Martin Radwin

Here you appear to be equating imagining with counting or visualizing. They are not the same thing. It would take me infinitely long to count an infinite number of entities in an infinite universe, but that doesn't mean that I can't imagine such a thing, only that I can't count it or visualize it. Then again, according to the BBT, the universe is finite but at least several hundred billion light years in size. Can you visualize an unbounded universe several hundred billion light years across, with untold billions of galaxies, each with billions and billions of stars? Can you count all these stars? Of course not. But you can certainly imagine it. You're correct that infinite and unbounded are not the same thing. When I said that in an infinite universe, space goes on and on forever, I wasn't using this as a definition but as a characteristic. I also said that an infinite universe went on forever without ever repeating the same region of space. Whereas in a finite yet unbounded universe, you would eventually return to the same region of space. You keep insisting that there has to be an actual ratio between the size of the universe and the size of a real entity within the universe. This is just question begging. There can only exist such a ratio if the universe is finite in size. So assuming that such a ratio must exist is to already assume that the universe is finite. But there is no logical reason to assume this. Your use of a mathematical analogy is rather ironic, since you criticized DF for using a mathematical analogy between the infinite set of real numbers and the universe to justify a possibly infinite universe. Now you are attempting to use a mathematical analogy to prove the opposite. Neither analogy proves anything. The universe is real physical existence. Mathematics is an abstraction. I have no idea what you're talking about. You can define anything you want as a "unit" of the universe. For example, you could say that each cubic kilometer of space is one unit. Well, if the universe is finite, then there would only be a finite number of such units. If the universe is infinite, then there would be an infinite number of such units. In neither case does the unit lack size. The unit as you have defined it is one cubic kilometer of space, whether the universe is finite or infinite. The only difference is that the finite universe has a finite number of such units, while the infinite universe has an infinite number of such units. You are drawing a completely inapplicable analogy between a mathematical expression and the physical universe. It's true that expressions with a divide by zero are undefined. This has absolutely nothing to do with the physical universe. There is no logical contradiction to an infinite universe. Martin

Well, there is a distinction, but not a very important one. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that there is anything nonsensical about an infinite universe. Therefore, saying that the universe might be infinite is not arguing nonsense. Very good questions, for which noone has the answers. If the universe is finite, it has an actual size, although its vastness is such that estimates of its size might not be very accurate. If the universe is infinite, then it's infinite, in which case it does not have a definite size; it just goes on forever. You keep saying this, but you've yet to give a reason. There's nothing meaningless or undefined about an infinite universe. It's true that you can't define the size of an infinite universe. But this doesn't make the concept of an infinite universe meaningless. Saying that the universe is any particular size already presupposes that it is finite. If it is infinite, you cannot say that it is any particular size, because it's not. If it is infinite, it just goes on forever without end. There is no logical contradiction in this. Whether the universe is or is not infinite is an empirical matter for scientific investigation. This possibility cannot be discounted apriori by logic, because such a state of existence entails no logical contradiction. I have no trouble imagining an infinite universe. This is not about logical possibility, since this is an empirical question, not a logical one. Martin

What the man is saying is that finitude of the Cosmos is not an apriori given or certainty. No logical contradiction would follow if the Cosmos were infinite in extent or if its expansion were not bounded by any physical law. So, logically, the Cosmos could be finite or it could be unbounded. No contradiction follows from either of these alternatives. On the other hand we have no empirical evidence that the Cosmos is infinite. Ba'al Chatzaf Assertions that the cosmos is actually infinite are incoherent. First of all, I don't think that DF or anyone else here argued that the cosmos is infinite, only that it might be infinite. Whether the cosmos is finite or infinite is simply not known. I'm not sure which of the below two position you are argueing: 1) That an infinite universe is incoherent and, therefore, presumably impossible. 2) That it is incoherent to argue that the universe is infinite, since there is no way to know this. If you're argueing position #1, then I don't understand the basis of your argument. There's nothing incoherent about an infinite universe. Where did you get this idea? According to the BBT, the universe is hundreds of billions of light years in size but not infinite, since the expansion started about 14 billion years ago at a finite speed, so its extension cannot be infinite. But the BBT is not the only respectable and non-arbitrary model of the universe. The existing BBT model has its own problems and may very well eventually be replaced with another model. DF never said that the universe is infinite, only that this has not been established one way or the other. The argument that "you could always go further" has nothing to do with any reasonable argument as to the possibility that the universe might be infinite. That's true, but so what? If the universe is infinite, then it does not have a finite size by definition. Why is this a problem? Martin

