as happy equals and make a toast to liberty.
That means other people must always keep their hands off of you, your money and your property, as long as you do the same. It is a big "don't." Don't interfere with someone else's right to be let alone, to fully govern their own lives and well-being.
Conversely, a right does not obligate you to DO anything. You do not have to be productive, you do not have to be moral, you do not have to help others. You are free to run your life toward happiness or run your life into the ground.
But if you decide upon the latter (or former, for that matter), you cannot demand that others take care of you. They have the same right to "don't": to do nothing for you, to stand by as you self-destruct or fall into abject poverty or poor health. They don't have any obligations to you that they haven't signed in a contract to do for you. Your immorality does not obligate them to surrender their rights to self-determination. They can morally say, "I have a life to live. I care more about me, my friends and my family than I do you. So, good luck and get lost."
Rand gave a perfect definition to rights:
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
With all of the above in mind, the American welfare state is an immoral travesty. It assumes that individuals have an obligation to DO something for other Americans -- be it for housing, food, medicine, old age, health, etc. -- to surrender their individual rights.
The modern politician and 99% of Americans have bought into this philosophy of altruism -- and its stepson: political altruism -- instead of the philosophy of rational self-interest that recognizes each human's fundamental right to pursue his values for his own happiness and sustenance.
Once the sacrificial philosophy of altruism is embedded in the human mind, that mind then demands that humans sacrifice their self to other selves, that they must surrender their goals for others' goals, that they DO something for others, whether they like it or not. (What irony is it that these altruists think it is OK for us to make others happy but not ourselves?)
This is, fundamentally, the philosophy of skepticism: the belief that humans are not fully rational, not efficacious, not capable of being fully happy by themselves, not nice. Once this belief in the "fallen" human (usually via religion or neo-Marxism) is swallowed and ingrained, the mental house of cards falls, and the landscape of liberty is littered with the wreckage of coercive altruists, who seek some redemption for their mental confusion by pretending to overly care about others. It's the Jesus syndrome. "I've come here to save you." It's the heady "savior" mentality to compensate for their own lost identity.
The fix is singular: Recognize that reality is real (not supernatural). Recognize that humans are rational and capable of understanding reality. Recognize that humans can guide their own lives and develop a rational morality to be that guide. Recognize that governments have only one job to do: to protect rational beings from being interfered with on their free paths to wherever they wish to go.
In other words, the fix is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You don't have to read and study Rand. You don't have to DO it. But if you don't, I'll never be free of you and your demand that I DO something for you or those you allegedly care about.
Study Rand. Hold your head high. Let's shake hands as happy equals and make a toast to liberty.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
My daughter, the revolutionary "nutcase"
My ex-wife Kelly sent me THIS LINK, in which our daughter, Livy, and two of her friends (and Kelly) were shown in a picture as an example of the "nutcases" in the world espousing Ayn Rand's ideas and not giving a shit about the "downtrodden."
When you go to the link, scroll down to the 8th picture. Livy is holding the pink sign that reads "Ayn Rand Was Right," and her two friends Morgan and Ryan are to her left. Kelly is standing at right.
I must say that I'm now jealous that my lovely daughter has exploded upon the scene of the revolution as an example of evil BEFORE I did.
God, I'm a proud father!!
When you go to the link, scroll down to the 8th picture. Livy is holding the pink sign that reads "Ayn Rand Was Right," and her two friends Morgan and Ryan are to her left. Kelly is standing at right.
I must say that I'm now jealous that my lovely daughter has exploded upon the scene of the revolution as an example of evil BEFORE I did.
God, I'm a proud father!!
Sunday, February 21, 2010
If it was the "mafia," would you fight?
"A rose by any other name is still a rose."
The mafia by any other name is still the mafia.
If mafia took 50% of your money at the point of a gun and the mafia had the police force and military on its side, would you fight?
If that were all it did, you might hesitate. But what if it also told you that you can or cannot (with or without its permission) drive your car, get important medicine, fly on airplanes, take down your mailbox, fish, hunt, buy a gun, take down trees in "your" yard, make changes to "your" house, obtain milk straight from the cow, bury your loved ones in "your" yard, grow marijuana, kill yourself, buy liquor on Sundays, be naked in "your" yard, have sex in your car, put signs in "your" yard, drive a boat, take $6,000 in cash from your bank account, buy racy music or videos, go to a foreign country, drive fast, start your own business, hire whichever workers you desire, pay your workers what you and they agree on, text while driving, etc.?
What if the mafia demanded that you be branded with a number -- a 9-digit number -- so that it could track you now and your past movements anytime it wished?
