Ed Hudgins

Roger -- Thanks for the appropriate post! I'll add one from our oldies files: Creating Our Own Blessings by Edward Hudgins November 26, 2002 -- We’re told that Thanksgiving is a time to count our blessings, as the Massachusetts Pilgrims did in 1621 after a harsh year that saw half of the Mayflower’s original passengers perish. Today we mark Thanksgiving with parades and football as well as family gatherings, but few of us have ever experienced the Pilgrims’ near-starvation. What are the blessings we’re suppose to count today? How, exactly, are Americans blessed? Ancient philosophers like Aristotle maintained that we create the most important thing in life for ourselves – our moral character. When circumstances beyond our control – illnesses, natural disasters, wars – work against us, we still retain a happiness and serenity. With health, peace, good family and friends, we are truly blessed. Yet most of what we call “blessings” in fact follow from our character and our own efforts. Man might not live on bread alone but he does need bread to live. Millions of settlers and immigrants saw this as a continent blessed with a land that is fertile and rich in resources. The original Pilgrims were aiming for Virginia but landed too far north, in land too rocky for large-scale farming, so they and their descendants made Boston a center of fishing, trade, and shipping. From Maine to Georgia, settlers cleared the land for farms, built roads to deliver their produce, built cities from New York to Charleston. In time they spread west, building canals and railways, creating industries like steel and electricity that reshaped their world. In our own day, the same spirit of enterprise has produced space travel, the Internet, and a communications and information revolution. Thanksgiving is a harvest festival with roots in humanity’s history more ancient than the Pilgrims. It is a celebration of the human power to produce, and nowhere has this power been so awesomely revealed as in America. Today Americans spend less than 15 percent of their income on food, and nearly half of that is for eating out. The standard of living that is the envy of the world came from the exercise of reason, courage, temperance, honesty, justice, and pride. America’s resources were blessings only because we made them so. The same is true of our political system. After being elected the country’s first president in 1789, George Washington proclaimed a day of thanksgiving for the establishment of “constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.” Of course, the Constitution bestowed on us the blessings of liberty in part because we in turn were blessed with men of wisdom, conviction, and moral character like Washington himself. He refused offers to become America’s new king George, and he set a republican example as president by limiting himself to two terms. Other countries were afflicted with the likes of Caesar and Napoleon, or cursed with Hitlers, Stalins and Maos. We had Jeffersons and Madisons. While these men were blessings, Americans had to make themselves worthy of leaders like these. As the Constitutional Convention concluded, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government he and his colleagues had given us. He answered “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.” Franklin was right to point out that the Constitution would be a blessing if Americans had the character to rise to the challenges of the freedoms it protected and to cherish it enough to fight for its preservation. As with our wealth, so with our freedom. It is a blessing that has to be earned. At Thanksgiving many Americans go out of their way to share their blessings with the poor and homeless. We’re such a benevolent people that we can’t accept that anyone should have to find this world a permanent realm of suffering. We hope that by bestowing on them a blessing we show them that they are worthy of happiness. But we also must remember that in the end we each must help ourselves and take advantage of the blessings afforded us. It is right that at Thanksgiving most Americans enjoy the good things in life; family, friends, food, football and yes, the shopping spree that follows are all part of our harvest of the bounty of the season! These are blessings, but they are ultimately earned and enjoyed by those who create their moral character within.

Judith -- Glad you liked Mahler's Sixth; it's a remarkable piece, one of his best. I find I can listen to Mahler's works over and over and focus on different aspects of it. It's always interesting. But more important for me, its emotionally strength (and perhaps an emotional strain on folks who need to play it a lot, as Michael suggests). I love the contrast between the opening, driving theme that transitions into the lovely little theme that represents his wife, Alma. The Karajan is a good recording. I like the Solti. For contrast you might check Barbirolli with the New Philharmonia. It's played at about half the speed as most Mahler's Sixths. It sounded strange to me and I was suspicious of it when I was first told about this pace. But I found it intriging, like watching the film of some fascinating phenomenon in slow motion. By the way, I recently listened to one of Leonard Bernstein's Young Peoples lectures on Mahler. I might post something on it later. Have you heard Mahler's Fifth?