.There is nothing a priori incoherent in the notion of an infinitely big universe (or "omniplex" if you like), only in the way you express it: would you say that however big the set of natural numbers is, it is even bigger than that? You would need to clarify to me what you mean by infinitely big universe. I would say that an infinitely big universe would be one in which no ratio between it as a whole and its parts exists. I do not see any coherent meaning assignable to the notion. The set of natural numbers is not a thing, it is a idea left incomplete. It is defined negatively. There could be no actual enumeration of it. One would be forced to say that however large an actual enumeration of the set of whole numbers is, it is even bigger than that. The universe, unlike the set of natural numbers, is actual. I do understand the idea of a finite yet unbounded universe. In order for me to understand an infinite universe, you'll need to unpack for me coherently what would be meant by infinite in more concrete terms. I agree with Dragonfly about this. I don't see anything at all incoherent or contradictory about an infinitely large universe. You're correct that the analogy between the universe and the set of all natural numbers is not very good, since the latter is an abstraction, while the universe actually has a physical existance. What is meant by an infinitely large universe seems self-evident. It is a universe that goes on forever, without limit. It has infinite spatial dimensions of length, volume, etc. Essentially, if you were to travel in a straight line from any point in the universe, you could go on forever and keep entering new regions of space. Whether the universe is or is not infinite is a matter of scientific study; it cannot be determined apriori. There is no philosophical contradiction in positing an infinite universe. Martin Can you explain, Martin, how the universe might be finite, yet unbounded? No, I can't. I can neither understand nor visualize such a universe. Here's what little I do know about this subject. Cosmologists have defined a parameter called omega, which is the average density of matter in the universe. The idea behind this is that, if omega equals one, there is just enough matter in the universe for gravity to stop its expansion. If omega is greater than one, then the force of gravity was proposed to be sufficient to stop the expansion of the universe and begin a contraction phase, or a "big crunch". If omega is less than one, then there is insufficient matter in the universe to stop its expansion, and the universe was proposed to go on expanding forever. As I recall, the most recent estimate of omega is about 0.03, or about 1/30 the density required to stop the expansion. But this is based on counting only the visible matter in the universe. Astonomers have now proposed the existence of "dark matter", which if it exists as they believe, would increase the value of omega by quite a bit. When recent astronomical observations led to the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is in fact accelerating rather than slowing, they proposed the existence of a strange, unseen entity which they now call "dark energy", which basically has the same function as Einstein's cosmological constant. I've also read that, according to the Einstein field equations, a universe with omega less than one would be an "open", infinite universe, whereas a universe with omega greater than one would be a "closed", finite universe. This closed, finite universe would be finite, yet unbounded. All of this, which is basically the existing standard big bang theory, is highly speculative. Noone has ever identified and proven the existence of either the dark matter or dark energy. It may even turn out that the universe is not actually expanding at all. The expansion theory is based on an interpretation of the cosmological red shift, which may turn out to have a different, not presently identified mechanism. Anyway, getting back to my previous point, I don't see how the finitude or infinitude of the universe can be established from apriori philosophical premises. If the answer to this daunting question is ever learned, it will be by means of future scientific investigation. Philosophy can only discount the possibility of things that are self-contradictory. And there's nothing self-contradictory about either a finite or an infinite universe. Martin Omega has to do with a separate question, whether the universe will keep expanding or stop expanding and shrink back to a big crunch at some point in time. That is a question that we have to leave to scientists. It is a matter of observation, and it does not imply any actual currently existing infinities. What I am asking is, without regard to time or the expansion of the universe, can you envision how the vast entirety of space at this moment might be finite, yet without having an edge that would stop you potentially from traveling in one direction forever? I am not trying to pester or challenge you. I am just curious if you are familiar with or can comprehend the idea. I am certainly familiar with the idea and can comprehend it as an abstract model of the universe, where space curves back on itself due to gravity, such that, in such a universe, if you were to start at one point and keep going in a geodesic through space, eventually you would return to your starting point, like moving along the surface of a sphere. Can I visualize something like that? Not really. Certainly not in the sense that I can visualize our normal reality. Whether or not this is an accurate description of our universe, I leave to our cosmologists, who will hopefully some day be able discover the answer. Martin

.There is nothing a priori incoherent in the notion of an infinitely big universe (or "omniplex" if you like), only in the way you express it: would you say that however big the set of natural numbers is, it is even bigger than that? You would need to clarify to me what you mean by infinitely big universe. I would say that an infinitely big universe would be one in which no ratio between it as a whole and its parts exists. I do not see any coherent meaning assignable to the notion. The set of natural numbers is not a thing, it is a idea left incomplete. It is defined negatively. There could be no actual enumeration of it. One would be forced to say that however large an actual enumeration of the set of whole numbers is, it is even bigger than that. The universe, unlike the set of natural numbers, is actual. I do understand the idea of a finite yet unbounded universe. In order for me to understand an infinite universe, you'll need to unpack for me coherently what would be meant by infinite in more concrete terms. I agree with Dragonfly about this. I don't see anything at all incoherent or contradictory about an infinitely large universe. You're correct that the analogy between the universe and the set of all natural numbers is not very good, since the latter is an abstraction, while the universe actually has a physical existance. What is meant by an infinitely large universe seems self-evident. It is a universe that goes on forever, without limit. It has infinite spatial dimensions of length, volume, etc. Essentially, if you were to travel in a straight line from any point in the universe, you could go on forever and keep entering new regions of space. Whether the universe is or is not infinite is a matter of scientific study; it cannot be determined apriori. There is no philosophical contradiction in positing an infinite universe. Martin Can you explain, Martin, how the universe might be finite, yet unbounded? No, I can't. I can neither understand nor visualize such a universe. Here's what little I do know about this subject. Cosmologists have defined a parameter called omega, which is the average density of matter in the universe. The idea behind this is that, if omega equals one, there is just enough matter in the universe for gravity to stop its expansion. If omega is greater than one, then the force of gravity was proposed to be sufficient to stop the expansion of the universe and begin a contraction phase, or a "big crunch". If omega is less than one, then there is insufficient matter in the universe to stop its expansion, and the universe was proposed to go on expanding forever. As I recall, the most recent estimate of omega is about 0.03, or about 1/30 the density required to stop the expansion. But this is based on counting only the visible matter in the universe. Astonomers have now proposed the existence of "dark matter", which if it exists as they believe, would increase the value of omega by quite a bit. When recent astronomical observations led to the conclusion that the expansion of the universe is in fact accelerating rather than slowing, they proposed the existence of a strange, unseen entity which they now call "dark energy", which basically has the same function as Einstein's cosmological constant. I've also read that, according to the Einstein field equations, a universe with omega less than one would be an "open", infinite universe, whereas a universe with omega greater than one would be a "closed", finite universe. This closed, finite universe would be finite, yet unbounded. All of this, which is basically the existing standard big bang theory, is highly speculative. Noone has ever identified and proven the existence of either the dark matter or dark energy. It may even turn out that the universe is not actually expanding at all. The expansion theory is based on an interpretation of the cosmological red shift, which may turn out to have a different, not presently identified mechanism. Anyway, getting back to my previous point, I don't see how the finitude or infinitude of the universe can be established from apriori philosophical premises. If the answer to this daunting question is ever learned, it will be by means of future scientific investigation. Philosophy can only discount the possibility of things that are self-contradictory. And there's nothing self-contradictory about either a finite or an infinite universe. Martin