Would you fight the mafia? Be honest. Would you fight the mafia if it took half your money and monitored or forbade all of the above in your daily life?
Yes, if you've got any cajones (pardon me, ladies), you would fight!
Government in America is now the mafia. It doesn't get its power from La Cosa Nostra. It gets its power from gullible and/or corrupt citizens, who demand that it commit these transgressions against you by fiat every day of your life.
So, how do you fight?
First, prepare your mind -- the body will follow. Read Ayn Rand. Read all of Ayn Rand. Integrate her ideas. Become a rational force of nature. Acquire a brilliant, clear mind that demands liberty, that joins me and others in our demands for liberty. Do it now. The sooner you become rational, the sooner you, I, our friends, and all our brothers and sisters in liberty are free in our pursuit of happiness.
Let's bury this wretched mafia once and for all -- and let's party on their graves!
The mafia by any other name is still the mafia.
If mafia took 50% of your money at the point of a gun and the mafia had the police force and military on its side, would you fight?
If that were all it did, you might hesitate. But what if it also told you that you can or cannot (with or without its permission) drive your car, get important medicine, fly on airplanes, take down your mailbox, fish, hunt, buy a gun, take down trees in "your" yard, make changes to "your" house, obtain milk straight from the cow, bury your loved ones in "your" yard, grow marijuana, kill yourself, buy liquor on Sundays, be naked in "your" yard, have sex in your car, put signs in "your" yard, drive a boat, take $6,000 in cash from your bank account, buy racy music or videos, go to a foreign country, drive fast, start your own business, hire whichever workers you desire, pay your workers what you and they agree on, text while driving, etc.?
What if the mafia demanded that you be branded with a number -- a 9-digit number -- so that it could track you now and your past movements anytime it wished?
Would you fight the mafia? Be honest. Would you fight the mafia if it took half your money and monitored or forbade all of the above in your daily life?
Yes, if you've got any cajones (pardon me, ladies), you would fight!
Government in America is now the mafia. It doesn't get its power from La Cosa Nostra. It gets its power from gullible and/or corrupt citizens, who demand that it commit these transgressions against you by fiat every day of your life.
So, how do you fight?
First, prepare your mind -- the body will follow. Read Ayn Rand. Read all of Ayn Rand. Integrate her ideas. Become a rational force of nature. Acquire a brilliant, clear mind that demands liberty, that joins me and others in our demands for liberty. Do it now. The sooner you become rational, the sooner you, I, our friends, and all our brothers and sisters in liberty are free in our pursuit of happiness.
Let's bury this wretched mafia once and for all -- and let's party on their graves!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The voodoo lady next door -- and our "modern" world
The elderly English (actually Irish) lady next door is in her dark basement room sticking pins in one of her dolls that looks like me and chanting somesuch incantations directed eastward at my abode. I can't prove it, but every once in a while I get an "ouchy" in some part of my body that I can't explain.
She and I and her husband used to be friends over glasses of a high-dollar Bahamas liqueur; that's when she told me she did it (the voodoo-doll thing) to everyone who pissed her off in her life -- and now she's pissed off at me (long story involving my daughter evidently petting her cat too hard or something and me telling the old witch that she was, um, an old witch after she banned my daughter from her yard forever or until the British get their colonies back).
And on an unschooler list I'm on, a lady said yesterday that she believes in reincarnation and that her children *knew* they were being born before they were born but that the lady wasn't ready for a while and the children knew they would have to wait until she was ready. (I'm not making this up. Hell, I COULDN'T!)
And last week, as I blogged before, some old high-school friend wanted me to join a 600,000-strong Facebook group that beats their children and is proud of it because it evidently keeps kids from going rotten.
And Tiger Woods yesterday said he needed a relapse into Buddhism to "control" his desires.
And Pat Robertson ... NO, NO, NO, forget it. He makes the voodoo lady look like Aristotle.
And more and more sports nutties are pointing heavenward after they make a good play. Where the hell is The Vigilante God of Reason's serrated thunderbolt to lop off the faith-fingers when they are pointing skyward?!
And ObaMa and his coteries of media talking heads smugly smile as they talk of robbing me and millions of other innocents of our money. "Thank you. Can I have another!"
And the Vietnam Vet across the street from me regales me on the "nobility" of the working man, as compared to the business man, and demands that the business MAN be made a spectacle of and his cash stripped from his business to feed 50,000 people around the world starving. "I don't give a shit about those 50,000 people, and the 'noble' working man votes to have my money stolen from me," I tell the Vet. "What?!" he says with lunatic-fringe eyes and a lurch forward to within inches of my face. Soon, he's stomping home in exasperation.