Mark and Mary Ann-- Just a quick "Welcome to Objectivist Living!" This is a tolerant site so you won't be damned to hell for treasonist thoughts, though you'll get some good arguments. Also check out the website of The Atlas Society and Objectivist Center for lots of articles, info and the like: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ Best, Ed Hudgins Exec. Director of TAS/TOC

Judith -- I took your remarks to be a bit of shtick -- most amusing! I have four brothers, a sister, four nieces, two nephews, a great nephew and a brand new great niece, pictured above. So I've had more than a few babies in my arms and thus a lot of practice! And I'll try to teach little 'Bella how to be a charmer, though I think she'll figure that out on her own! Barbara, your observations are an excellent example of a matter you treated in your effective communications series: seeing the full meaning of a situation. Your description of what a thoughtful person might think while holding a newborn baby in their arms is right on the mark and a good example of the art of living consciously. Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce said, "Eternity is in the moment, for those who know how to place it there." To see how wonderful it is to create a new human being, to see its potential, to see your role in raising the child, in nurturing it to a mature adult is an example of doing so. By the way, I got dumped on by a certain noodle over my piece a few years ago on "The Human Meaning of Christmas," which dealt with children growing up: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--764-..._Christmas.aspx

Judith -- I'm sure when you were a baby you brought smiles to many faces! And your posts on Objectivist Living are bringing smiles to our faces!

And what Angie still says about you!

Judith -- Thanks for your tough, honest, hardnose, no nonsense evaluation of the truth in the current issue under discussion. The evidence of the senses -- hmm, that could be a good book title! -- in this case suggests an exception to your otherwise universal principle with respect to small, neonatal homo sapiens. Granted, the subject in question, little 'Bella, is only three days old in this photograph and no one can accuarately predict the aesthetic appeal of her or anyone else's physical attributes in the out years. But as MSK suggests, if she continues along an likely glidepath of maturation, that appeal is likely to be on the high side of a standard bell curve. Put another way, she's just the prettiest, sweetest, cutist, cuddly, huggable, adorable little baby you ever said "goo goo" to!