.There is nothing a priori incoherent in the notion of an infinitely big universe (or "omniplex" if you like), only in the way you express it: would you say that however big the set of natural numbers is, it is even bigger than that? You would need to clarify to me what you mean by infinitely big universe. I would say that an infinitely big universe would be one in which no ratio between it as a whole and its parts exists. I do not see any coherent meaning assignable to the notion. The set of natural numbers is not a thing, it is a idea left incomplete. It is defined negatively. There could be no actual enumeration of it. One would be forced to say that however large an actual enumeration of the set of whole numbers is, it is even bigger than that. The universe, unlike the set of natural numbers, is actual. I do understand the idea of a finite yet unbounded universe. In order for me to understand an infinite universe, you'll need to unpack for me coherently what would be meant by infinite in more concrete terms. I agree with Dragonfly about this. I don't see anything at all incoherent or contradictory about an infinitely large universe. You're correct that the analogy between the universe and the set of all natural numbers is not very good, since the latter is an abstraction, while the universe actually has a physical existance. What is meant by an infinitely large universe seems self-evident. It is a universe that goes on forever, without limit. It has infinite spatial dimensions of length, volume, etc. Essentially, if you were to travel in a straight line from any point in the universe, you could go on forever and keep entering new regions of space. Whether the universe is or is not infinite is a matter of scientific study; it cannot be determined apriori. There is no philosophical contradiction in positing an infinite universe. Martin

Rand should have been more Romantic in her sense of life and she should have created heroic fictional politicians who, upon being elected to office, implemented your libertarian political ideology and refused to use their power in any way which initiated force against others. The fact that she didn't is proof that she was "cowardly" and "sniveling." Your analogy does not hold up. There really are scrupulously honest business people. There are no honest politicians, because honesty is precluded by the very job description of politicians. But, actually, as Ted Keer pointed out, she did portray Judge Narangansett, a scrupulously honest judge who was dedicated to serving the cause of justice and violating noone's rights. When he found that he couldn't do this any longer, he quit. In real life, there are no such judges either, because all judges are required to uphold the nation's laws, no matter how unjust, including such abominations as the many victimless crime laws. Any judge who refused to be involved in prosecuting people for violating these laws would be removed from the bench. And any judge who was involved in prosecuting people for violating these laws is a scoundrel, according to objectivist and libertarian standards. Do you have any proof to back up that claim? Can you name one business person who has never accepted even a single penny from govenment, and who has never in any other way acted unscrupulously, and can you prove that he or she has never done so? Are you joking? The world is literally full of small business owners who are honest and have never taken any money from the government. My father owned a liquor store for five years in Los Angeles. During those five years, he never once acted unscrupulously toward any of his customers or took any money from the government. Unless you want to argue that all business people are using subsidized government roads or other infrastructure. But of course it's impossible to exist at all without using government roads, since government has a monopoly on the provision of roads. In any case, even if a businessman is receiving some government money or other subsidies, he is also paying many forms of taxes. So unless he is receiving more in government money than he is paying, he is a net victim of government and has nothing for which to apologize according to libertarian/objectivist ethics. And the majority of business people pay more in taxes than they receive in government subsidies. By your reasoning Rand still ends up deserving of death by asphyxiation in a tunnel accident caused by bumbling politicians, because she supported some sort of statist method of violating people's rights rather than supporting libertarian anarchism. Jonathan, you're just being silly now. I never argued that the passengers of the Comet deserved death by asphyxiation. And neither did Rand. The point of the tunnel scene is that the passengers supported a system which produced a chain of events which culminated in the tunnel disaster, not that they deserved to die. And if you can find anything I've ever posted which suggests that people who disagree with me politically deserve to die via asphyxiation or any other method, please go ahead and post it! Martin

But all politicians are scoundrels, without exception. There is no way, at least according to my libertarian ethical standards, that one can be an ethical politician. If an individual were ethical before becoming a politician, the very act of accepting political office and assuming the powers thereof would immediately render them a scoundrel. Politicans as a class are looters, parasites, and dictators, which is one of the central themes of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas, by contrast, people in business occupy the full range of moral stature, from lowest to highest. There are businessmen like Orren Boyle and James Taggart at one end; at the other end, there are businessmen who rise to the moral stature of Hank Rearden, businessmen who are scrupulously competent and honest to their customers and have never taken a penny from the government. Rand's portrayal of all politicians and bureaucrats as scum was among the most enjoyable aspects of Atlas Shrugged, because it is so true. It's just too bad that, as Rand got older, she grew progressively less libertarian and more conservative, entrusting the same government that she portrayed as worthless scum in Atlas Shrugged to carry out a rational and just foreign policy. Because of Rand's evolution in this direction, the objectivist movement, via Peikoff and ARI, has been mostly taken over by neocon statists, instead of becoming a philosophical beacon for liberty. Martin I suppose you put George Washington at the top of your list of scum? Let me guess. You are an anarchist? No, I don't put George Washington anywhere near the top of my list of scum. Compared to the majority of presidents, he was certainly among the more honorable. Compared to Clinton, Bush, and Obama, he was almost a saint! But that's a pretty low bar to clear. Clinton, Bush, and Obama are all war criminals who should be tried for crimes against humanity, found guilty, and executed. George Washington's crimes, such as the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, were small by comparison. But he was certainly no paragon of virtue. Yes, I now consider myself to be an anarchist. But no politicians in any system that has ever existed anywhere in the world could be considered to be anything other than scoundrels according to objectivist standards either. Rand was an advocate of a strictly limited government with no taxation, financed strictly through voluntary means. Since no such government has ever existed, all governments, along with the politicians who run them, violate objectivist standards of morality. Period. Martin

But all politicians are scoundrels, without exception. There is no way, at least according to my libertarian ethical standards, that one can be an ethical politician. If an individual were ethical before becoming a politician, the very act of accepting political office and assuming the powers thereof would immediately render them a scoundrel. Politicans as a class are looters, parasites, and dictators, which is one of the central themes of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas, by contrast, people in business occupy the full range of moral stature, from lowest to highest. There are businessmen like Orren Boyle and James Taggart at one end; at the other end, there are businessmen who rise to the moral stature of Hank Rearden, businessmen who are scrupulously competent and honest to their customers and have never taken a penny from the government. Rand's portrayal of all politicians and bureaucrats as scum was among the most enjoyable aspects of Atlas Shrugged, because it is so true. It's just too bad that, as Rand got older, she grew progressively less libertarian and more conservative, entrusting the same government that she portrayed as worthless scum in Atlas Shrugged to carry out a rational and just foreign policy. Because of Rand's evolution in this direction, the objectivist movement, via Peikoff and ARI, has been mostly taken over by neocon statists, instead of becoming a philosophical beacon for liberty. Martin