And the Republicans pretend they are true Tea Partiers and try to steal the show and then put their vunder-chick Sarah on the podium and she melts the GOP believers with talk of God and the sanctity of life and all the usual faith-drivel we've come to loathe and fear as rational citizens seeking distance from the faith-based Zombies.
And then you turn around more often in America and see women cloaked in black from head to toe with beady eyes leering out, and rednecks standing defiantly next to their Ten Commandments at the courthouse, and the usually sensible Sean Hannity going on a God rant, and some pencil-necked half-brain dropping to his knees five times a day and aiming his head roughly at Mecca and his ass at the rest of us.
What the HELL is a rational man to do? How the HELL are we ever to have a free country, from basement to podium, from livingroom to shopping mall, when the lunatics are on the grass making daisy chains while America burns?
There's been an insanity loose in the world from the dawn of mankind -- a separation from reality, a tendency toward the subjective world of the wishful, an inclination to laud emotions devoid of sensibility, a powerful drive to control the outside world via an inner world of sanctimonious delusion, a devout pursuit of the shrouding void, a determination to avoid this world at all costs to pretend that something might be better or that there is allegedly more (Who would WANT more than this wondrous, complex, intoxicating world?!)
If we modern humans make it past this Time of Insanity (as we can only with the work of Ayn Rand), our rational ancestors will have no trouble lumping us in with the Dark Ages torture chambers, the voodoo dolls of 18th century Africa and the Caribbean (and my neighbor's basement), the pagan incense of the Roman era and the sun and animal worship of early man.
Most of our minds are little different, incapable of pellucid thought, incredulous at requests for rationality, befuddled by demands of decency and justice, meandering in a self-inflicted daze, worshipping idols and gods spontaneously and seeking death or exclusion for those standing proudly, firmly and happily on terra firma, looking adoringly at the star-flaked skies and the wonders we have created.
The chasm between the rational man and the irrational man is no different than that between the sane man and the insane man. In fact, they are one in the same.
She and I and her husband used to be friends over glasses of a high-dollar Bahamas liqueur; that's when she told me she did it (the voodoo-doll thing) to everyone who pissed her off in her life -- and now she's pissed off at me (long story involving my daughter evidently petting her cat too hard or something and me telling the old witch that she was, um, an old witch after she banned my daughter from her yard forever or until the British get their colonies back).
And on an unschooler list I'm on, a lady said yesterday that she believes in reincarnation and that her children *knew* they were being born before they were born but that the lady wasn't ready for a while and the children knew they would have to wait until she was ready. (I'm not making this up. Hell, I COULDN'T!)
And last week, as I blogged before, some old high-school friend wanted me to join a 600,000-strong Facebook group that beats their children and is proud of it because it evidently keeps kids from going rotten.
And Tiger Woods yesterday said he needed a relapse into Buddhism to "control" his desires.
And Pat Robertson ... NO, NO, NO, forget it. He makes the voodoo lady look like Aristotle.
And more and more sports nutties are pointing heavenward after they make a good play. Where the hell is The Vigilante God of Reason's serrated thunderbolt to lop off the faith-fingers when they are pointing skyward?!
And ObaMa and his coteries of media talking heads smugly smile as they talk of robbing me and millions of other innocents of our money. "Thank you. Can I have another!"
And the Vietnam Vet across the street from me regales me on the "nobility" of the working man, as compared to the business man, and demands that the business MAN be made a spectacle of and his cash stripped from his business to feed 50,000 people around the world starving. "I don't give a shit about those 50,000 people, and the 'noble' working man votes to have my money stolen from me," I tell the Vet. "What?!" he says with lunatic-fringe eyes and a lurch forward to within inches of my face. Soon, he's stomping home in exasperation.
And the Republicans pretend they are true Tea Partiers and try to steal the show and then put their vunder-chick Sarah on the podium and she melts the GOP believers with talk of God and the sanctity of life and all the usual faith-drivel we've come to loathe and fear as rational citizens seeking distance from the faith-based Zombies.
And then you turn around more often in America and see women cloaked in black from head to toe with beady eyes leering out, and rednecks standing defiantly next to their Ten Commandments at the courthouse, and the usually sensible Sean Hannity going on a God rant, and some pencil-necked half-brain dropping to his knees five times a day and aiming his head roughly at Mecca and his ass at the rest of us.
What the HELL is a rational man to do? How the HELL are we ever to have a free country, from basement to podium, from livingroom to shopping mall, when the lunatics are on the grass making daisy chains while America burns?