Republican Election Fiasco (In my article on "The Battle for the Soul of the Republican Party" in the Fall, 2006 issue of The New Individualist I analyzed the likely results of a GOP turning more and more to big government, interventionist policies. In that issue TNI editor Robert Bidinotto's piece on "Back to the Future?" looked at the philosophical degeneration of the Republican Party. The results of the party's direction were seen at the polls in the 2006 elections.) Report from the Front: Republican Election Fiasco by Edward Hudgins November 8, 2006 -- Months of prognostication about the predicted pitiful performance at the polls by Republicans has now given way to prescriptions about the direction of the party. Should the GOP move to the center, the right or the left? Truth be told, Republicans right now are just going around in circles. The party's own confusion and incoherence about what it stands for will ensure that it continues to wander in the political wilderness; it must take up again as its guide the principles of liberty and limited government. How could the Republicans lose in the face of such a strong economy? Disgust over the Bush administration's confused, incoherent and unsuccessful approach to the war in Iraq certainly was a central factor in the GOP's defeat. So was the perception that the Republicans were corrupt big spenders, which many of them were. Theirs is seen more and more as the party of big government. The rejection of the party itself cut across ideological lines. Liberal Sen. Lincoln Chafee -- who got a favorable rating from 60 percent of voters in exit polls -- was defeated as was liberal Rep. Nancy Johnson. Conservative Sens. Rick Santorum and George Allen also lost, as did Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Further, many newly-elected Democrats are moderates within their party. Of course, what is missing from the GOP is a central defining principle. President Bush as well as Republicans in Congress deserves much the blame. Bush is not a man of principles. This is not to say that he's not committed to certain beliefs and policies, whether about the war or on the domestic front. But a principle is a coherent guide by which to consistently judge the wisdom of a proposed policy or action. Bush takes a Chinese menu approach to government. Tax cuts and partial Social Security privatization seemed like good ideas to him. So did a new, huge medical entitlement, new environmental regulations and restrictions on political speech. Allowing drilling for more oil in Alaska seemed like a good idea as did subsidies for inefficient fuels. Politicians often must make compromises on particular pieces of legislation but they at least should have underlying principles to guide their direction. There's no coherent direction to the Bush policies. Is it any wonder that people are confused? Consider what made Republicans successful in the past. Two elements constituted the winning political coalition of the Goldwater-Reagan party. The "libertarian" faction consisted of optimists who saw the potential for individual achievement and happiness if only men and women were left free. They thus favored capitalism and personal liberty and saw the purpose of government as the preservation of these values. The traditional conservatives feared the unbridled individualism favored by libertarians. But this fear also meant that they feared the dangers of big government. Thus these two factions could agree that the rule of law, constitutionally-limited government and checks and balances were necessary barriers to the abuse of political power. Their particular policies were often guided by these principles, which provided the basis for a winning -- if at times uneasy -- political coalition. But the Republican Party also harbored social conservatives who wanted more than for government to just leave them alone. They wanted the government to mandate morality, for example, concerning sexual mores, often based on religious faith. The party paid lip service to this constituency but implemented few of their anti-liberty policy prescriptions. Under Bush, a self-styled "compassionate conservative," this faction gained strength and was pandered to with policies such as the faith-based initiative. (Many religious conservatives who were also traditionalists actually rejected such expansions of government.) Also under Bush came the rise of the neoconservatives, social engineers from the right who explicitly rejected the limited government philosophy. Newly-defeated Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum drew from the most toxic elements in the philosophical stew served up by the GOP when he said, "This whole idea of personal autonomy—I don’t think that most conservatives hold that point of view” and he explicitly rejected the idea that the government should stay out of the economy and the bedroom when he criticized what he labeled the "libertarianish right." We saw the results of this approach to government at the polls in 2006. The only moral direction for Republicans to take is not toward the center, left or right but toward individual liberty. The battle today, as in decades past, is between two visions of America. One is of a country of individuals who are capable living their own lives and thus should be left free to do as they please, to make money or families or whatever they want as long as they take responsibility for their actions and deal with their fellows based on mutual consent. This, the vision of America's Founders, sees a government limited to protecting our liberties. In such a robust Republic we all are enriched, educated, enlightened and inspired by the productive efforts and achievements of our fellow citizens. The other vision is of a country of whining, servile subjects who can't tie their shoes or wipe their noses without government help. The paternalist state confiscates and redistributes wealth and limits liberty for our "own good." We as individuals are not and should not be autonomous. In such a country individuals see their fellows as either cash cows to be milked or dangerous predators to be feared. They are motivated by envy for achievers or guilt for their achievements. Republicans more and more have joined Democrats in this second cruel vision. The Republicans left in Congress certainly will clean their leadership house. They then must decide a course of action for the next two years. One would be to have tea with Nancy Pelosi to work out further ways to take our money and our liberty, to accept the premises of the enemies of freedom and go further down the path that has led them to electoral defeat. The other would be to return to the Goldwater-Reagan principles of their party and the Republic founded on the right of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ------- Hudgins is executive director of The Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center

Chris -- Just as long as you don't fall asleep during my talk!

Judith -- I agree that noisy babies should not be in lecture halls, especially when I'm the speaker they're disrupting! Of course in one of my talks at the Summer Seminar I showed pictures of my great nephew, tracking his growth from a few weeks to three years old to illustrate the principle of maturation. Now here is a picture of me with my brand new little niece, Esabella Lucia Hudgins. She didn't interrupt my speaking at all and just slept right through my visit. Of course, this is something I fear audiences in lecture halls might do when I speak!

Ross -- Thanks for the thread about my first great love in music, and this coming from someone who spends much of his spare time now in opera houses and concert halls. I bought those original Capital LPs as a youngin'. I've been watching Leonard Bernstein's old series of Young Peoples' Concerts, which he started in the late '50s and he uses a Beatles tune to illustrate the sonata form in music. I actually enjoy listening to the three Beatles Anthology collections of early or alternative cuts or arrangements of songs so familiar to us. Some of the instrumental arrangements are quite different. On a trip this past week I was listening to how "Strawberry Fields" evolved. I actually like John's voice better in the earlier versions.