The Most Terrifying of All Battles: When the Enemy Lies Within Ourselves http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/08/most-terrifying-of-all-battles-when.html

Redshirt is a slang term for a minor stock character of an adventure drama who dies violently soon after being introduced in order to dramatize the dangerous situation experienced by the main characters. Wikipedia Ahem, Eddie Willers makes it to the end, doesn’t die violently, and maybe doesn’t die at all. Tut Tut Ted. Eddie Willers was also not a "minor stock character". He was a very significant character in the novel. I've looked over photos of the different cast members. Some of them definitely don't seem to me to have the right appearance for their characters. But casting a black actor as Eddie Willers is really going against his physical description in the novel. Eddie was described as having blonde hair and blue eyes. I also think that this is a bad idea because it seems to feed into a racial stereotype. Eddie is described as being Dagny's assistant, just as his father and grandfather worked for Dagny's father and grandfather. So this almost seems to fit the racial stereotype of black underlings working for their white superiors over several generations. I would not have made this choice. Then again, I'm not the director. Martin It's been a long time since I have read Atlas Shrugged. Were there any nonwhite characters in the book? I really cannot remember if there were. I was surprised and amused that the actor selected to play Eddie is black because I always pictured him as black even though Rand described him as having blonde hair and blue eyes. The person they selected to play James is too attractive. I always thought of James as looking almost 50, fat and balding. I can't wait to see the movie though. Interesting question. For many of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, the physical description given is not sufficient to determine the character's race. Unless information is given about skin color, hair color, eye color, or nationality, race cannot be determined. For example, Ragnar was Nordic and therefore, presumably, causacian, Francisco had blue eyes and his ancestors were from Spain, Rearden had blue eyes, and Galt had green eyes. One may reasonably extrapolate that these characters cannot be black. I would guess that Rand envisioned all of her characters as being white, for the simple reason that she was originally from Russia, and most likely all of her friends and acquaintances were white. Objectivism has never had much of a following among blacks. Nevertheless, if the character's physical description is not determinative of race, the director can take liberties in this area without directly contradicting the novel's physical description. Just out of curiousity, what did you always picture Eddie as being black? I certainly didn't. Martin

If you grant the PC premise that there needs to be at least one black in the cast, what would you have him be, a producer, a looter, or a striker? Eddie Willers is the natural choice. Look how they changed Ford Prefect in the H2G2 movie: I guess I don't really grant the premise. To me, the casting should be faithful to the descriptions given in the novel, at least to a reasonable extent. But if I did grant the premise, I would try to cast one or more black actors as characters whose physical descriptions were not as well defined as Eddie and therefore at least physically reasonable. Eddie's physical appearance is described in a fair amount of detail, including his blonde hair and blue eyes. Perhaps one could cast a black actor as Dick McNamara or Owen Kellogg. I don't recall that their physical descriptions were sufficiently detailed that they would preclude either of them being black. Another thing I noticed from looking at the casting list was the names of a couple of characters that I don't recognize as being in the novel. Specifically, "Brendan Brady", "Jay Knight", and "Joy". I'm pretty familiar with Atlas Shrugged, and I'm quite certain that no such character names existed in the novel. I wonder if these characters, which I'm quite sure did not exist in Atlas, were created specifically for the movie screenplay. Lastly, I noticed that two different actors are listed in the role of Dick McNamara -- Nick Cassavetes and Jack Milo. I assume that this is an error in the casting list. Martin

Redshirt is a slang term for a minor stock character of an adventure drama who dies violently soon after being introduced in order to dramatize the dangerous situation experienced by the main characters. Wikipedia Ahem, Eddie Willers makes it to the end, doesn’t die violently, and maybe doesn’t die at all. Tut Tut Ted. Eddie Willers was also not a "minor stock character". He was a very significant character in the novel. I've looked over photos of the different cast members. Some of them definitely don't seem to me to have the right appearance for their characters. But casting a black actor as Eddie Willers is really going against his physical description in the novel. Eddie was described as having blonde hair and blue eyes. I also think that this is a bad idea because it seems to feed into a racial stereotype. Eddie is described as being Dagny's assistant, just as his father and grandfather worked for Dagny's father and grandfather. So this almost seems to fit the racial stereotype of black underlings working for their white superiors over several generations. I would not have made this choice. Then again, I'm not the director. Martin

Really? I don't recall any objectivist associated with ARI or TAS ever arguing such a thing. The argument always used by objectivists is that people living in other countries ruled by tyrannical governments are fair game as collateral damage should their governments be considered by the US government to pose a threat to us. Martin, When the Rewrite Squad returns to prime time, you'll be able to see how Ayn Rand occasionally qualified her "war guilt" answers by saying that Americans would be collectively guilty if the US government ever launched an aggressive war against another country. Robert, I'm surprised to hear that, given Rand's love of America as the closest ideal ever achieved to libertarian/objectivist principles. I would be interested in seeing her exact quote about this, which I think it's fair to say will never appear in any ARI publication. Perhaps Rand realized the inconsistency of arguing in favor of "war guilt" for non-Americans but not applying this same standard to Americans. In any case, one would think that any concept of collective guilt would be completely rejected out of hand by a philosophy based on individualism. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way. That of course is the great escape clause. The US launched aggressive wars against Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Vietnam. But all of those countries were less free than the US. Iraq under Hussein was arguably a "slave pen". So the US thereby received an objectivist moral blank check in all of these wars and was absolved of all responsibility for any of the people killed. Rand condemned the Vietnam war as an act of senseless altruism not serving America's interest, but she never even suggested that there was anything the slightest bit immoral about US participation, which killed millions of Vietnamese. North Vietnam was, after all, a "slave pen". Agreed. I think that her love of America and its founding ideals were such that she was blinded to much of the actual history of the United States, including its various wars of aggression and imperialistic conquest, such as the Spanish American war. Anyway, should the US ever become a real "slave pen", something which I hate to say is a real possibility (and which I prey never happens), I don't expect to see the ARIans lining up to argue that Americans are collectively guilty for what has happened to their country and may be justifiably sacrificed as collateral damage. Robert, I think you've done a great job documenting the changes made to Rand's spoken words by ARI. These guys are real "second handers". And the way they've closed the archives to all but their favored people is really reminiscent of a cult, not a scholarly philosophical organization. It reminds me of the Church of Scientology. Martin