There's been an insanity loose in the world from the dawn of mankind -- a separation from reality, a tendency toward the subjective world of the wishful, an inclination to laud emotions devoid of sensibility, a powerful drive to control the outside world via an inner world of sanctimonious delusion, a devout pursuit of the shrouding void, a determination to avoid this world at all costs to pretend that something might be better or that there is allegedly more (Who would WANT more than this wondrous, complex, intoxicating world?!)
If we modern humans make it past this Time of Insanity (as we can only with the work of Ayn Rand), our rational ancestors will have no trouble lumping us in with the Dark Ages torture chambers, the voodoo dolls of 18th century Africa and the Caribbean (and my neighbor's basement), the pagan incense of the Roman era and the sun and animal worship of early man.
Most of our minds are little different, incapable of pellucid thought, incredulous at requests for rationality, befuddled by demands of decency and justice, meandering in a self-inflicted daze, worshipping idols and gods spontaneously and seeking death or exclusion for those standing proudly, firmly and happily on terra firma, looking adoringly at the star-flaked skies and the wonders we have created.
The chasm between the rational man and the irrational man is no different than that between the sane man and the insane man. In fact, they are one in the same.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Wall Street Journal article on Rand and market
A "bleeding-heart" libertarian posted a not-so-nice article on Ayn Rand today in the Wall Street Journal. Here's my letter to the WSJ in response.
_______________________
If Ayn Rand were alive today, she would chuckle at the clichéd attempt by Heather Wllhelm (“Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market?”) to characterize Ms. Rand as “angry” and “vulgar,” as well as Ms. Wilhelm’s attempt to build a strawman of alleged sympathizers (Libertarians and a reverend, for Pete’s sake) in order to have those same “sympathizers” give voice to Ms. Wilhelm’s own immoral altruism.
As Ms. Wilhelm must know, Ms. Rand loathed alleged free-market conservatives and allegedly liberty-oriented Libertarians precisely because they claimed to love free markets but were actually wolves in sheep’s clothing for redistributionist statism and “bleeding-heart” Libertarianism – both of which taking the focus off of individual happiness and hegemony and placing it on strangers’ happiness and welfare.
Ms. Rand’s appropriate ire toward conservatism was primarily for their mysticism (the God thing). Her ire toward Libertarians was a result of her correctly realizing that Libertarians espoused “liberty” without giving it proper justification before a candid (rational) world: i.e. You must first prove the nature of humans (rational); then must determine what rational animals must do to survive and prosper (explicitly discover and define rational morality and values for guidance); then you must determine what type of government best allows such self-determination (unabridged laissez-faire capitalism). Without these principles firmly set in place, a country cannot build and validate a perfect, full-proof (rational) constitution – and therein lies the major fault of the whimsical Libertarians and their erratic and childish “liberty” pronouncements.
As to the infamous “anger” accusations, wouldn’t any rational mind be angry at America’s 20th-century Marxist movement of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”? I, and most Objectivists, love Ms. Rand’s anger. It’s the pusillanimity of “sympathizers” such as Mr. Wilhelm that we find humorous – and vulgar.
_______________________
If Ayn Rand were alive today, she would chuckle at the clichéd attempt by Heather Wllhelm (“Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market?”) to characterize Ms. Rand as “angry” and “vulgar,” as well as Ms. Wilhelm’s attempt to build a strawman of alleged sympathizers (Libertarians and a reverend, for Pete’s sake) in order to have those same “sympathizers” give voice to Ms. Wilhelm’s own immoral altruism.
As Ms. Wilhelm must know, Ms. Rand loathed alleged free-market conservatives and allegedly liberty-oriented Libertarians precisely because they claimed to love free markets but were actually wolves in sheep’s clothing for redistributionist statism and “bleeding-heart” Libertarianism – both of which taking the focus off of individual happiness and hegemony and placing it on strangers’ happiness and welfare.
Ms. Rand’s appropriate ire toward conservatism was primarily for their mysticism (the God thing). Her ire toward Libertarians was a result of her correctly realizing that Libertarians espoused “liberty” without giving it proper justification before a candid (rational) world: i.e. You must first prove the nature of humans (rational); then must determine what rational animals must do to survive and prosper (explicitly discover and define rational morality and values for guidance); then you must determine what type of government best allows such self-determination (unabridged laissez-faire capitalism). Without these principles firmly set in place, a country cannot build and validate a perfect, full-proof (rational) constitution – and therein lies the major fault of the whimsical Libertarians and their erratic and childish “liberty” pronouncements.
As to the infamous “anger” accusations, wouldn’t any rational mind be angry at America’s 20th-century Marxist movement of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”? I, and most Objectivists, love Ms. Rand’s anger. It’s the pusillanimity of “sympathizers” such as Mr. Wilhelm that we find humorous – and vulgar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)