I'll add my heartfelt sympathies for your loss. Our capacity for great joy also means a capacity for pain at great losses. (I remember some of Rand's comments after her loss of Frank O'Connor.) I hope you continue to focus on the positive and the joy and beauty life does offer. Ed Hudgins

Wonderful story of a quest that found, not a holy grail but an earthly one! Objectivism is the ultimate reality-based philosophy which means you won't waste time talking to imaginary entities or toturing yourself by acting against your own nature as a rational human being. By the way, while my degrees are in political philosophy, I originally majored in physics and astronomy and still follow those fields. There's nothing more satisfying than knowing that you are following a process -- the scientific method -- than can reveal actual truths about the universe. No need to twist, compartmentalize or block your mind in order to hold inconsistent, illogical or absurd beliefs. Your mind can be free and open, without fear of discovering something that will shatter your sacred beliefs -- virgin births, whatever -- because what is sacred to you is the truth! Welcome to Objectivist Living! Ed Hudgins The Atlas Society and Objectiviswt Center

Thanks guys! Bob Poole is a great asset! Now if you'll excuse me, I must get back to executive directing David to finish up Logical Structure!

As executive director I'll be making sure that David doesn't get too caught up in the minutia of Board activities, hence the executive committee. I want David to write, write, write, with the ocssaional speech thrown in to get the word out in an oral format. That's what I mean by the declarative "Write on!"

Hi Laure! Welcome to Objectivist Living! Glad to see you're diversifying your posting. There are several worthy salons in the House of Objectivism!

Victor -- Interesting story about that song. By that time the the Beatles were doing a lot of their work on their own since Paul especially didn't like Yoko. On this one, Paul actually helped John; he played not only the bass but also the drums -- normally Ringo's job -- and piano. John did acoustic as well as lead guitar -- leaving George off the track as well.

Hudgins Letter in The Wall Street Journal The October 14-15, 2006 Weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal featured a letter to the editor by Atlas Society/Objectivist Center Executive Director Edward Hudgins. Under the heading “Economic Individualism and the Only Truly Just Society,” Hudgins commented on an October 10 editorial page essay in the Journal by Edmund Phelps, the 2006 Nobel Prize winner in economics. Hudgins wrote that, “Phelps advocates not economic individualism but moral collectivism. He is on the mark to distinguish the dynamic, open capitalism found in America from the corporatism of established interest groups and government bureaucrats found in Continental Europe (where Mussolini seems to have won!). He’s also correct that capitalism allows all to find a greater sense of self-realization in their work. And he’s right to trace resentment against capitalism to a confusion of the entrenched, government-protected businesses with true entrepreneurs who must survive through open-market competition.” Hudgins went on to say, “But he’s mistaken to use John Rawls’s standard of social justice. Under this standard, capitalism is unjust if it results in ‘raising the scores of some, though at the expense of reducing the score at the bottom,’ compared with other feasible systems. Prof. Phelps argues that, in addition to the evidence of history that under capitalism everyone wins economically, ‘In an economy in which entrepreneurs are forbidden to pursue their self-realization, they have the bottom scores in self-realization.’ Thus, capitalism is just.” Hudgins elaborated: “Yet Rawls’s standard is wrong. Capitalism is based on the freedom of individuals to pursue their own self-interest as long as they don’t initiate force against others. This means that no group is entitled to any given distribution of benefits; individuals must earn their wealth by producing goods and services with which to trade with others. Some individuals and enterprises might be worse off in the short term, perhaps because of their own lack of initiative or adherence to out-of-date strategies, like corporatists in Europe and elsewhere. But these corporatists use Rawls’s standard to justify their stagnant systems. If they open their systems, they argue, there will be lots of immediate losers with a few, perhaps hypothetical, future winners. Such a collectivist argument is guaranteed to kill entrepreneurial capitalism.” Hudgins concluded that, “Prof. Phelps says, ‘Ayn Rand went too far in taking ... freedom to be an absolute.’ But if the individual rather than a statistical group is the ultimate subject of justice, then freedom is the highest good in the only truly just society – a capitalist one!”