When was the last time "we" were not at war? The US is now is a more or less permanent state of war, war without reason and without end. This is hugely profitable for the government and the military-industrial complex, not so much for the rest of us who have to pay for it all. Have Peikoff or her followers ever bothered to ask themselves why we are in a state of permanent war, and whether or not this is actually necessary for our defense or merely to expand the power of government and enrich the military-industrial complex? Really? I don't recall any objectivist associated with ARI or TAS ever arguing such a thing. The argument always used by objectivists is that people living in other countries ruled by tyrannical governments are fair game as collateral damage should their governments be considered by the US government to pose a threat to us. Thus, if Saddam Hussein was a threat to the security of the US, such that it became necessary to go to war against Iraq, then all of the Iraqis killed during the war were legimitate collateral damage and their death the sole responsibility of Saddam Hussein. I have never seen any objectivist argue that the same rule applies to us, even though, since ethical principles are universal in their application, the logical implication is that, if the US government has the right to kill innocent people in foreign countries whose governments are perceived as threats to the security of the US, then foreign governments should equally have the right to kill innocent Americans if they perceive that the US government is a threat to their security. I have long thought that this is the ultimate reductio against this absurd notion that people living under a dictatorship are responsible for the actions of their government and therefore legitimate targets of mass murder in war. Suppose, hypothetically, that another terrorist attack such as 9/11 or perhaps even worse, were launched against the US. Suppose, further, than the US government used this attack as an excuse to declare martial law and turn the US into a totalitarian dictatorship. According to the usual objectivist argument, dictatorships have no rights and are therefore subject to legitimate attack, and all those living under the dictatorship killed by the attack are legitimate collateral damage, their death the sole responsibility of the dictator. Using this hypothetical, how many objectivists would argue that another government that perceived the US government as a threat to its security would be within its rights to nuke Washington D.C or New York or Chicago or Los Angeles, and that the resulting deaths would be the responsibility of the US government, not the government launching the attack? Of course she would say this. When was the last time anyone associated with ARI (or TAS) labeled anything that our government did as being the act of an aggressor? As far as I know, never. The US government has engaged in aggressive acts of imperialism for over a hundred years, going all the way back to the Spanish-American war and beyond. Has anyone at ARI ever admitted this, or suggested in any way that anything the US government has ever done in its entire history related to foreign policy was the act of an aggressor? Perhaps this is how she is able to say, with a straight face, that objectivists have argued that we should be prepared to suffer legitimate retalitation for the aggressive acts of our own government. Well of course we should, but since our government has never engaged in aggressive acts and never will, we have nothing to worry about! The subject of the discussion was whether or not a Muslim center should be built near ground zero. If such a center were to be built, how would this constitute letting ourselves be wiped out as collateral damage? Does Ms. Peikoff think Muslims are somehow going to stockpile weapons at the center and launch attacks against Americans, who will thereby be the collateral damage? This is paranoia bordering on insanity.

Hold your horses, Martin. Imagine Rand were alive today and had witnessed the horrific 9/11 attacks. Imo it is perfectly possible that she would agree with Peikoff about property rights being contextual. I can imagine Rand would also have done some research on Rauf, and when googling "Rauf and the sharia law" read sites like e. g. the following: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2518496/posts I think it's rather a waste of time to speculate about what any person no longer alive would think or do if they were to suddenly come back to life, since this is nothing but inherently unverifiable speculation. In any case, it's not relevant, even if your speculation about Rand's beliefs in an alternate universe in which she was still alive were true. Philosophers ideas often evolve over time, such that their beliefs in their old age may be very different than they were when they were younger. As far as I know, Rand never argued that a person's property or other individual rights should be justifiably revoked based upon their political or religious beliefs. So if Rand were alive today and argued in favor of this position, she would be going against her own previous beliefs, as well as violating core objectivist/libertarian principles. I haven't spent much time researching Rauf, other than clicking on a couple of links. So I'm not really in a position to render an informed opinion. As a general rule, being as I'm an atheist, I think that anyone who believes in any religion is deluded at least insofar as their religious beliefs. Do I think that Rauf would introduce sharia law in the US if able to do so? From what little I know of him, I doubt it very much. There are one and a half billion Muslims in the world. What percentage of them do you think are actually in favor of living under sharia law? If any event, even if Rauf believes in sharia law, so what? Do you really think he'd have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to successfully impose it in the US? I can just visualize the NYPD taking orders from high level Muslims advocating sharia law! Whatever threats the US is facing in terms of its future of freedom, this is not one of them. So if the child rejects his/her religious teaching and says that he/she does not believe in the religion he/she has been raised, and the parents don't consent, what does this mean? That the child is legally labeled as a Christian anyway, even after having explicitly rejected Christianity? Unless the state uses coercion against the child to violate the child's rights, the child is free to reject this label, and it becomes rather meaningless. I am not defending any of these beliefs. I consider them to be stupid and, especially in the case of the belief in hell, evil. Threatening children with hell for rejecting their religious beliefs certainly constitutes a horrible form of psychological abuse. Nathaniel Branden has written extensively about this subject, as has George H. Smith. My point is that, as bad as it is to teach such things to young children, it does not constitute coercion from a libertarian perspective and, therefore, does not justify intervention by the state. Once you take the position that the state may intervene to protect children from exposure to certain ideas, no matter how harmful, you have opened the door wide open to totalitarian control of child raising by the state. There is a huge difference between these two cases, and they should not be conflated. In a free society, parents must be free to teach their children according to their own beliefs, even if these beliefs might be considered abhorent by you or me, such as a belief in hell for apostasy. This does not constitute coercion that may be justifiably stopped by the state. Once the state is granted the power to enforce what ideas may or may not be taught to children, the sky's the limit. If, on the other hand, parents threaten to kill or otherwise physically harm their children who abandon their religion, such parents should be arrested for threatening to murder or otherwise physically harm their children. That is, and should be, a crime. Teaching beliefs, no matter how repellant and even psychologically abusive, should not be a crime. Telling children about eternal hellfire awaiting 'sinners' does indeed constitute emotional child abuse. No argument about that. But since you believe that any form of ideological indoctrination is a violation of a child's freedom, you must be virulently opposed to public schools, right? Public schools engage in constant ideological indoctrination, just not of the religious variety. Public schools indoctrinate children constantly in the religion of government. The history taught in public schools is incredibly distorted to convince children of how wonderful government is and how they owe government their allegiance. Children are also taught that they must unquestionably obey the school rules, how many how silly or arbitrary. And children are legally compelled to attend school, whether they wish to or not. This kind of seems like a violation of children's freedom, doesn't it? Martin