An oldie but goodie (but new to Objectivist Living). Happy Columbus Day! ------ http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1594...ploitation.aspx Columbus Day: In Praise of Exploitation by Edward Hudgins October 10, 2005 -- Many critics argue that Christopher Columbus gave us a devil's bargain. In October 1492 that Italian explorer, working for Spain, opened America to his fellow Europeans. The result: we got a prosperous New World by impoverishing, enslaving and murdering the natives who were already here. But this view fails to distinguish between two types of exploitation—one over other humans and the other over nature: the former which should be expunged from our moral codes and civilized society, the latter which is the essence of morality and civilization. The former form of exploitation was suffered especially by the tens of millions of individuals who inhabited the pre-Columbian lands from Mexico through South America. Cortes the Conquistador, for example, defeated the Aztec rulers of Mexico. Many of the tribes that were subject to the Aztecs sided with Cortes; they hated the Aztecs for, among other things, their practice of cutting the living hearts out of members of tribes that they subjugated, as sacrifices to their gods. Cortes imposed his rule on the Aztecs and their subjects alike, replacing one tyranny with another. The natives were treated harshly and many forced to work as de facto or actual slaves for their new masters. On the other hand, many settlers, especially in North America which had far fewer natives, took a different path. They came to the New World to build their own lives. They did not prosper by conquering other men but, rather, by conquering nature. They had to clear the land, plant and sow crops. They had to practice the trades of carpenters, masons, loggers, miners, blacksmiths and tailors to build their towns and to create the necessities for life and prosperity. In the centuries that followed, their descendents—including Americans today—built the richest, most prosperous country on Earth. Today it is chic among back-to-nature types to idealize the pre-Columbian natives and question whether what we have today constitutes real progress. This silliness was given philosophical credence by the eighteenth century thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau's notion of the "noble savage." No doubt many individual natives were as noble as one could be in savage circumstances, but America before Columbus was no Eden. Let's put aside the wars between tribes, the outright brutality and the like, and just look at the daily lives of the Indians before Columbus. Life was lived simply, in primitive cycles. Natives inhabited crude hovels and hunted or used subsistence farming to sustain themselves. Yes, they could enjoy family and friends, tell tales of bringing down buffalo, and imagine that the stars in the sky painted pictures of giant bears and other creatures. The ancestors of Europeans did the same. But true human life, either for an individual or society, is not an endless, stagnant cycle. Rather, it is a growth in knowledge, in power over the environment, and in individual liberty. Perhaps many pre-Columbian natives were content with their lot in a simple, animal-like existence. But what of young Indian children who wondered why family members sickened and died and if there were ways unknown to the shamans to relieve their pain or cure them; if there were ways to build shelters that would resist bitter winters, stifling summers and the storms that raged in both seasons; whether there were ways to guarantee that food would always be abundant and starvation no longer a drought away; why plants grow and what those lights in the sky really were; and whether they could ever actually fly like birds and observe mountains from the height of eagles? Where were the opportunities for these natives? Three ideas from Enlightenment Europe provided keys to true human life. First was the idea that we as individuals have a right to our own dreams and desires, that we are not simply tied to a tribe or the wishes of others, that civilization means that individuals are free to live their own lives, as long as they acknowledge the similar freedom of others. Second was the understanding that through the rational exercise of our minds we can truly discover the nature of the world around us, replacing myths—no matter how beautiful or poetic—with real knowledge. And third was the appreciation that such knowledge allows us to bend nature to our wills. Through our thoughts and actions we gain the pride of achieving the best within us. The clash between the cultures of pre-Columbian natives and European immigrants certainly produced injustices for natives. But it would have been unjust for those natives to expect the immigrants to hold themselves to the level of primitive cultures and beliefs. The true long-term tragedy is that so many of the descendants of the pre-Columbian peoples in North America ended up on reservations rather than integrated into a society that offers opportunities for each individual to excel. Columbus opened a whole new land for those who would tame nature and build a new, free and prosperous nation. We should celebrate the opportunity for America that he gave us—not apologize for it.