Brant, I suspect you're right about that. Rand's concept of art is, after all, a selective recreation of reality, not a naturalistic representation of the world exactly as it is. The explosion of the housing complex made for one hell of a climax to the novel. It was done for dramatic purposes to illustrate the theme of the novel. As far as I know, Rand never wrote subsequently that Roark was justified in making this choice from her ethical perspective as an objectivist. If I am wrong about this, and she did indeed attempt to argue in her subsequent non-fiction writing that this action was justified according to objectivist ethical principles, please correct me and cite the passage where she wrote this. Xray loves to take isolated passages from Rand's writing and then draw absurd conclusions from these passages, without considering the wider context of Rand's writing. Thus, based on this passage, which admittedly involved an action by Roark not consistent with respect for property rights, she concludes that Rand did not consider property rights to be that important. Never mind all of the other things that Rand wrote contradicting this conclusion. By the way, Roark was also violating objectivist principles by designing the housing project in the first place, because it was, after all, a government housing project. Perhaps Xray should have argued that, based on this section of the novel, Rand was obviously a believer in the government building housing projects. Martin

It's really amazing that you can come onto this forum, make all of these posts about Rand and objectivism, and so obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You display less comprehension of Rand than any reasonably intelligent person who actually spent fifteen minutes reading her. Property rights were most certainly considered inviolable by Rand. She considered them to be an absolutely essential aspect of human existence, and a bedrock of all individual rights. She made this point repeatedly in both Atlas Shrugged and in her later non-fiction writing. Regarding Danneskjold's sinking of ships, these were government ships, carrying supplies paid for by the looted taxation of its subjects. As such, government had absolutely no legitimate property right in these looted goods. Property rights apply to property that is obtained legitimately, not property looted from others. Rand made it a point that Danneskjold never attacked private ships or even, for that matter, government ships involved in legitimate defense, since Rand regarded defense as a legitimate role of government. Your comment shows that you have absolutely no understanding of the libertarian theory of property rights. Regarding Roark's dynamiting of the building, I actually happen to agree with you about that. Even though the government was in breach of contract by altering the building without permission, the contract was signed with Keating, not Roark, so Roark had no standing. Furthermore, even if the contract had been signed with Roark, blowing up the building would not constitute a legitimate act of recourse for a breach of contract. Rand wrote this in the 30s and 40s, long before she had a fully developed theory of property rights. Quite ironic that many believers who demand freedom of religion are not concerned with freedom when it comes to how they treat their children. In Christianity, these are baptised, i. e. assigned to the religion with no free choice on their part. In Judaism and Islam, they are simply born into the religion; in both religions, circumcision is performed on males, which is a violation of physical integrity performed on individuals having neither the mental capacity to assess what is going to be performed, nor the right to refuse. Regarding circumcision, I once again happen to agree with you. I have always considered it to be a totally unjustifiable violation of the child's rights to surgically alter him without his consent. This is a barbaric practice that has been carried out for thousands of years without any medical justification, just because it is a long standing tradition rooted in religious superstition. Regarding your other criticisms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for parents considering their children to be members of their religion without the children's consent, this is just plain silly. Unless physical coercion or the threat of physical coercion is employed by the parents, the children are free to reject their membership in their parents' religion at will. They can unassign themselves any time they wish. And I say this as someone who is an atheist. You might as well argue that children's freedom is violated because they are taught many other things by their parents that they might subsequently reject later in life, such as the silly belief that government is a good institution deserving of their support. Martin

That's an understatement! Given the death and destruction that the US government has brought to Iraq, to create an armed fortress like this in Baghdad, filled with luxuries for the American occupying force that most Iraqis could never even hope to enjoy, while the Iraqis must live in comparative squalor -- that just constitutes insensitivity and sadistic cruelty on a cosmic scale. The Green Zone where the US embassy was built was, as I recall, in the area of Hussein's largest palace. But, to answer your question, Hussein's palaces were probably even more loathsome. But how exactly is this relevant? The fact that Hussein was a brutal, loathsome dictator who built these hideous palaces, is this somehow supposed to justify what the US government has done in Iraq and the imperial embassy it has built? Further, Hussein was at various times an ally of the US government, including during the Iran - Iraq war. No. But they were paid by the US government, which committed far greater destruction in Iraq of people and property than the 9/11 attackers could ever have hoped to achieve. And how is this relevant? As far as I know, the people who wish to build the Cordoba Center had no responsibility whatever for the 9/11 attacks and have never knocked down any shrines or committed any other acts of destruction of property. If there were evidence that they had, they presumably would have been arrested by now. I have not researched him either, other than quickly clicking on the link provided by Ninth Doctor. If, indeed, he or his group have attempted in any way to justify the murders that occurred from the 9/11 attacks, then the construction of the center would certainly be a proper subject of moral outrage. But, as I indicated in my previous post, even if they have tried to justify these murders, the construction of the center would constitute, from my perspective, less of an outrage than the construction of the US embassy in Iraq. The embassy was built by the same government that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. As far as we know, Imam Rauf and his group have never killed anyone, on matter what their political or religious beliefs. Martin

One big correction: it’s not going to be a Mosque, but a community center. Does Peikoff get anything right? http://www.cordobainitiative.org/ I disagree with you here. I don’t accept the premise that this is in bad taste, rather I think it represents defiance of the view that Islam was “responsible” for 9/11. I’ve come to like the idea. I’m not familiar with the Auschwitz example, but assuming the idea was to turn the actual camp into a convent, knowing that this place would long be a destination for Jewish pilgrimage, I see major differences. This is a very good point. This whole idea that building the center in this location is such a horrible thing to do is based on the idea that the people building the center are somehow either responsible for the 9/11 attacks or at least think that the 9/11 attacks were somehow justified. Were this the case, one could certainly argue that building the center there would be a pretty loathsome thing to do. But there is no evidence I have seen to indicate that at all. So one is only left with the argument that the whole of Islam as a religion is somehow responsible for the attacks, thereby making it unacceptable for an Islamic center to be built there. This is the ultimate in collective blame and punishment, blaming an entire religion for the actions of 19 men. There is an element of incredible hypocrisy about this entire incident. The US launched an unprovoked, murderous war against Iraq, which has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the creation of millions of Iraqi refugees, along with huge numbers of Iraqi widows whose husbands have been killed during the war and subsequent occupation. Iraq has been devastated by this war, all justified by a series of ridiculous lies told by our rulers. One of the most obscene aspects of this war was the construction of a brand new embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad, dubbed "Fortress America". Here is a description of this new embassy from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Embassy,_Baghdad "A new embassy, which has been referred to as Fortress America[8], opened in January 2009 in the Green Zone in Baghdad.[2] The embassy complex comprises 21 buildings on a 104 acre (42 ha) site, making it the largest and most expensive U.S. embassy in the world.[9] It is located along the Tigris river, west of the Arbataash Tamuz bridge, and facing Al Kindi street to the north. The embassy is a permanent structure which has provided a new base for the 5,500 Americans currently living and working in Baghdad. During construction, the US government kept many aspects of the project under wraps, with many details released only in a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report.[9] Apart from the 1,000 regular employees, up to 3,000 additional staff members have been hired, including security personnel. With construction beginning in mid-2005, the original target completion date was September 2007. "A week after submitting his FY2006 budget to Congress, the President sent Congress an FY2005 emergency supplemental funding request. Included in the supplemental is more than $1.3 billion for the embassy in Iraq..." An emergency supplemental appropriation (H.R. 1268/P.L. 109-13), which included $592 million for embassy construction, was signed into law on May 11, 2005. According to the Department of State, this funding was all that was needed for construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.[10] Construction is being led by the Kuwaiti firm First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting.[11][12][13] The embassy has extensive housing and infrastructure facilities in addition to the usual diplomatic buildings. The buildings include:[9] Six apartment buildings for employees Water and waste treatment facilities A power station Two "major diplomatic office buildings" Recreation, including a gym, cinema, and a swimming pool The complex is heavily fortified, even by the standards of the Green Zone. The details are largely secret, but it is likely to include a significant US Marine Security Guard detachment. Fortifications include deep security perimeters, buildings reinforced beyond the usual standard, and five highly guarded entrances. [citation needed] On October 5, 2007, the Associated Press reported the initial target completion date of September would not be met, and that it was unlikely any buildings would be occupied until 2008.[14] In May 2008, US diplomats began moving into the embassy.[15] The embassy still does not have enough fortified living quarters for hundreds of diplomats and other workers, a problem which has run into 2009." So, after the US government launched a war that killed all of these people and almost destroyed their entire country, it had the nerve to build this monstrosity of an embassy for all of the conquered Iraqis to look upon. I wonder just how all of these Iraqis struggling to survive, who have had friends and family killed in the war, who have watched their country systematically destroyed and then occupied by tens of thousands of US soldiers, must feel as they pass this monument to imperial arrogance, knowing that their occupiers inside the compound have access to water and waste treatment facilities, a power station, a gym, a cinema, and a swimming pool, while most of them don't even have regular access to electricity. This is an obscenity greater than anything that any Muslim group could ever build near ground zero. At least the Muslim group, even if they were sympathetic to or even outright supportive of the 9/11 attacks, were not directly responsible for them, unlike the US government, which is directly responsible for the devastation of Iraq, which has killed hugely more people than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. I wonder just how many of these screaming objectivists, who are so indignant about the idea of a Muslim center being built near ground zero, have ever even stopped for just a second to consider just what our own government has done to the people of Iraq. Martin

Amy Peikoff wrote: "As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — Islam — that declares war on us (the nonbelievers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them, regardless of whether our government has chosen to formally or explicitly declare war on anyone. This war is more than a cultural war, because this ideology explicitly advocates the use of force in order to propagate its ideas and way of life. Most importantly, in my view, a significant number of Islam’s adherents have acted according to its teachings, killing thousands of Americans. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of Islam’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers." I decided, just for the fun of it, to rewrite this passage, from the perspective of a hypothetical Muslim living in the Middle East. "As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — American exceptionalism — that declares war on us (the Muslim believers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them, regardless of whether our government has chosen to formally or explicitly declare war on anyone. This war is more than a cultural war, because this ideology explicitly advocates the use of force in order to propagate its ideas and way of life. Most importantly, in my view, a significant number of the American adherents have acted according to its teachings, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, through their brutal wars of aggression and through their imposition of crippling sanctions. The Americans have sent huge armies to occupy our lands, and they fly unmanned drones over our lands to terrorize and kill us. And, by all accounts, they will continue to do so. Finally, it seems that the majority of America’s adherents are sitting by, silent, refusing to denounce the initiation of force by their fellow believers." Of course, it would never occur to Peikoff or Hsieh that Muslims living in Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan could possibly feel this way. And if they did, it would just be a sign that they are a bunch of crazy savages. One thing that Peikoff, Hsieh, and their followers almost totally lack is any kind of empathy, any ability to see the world through the eyes of other people not of their tribe. Martin

I remember Vince Miller very well. I used to attend the "Free Exchange" meetings in San Francisco every month, and Vince was always there. He was one of the nicest, warmest, friendliest guys you could ever want to meet. His contributions to the libertarian movement, via his creation of Libertarian International and his idea of having libertarian conferences in different cities around the world, were invaluable. He should serve as a role model to others interested in assuming the mantle of leaders in the libertarian movement. In the article, Jeff mentioned Vince's love of shooting. I actually had the pleasure of going shooting with Vince at a gun range, along with my wife and several other regular attendees of Free Exchange. It was a lot of fun, and I will always remember the experience. I really miss Vince a lot. Martin