Victor -- Thoughtful post. Much has been written about how large societies like ours produce alienation and make it difficult for individuals to connect with like-minded ones, including soulmates. But technology does offer tools that can compensate. While I'm just an old bachelor, I have put on my philosopher hat to think a bit about the implications of romance for society as a whole. Here for anyone interested are my musings: --------- http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showconte...mp;printer=True The Public Side of Private Love by Edward Hudgins February 14, 2003 -- Romantic love is the predominant theme in modern American culture. It's the number one topic of popular music. Movies that aren’t love stories usually have an amorous subplot. Affairs saturate soap operas and Oprah-type TV focuses on relationships. Valentine's Day is devoted to love. And the activity that is most associated with and often mistaken for romantic love—sex—is an industry in itself, with magazines, videos, and Web sites devoted to every desire and proclivity. One wonders, why with all this love in the air we have crime, hate and anger in our society? One also wonders, why something as profoundly personal and private as romantic love should be such a public matter? Essential activities of human life do not require intimate involvement with others. While good parents are important, ultimately we each create our own moral character. While good teachers are valuable, ultimately we each must acquire for ourselves the skills needed to make a living and to do fulfilling work. Further, we can each pursue elevating or relaxing pastimes by ourselves: reading a book, watching a ballgame. But how much richer our lives are if we can see in the character and actions of another person those values and traits that we admire most. And how much richer our lives are if another person appreciates us for our highest virtues and best qualities. And how wonderful it is if we can share mutual interests and activities with another: going to movies, plays, museums, sporting events, or restaurants; getting together with friends; and, yes, having sex, not as an ephemeral physical act but as a joyous celebration of our life with someone we love. And how happy we are if we can build a life, a marriage, a family together with another person. How blessed and joyous and full our lives will be if we love another and are loved in return! "Love" is a verb and "making love" means creating a world and a life with our beloved that only two can share. It is a private world founded on shared experiences, values, and emotions, and on a subtle and intimate understanding of one another. Those who share such a love might want to share the fact of their happiness with friends and family. But ultimately they’ll devote their energy and efforts to enhancing their own world, their own sanctuary. They won’t worry about seeking the approval of others. They won’t want to open every aspect of that world to others because that world is too precious to be opened to the random eyes of others. So why should such a private matter as romantic love be a matter of public concern? Much pop culture expresses and reflects a superficial version of romance that one would expect to appeal to sixteen year olds. But hey, we were all sixteen once! To the extent that individuals can retain throughout their lives the thrill and excitement that accompanies a new romance, these aspects of our culture reflect a healthy appreciation that happiness should be our goal in life. Too often, though, popular culture delivers instant gratification at the expense of real romance, and too many adults, allowing vapid culture to lead them by the nose, stay at the adolescent level of superficial infatuation, thus forgoing the deep and rich satisfaction of a mature love. Such culture dulls the senses and the soul, making romance less likely and life more hopeless and empty. Still, true romance in the private lives of individuals, which should be a private concern only, makes an important contribution to the public good. As Ayn Rand explained, lovers must "stand naked in spirit, as well as body" before one another. In romantic love at its best, lovers are mirrors for each other’s souls. We want our beloved to see the best within us and we want our best to be reflected in the affection and adoration shown to us by our beloved. Rand also likened love to a "command to rise," to strive to be our best. The moral character of individuals and thus moral foundations of a free society are strengthened by true love. So those without a love on Valentines Day should at least be glad about what it stands for, and those with loves should count their blessings, renew that love and celebrate the happiness that they have earned!

Christian -- Thanks for posting the thoughtful Friedman piece. And MSK -- thanks for your remarks. I always think it's good to accentuate and play up the positive. If the Pope wants to strongly promote the pro-reason side of the Catholic tradition, that's good. I believe this was just the process -- promoting Thomist philosphy -- that helped usher in free thinking and the Renaissance. In the case of Islam, I think the more rational Muslims who are closer to the Enlightenment tradition ultimately will need to counter their-irrational co-religionists since the irrationalists are not likely to listen to the Pope. Yes, it could be dangerous, but this points to the seriousness of the situation. I'm thinking a lot about culture as the most important influence on the ideas and attitudes of most people. Culture is different from the fomal beliefs of a religion; after all, Catholics with an Augustinian outlook and with a Thomist outlook might practice their religions in very different ways and thus create very different worlds. Culture is also tougher to influence and change. But in the long run culture is crucial for a free, rational society.

The Pope vs. Islam: Who Stands for Reason? by Edward Hudgins In a long, scholarly dissertation on “Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections,” Pope Benedict quoted a Byzantine emperor as saying “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” While the Pope was not endorsing this view of Islam, Muslims across the world immediately took to the streets in violent, murderous rampages to prove the old emperor right. As a matter of record, whatever else he was, Mohammad was a man on horseback with a sword who killed people to spread his faith. Of course, during much of its history Christians spread their faith through similar means as well. The example of the sword-wielding Mohammad clearly inspires those Muslims in the streets today demanding death to the Pope, those who demanded the death to the Danish cartoonists who depicted their prophet, those who are calling for the death of the West and the imposition on all of Islam and its totalitarian Sha'ria dictates, and those who are butchering by the thousands one another and anyone else with whom they disagree in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. So why are these Islamists not happy that the Pope, perhaps inadvertently, has captured the spirit of their culture so well? Perhaps it's just the description of these actions and attitudes as "evil" that bothers them? Of course, one wonders whether, when evil individuals are acting in an evil manner -- when a concentration camp commandant is marching Jews to gas chambers or a jihadist is blowing up innocent children -- they think of themselves as "evil"? The key here is that they don't think. They use ideologies and religions that explicitly reject reason and thinking to block out from their minds the nature and full context of what they're doing. They thus fly into emotional rages when someone tries to shine the light of clear thought into their self-generated mental and moral fog. After all, in the Netherlands Theo van Gogh produced a short film with actual footage of Muslim women being beaten on their naked backs on which passages from the Koran had been scrawled as the Muslim religious fanatics who were tormenting them read out loud those passages that seems to justify this treatment. Rather than thanking van Gogh for spreading their self-professed belief about how women should be treated, Islamists murdered him. We always hear the objection that most Muslims don't endorse beating women, killing the Pope or putting to the sword all who don't accept Allah. True! But in the Middle East and among Muslims in Europe especially, these attitudes are what bring Islamists into the streets. Why aren't there far more counter-demonstrators calling for tolerance? After all, in America if ten neo-Nazis stage a rally, a hundred anti-Nazis will be there to counter them. If moderates in these countries fear violence against themselves because they call on all individuals to respect one another's liberty to think as they wish, that fact is a statement about Muslim culture that screams as loud as the fanatics in the streets. The Pope's address does deserve attention, but not based on the rage it motivates among Islamists. In his talk Benedict makes another try at the millennia-old task of squaring reason with faith. He acknowledges the importance of reason in human life. He also maintains that experimental science cannot help us with many of our most important problems, for example, our search of meaning in our lives. He rejects the notion that the "subjective" conscience of each individual should be the sole arbiter of what is ethical. The reason for this rejection is that such an approach would rob ethics -- and religion -- of its power to create a community. The implication is that faith is fundamental part of the path to ethics and community. But what the Pope fails to appreciate is that one can have an objective ethics based on our nature as rational creatures with free will. We discover our ethical standard through reason, not the application of reason that is most useful for experiments in science laboratories but through the application of logic to observable facts of reality. Further, the ultimate purpose of ethics is to help each individual to live a happy and flourishing life and to define the relationship between individuals within a community, a relationship based on mutual respect of the liberty of others. It is just this concern with community first -- which can subject and subsume the individual -- and reliance on faith -- the notion that something in addition to our reason and observations is needed to determine the standard of values and right and wrong -- that the Islamists take to their logical conclusion. The Pope wants to reason with them but they have rejected reason. The Pope wants to argue that neither Islam nor Christianity should endorse violence but Islamists don't argue, they take up the sword. There is indeed a tradition in Islam that looks to rational thought; indeed, it was civilized Muslim scholars who re-introduced the works of Aristotle into backwards, Dark Age Christian Europe nearly a millennium ago. But too few of the Muslim scholars in that tradition today influence the culture of their co-religionists. The Pope is discussing the right issues. The nature and direction of our world today is the result of the conflict between reason and individualism on the one hand and faith and collectivism on the other. But what all must understand is that the problems in today's world are caused by the latter and can find their solution only in the former. ----- Hudgins is the executive director of The Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center, which celebrate human achievement.