Slow down, Rand spoke very angrily about protesters who carried Viet Cong flags, I believe you’ll find this in the Q&A following the Apollo & Dionysus lecture (1969). That’s not like saying they should be shot, but don’t equate being anti-Vietnam with agreeing with whatever protesters Peikoff was raving about. To say that being very angry about protesters who carried Viet Cong flags is not like saying that they should be shot, is rather of an understatement. One can be justifiably angry about all kinds of things, but there's a huge difference between being angry and proposing machine gunning. Also, while there were certainly some Vietnam war protesters carrying Viet Cong flags, there were also plenty of protesters with no love for the Viet Cong. Hell, I was out protesting the Vietnam war a couple of times back when I was a student at UCSD. And I certainly had no love for the Viet Cong or for communism. Barbara didn't say whether the protesters were Viet Cong flag carriers or just demonstrators who were against the war. Perhaps Peikoff didn't tell her. But even if every last one of them were carrying Viet Cong flags, the suggestion that it would be moral to machine gun them in the streets is pure lunacy. Well, there's also a big difference between rotten eggs and raw sewage and machine gunning. And I wouldn't even go the rotten eggs route. I'm a free speech absolutist. As far as I'm concerned, people should have the right to demonstrate and to say whatever they want to say, no matter how repugnant I might find it. Throwing rotten eggs would constitute assault and battery, and would be a gross violation of the NIOF principle. I would never even consider it. Martin

In case there was any remaining doubt about Peikoff's sanity, even back at the time of this incident, Barbara's description of Peikoff's behavior pretty much clinches it. Not even counting the massive destruction and loss of life in Vietnam as a result of the American war effort (back then and even now, innocent victims of US military actions were not given much if any consideration by objectivists), Ayn Rand herself pointed out the gross immorality of the Vietnam War, just based on the fact that it was costing the US immense amounts in blood and treasure, yet served no national interest whatever. She also pointed out that one of the foundations that made the whole war possible was the draft, which provided the US military with the cannon fodder it needed to prosecute the war. And she had a thing or two to say about the immense evil of the draft, which violated one of the most fundamental of all principles of objectivist ethics -- the individual's right to his/her own life. I wonder if it ever occurred to Peikoff that some of the demonstrators had either been drafted, were threatened by the draft, or had friends or family who had been drafted. Or had friends or family who were killed or maimed from the war. No matter. They all deserved to be machine gunned in the streets for daring to speak out against the US government's sacred crusade. And yet Ayn Rand decided to leave her entire estate to this raving lunatic. Martin

The war in Afghanistan is not eradicating the Taliban, or doing anything to fix the above problems. It is actually making conditions in Afghanistan much worse, all paid for by the American taxpayer. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/world/asia/22contractors.html KABUL, Afghanistan — American taxpayers have inadvertently created a network of warlords across Afghanistan who are making millions of dollars escorting NATO convoys and operating outside the control of either the Afghan government or the American and NATO militaries, according to the results of a Congressional investigation released Monday. The investigation, begun last year by the House Subcommittee for National Security, found that money given to these Afghan warlords often amounts to little more than mafia-style protection payments, with some NATO convoys that refused to pay the warlords coming under attack. The subcommittee, led by Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, also uncovered evidence suggesting that American taxpayer money is making its way to the Taliban. Several trucking company supervisors told investigators that they believed the gunmen they hired to escort their convoys bribed the Taliban not to attack. The warlords who are paid with American money, the investigators said, are undermining the legitimate Afghan government that Americans soldiers and Marines are struggling to build, and will most likely threaten the government long after the Americans and NATO leave. The source of the taxpayer money is a $2.1 billion contract called Host Nation Trucking, which pays for the movement of food and supplies to some 200 American bases across this arid, mountainous country, which in many places has no paved roads. The 79-page report, entitled “Warlord Inc.,” paints an anarchic picture of contemporary Afghanistan, with the country’s major highways being controlled by groups of freelance gunmen who answer to no one — and who are being paid for by the United States. Afghanistan, the investigation found, plays host to hundreds of unregistered private security companies employing as many as 70,000 largely unsupervised gunmen. “The principal private security subcontractors,” the report said, “are warlords, strongmen, commanders and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority. “The warlords thrive in a vacuum of government authority, and their interests are in fundamental conflict with U.S. aims to build a strong Afghan government,” the report said. At the heart of the problem, the investigation found, is that the American military pays trucking companies to move its supplies across Afghanistan — and leaves it up to the trucking companies to protect themselves. The trucking companies in turn pay warlords and commanders to provide security. These subcontracts, the investigation found, are handed out without any oversight from the Department of Defense, despite clear instructions from Congress that the department provide such oversight. The report states that military officers in Kabul had little idea whom the trucking companies were paying to provide security or how much they spent for it, and had rarely if ever inspected a convoy to find out. The report recommends that the military award the trucking contracts and security contracts separately. It also lists a number of warlords who control stretches of road in Afghanistan: Ruhullah, who like many Afghans goes by one name, has a reputation for dealing ruthlessly with the villages along the highways he controls; Matiulllah Khan, whose 2,000-man militia controls the road between Kandahar and Tirinkot; and Abdul Razziq, the commander of the border police in Spin Boldak, one of the principal trucking routes into the country. Mr. Ruhullah commands a force of about 600 gunmen that works for Watan Risk Management, a security firm overseen by Rashid and Rateb Popal, who are cousins of President Hamid Karzai. In an interview last month, Rashid Popal denied that his company had paid any money to Taliban insurgents. The report said Watan Risk Management and Mr. Ruhullah have been paid “several tens of millions of dollars” to escort NATO convoys. “Long after the United States leaves Afghanistan, and the convoy security business shuts down, these warlords will likely continue to play a major role as autonomous centers of political, economic and military power,” the report said. The report detailed episodes when trucking companies that refused to pay warlords to escort their trucks were attacked by the same men. A trucking company executive who refused to pay Mr. Ruhullah told investigators that his trucks were attacked by Mr. Ruhullah’s fighters. Mr. Ruhullah, the executive said, “is willing to ruthlessly exploit the lack of military control along the routes on which he operates.”