MSK and Kat -- Thanks for your kind replies! I did try to be positive, not bashing union members as lazy bums (my Dad was a truck driver and Teamster, but a very honest one!) but to point out that all human beings must see themselves as entrepreneurs and take charge of their own lives, especailly in a country and time like America right now. We have a dynamic economy and thus individuals must have dynamic minds. Europe is an example of what happens if people adopt the opposite attitude and think of themselves as subjects who need to be taken care of like little babies. By the way MSK, I'm working on a piece entitled "Hate Thy Neighbor" for The New Individualist. But what I intend to do is show that much of the nastiness and contentiousness in our society (not just on SOLOPassion!) is caused because individuals don't respect the rights of others and desire the unearned. But as Rand was right to say, individuals' interests do not conflict when individuals do not desire the unearned. Have a nice Labor Day! Ed

Happy Labor Day: We're All Workers! by Edward Hudgins September 1, 2006 -- When Congress declared Labor Day a national holiday in 1894 it marked not only a celebration by workers but a division of Americans into groups often seen as opposed to one another. The day grew out of a desire to get governments to force employers to offer certain terms of employment to workers. The first Labor Day parade took place in 1882 in New York and was organized by Peter McGuire who helped found the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions. The "labor" involved were salaried and industrial workers and tradesmen. Not included were employers, owners, investors, managers, professionals and farmers; the latter for the most part owned their own means of production: their farms. At that time in the economy it seemed to some that Karl Marx might be right, that there were distinct economic classes whose interests were opposed to each others and that politics rather than free markets would be the only equitable way for workers to get their "fair share" and not be exploited by others. By the mid-1950s about 30 percent of the American workforce was unionized. Today it's more like 12 percent and the largest number are not employed in goods-producing private industries, for example, autos or steel, but are government employees. Yet real wages and purchasing power continue to rise. America is the world's job creation engine. Employment has risen from 99.5 million in 1982 to nearly 134 million today. Unemployment is under 5 percent, compared to over 10 percent for the past decade in the European Community. Marx, of course, was wrong and the implications of Labor Day were wrong as well. There is not a separate class of individuals called "worker" who are opposed to other economic classes. To begin with, without entrepreneurs, investors, managers and, in general, capitalists, workers would have no factories in which to work or those factories would be as inefficient as those in the Soviet Union and the workers as poor as those under communism. Entrepreneurs, investors, managers and capitalists are all workers. Further, as the great Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out, economic roles are artificial. All so-called "workers" are also investors in the own human capital and managers of their own time. More important today, they are all entrepreneurs. Both business and job turnover is higher in America than in any other industrialized countries. Few Americans simply get a job right out of high school and stay at it until retirement. Most of us change jobs many times. This is because in our dynamic economy the factors of productive -- including labor -- are being redistributed quickly by entrepreneurs from less productive to more productive uses. This is why the country is so productive and this is why workers can trade their labor for more goods and services than in other countries and have higher living standards. And this is why workers who know what's good for them will stop thinking of themselves only as "workers" and understand that they are also entrepreneurs who should take their lives and careers into their own hands. So on this Labor Day we're all workers and entrepreneurs. So let's all relax from our labors for a few days and renew ourselves so we can get back to the job of building prosperous lives for ourselves which, incidentally, will help the prosperity of all! --------- Hudgins is executive director of The Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center, which celebrate human achievement.

Robert -- Welcome from your friends at The Atlas Society and it's Objectivist Center, which just finished up a week-long conference in Orange, California. I'm glad the silly Noodle stuff didn't turn you off further to the philosophy and that you're on OL. By the way, one talk at our conference was on "Who is an Objectivist?" by Will Thomas and I think that even though you call yourself a recovering Obj, you probably are one by a rational, as opposed to oxthodox, definition. We'll probably publish or post that talk along with Barbara Branden's on Objectist rage, Robert Bidinotto's on cooperation and mine on muture Objectivism. I'm also glad to find another 'Skins fan, though be careful down in Dallas. Also see my reply to your Mahler post. Welcome!