Dennis Hardin

Excellent point. And pithy, as Bill O'Reilly might say.

When have Islamic terrorists ever demonstrated the inclination to undermine Western values by openly promoting them? That whole idea flies in the face of what we know about the Islamist’s determination to mount a global PR campaign against Western values. By competing in the Miss USA contest and winning it, Rima Fakih is publicly embracing radically Westernized values—specifically, the inherent wonder, beauty and innocence of the human body and human sexuality. To suggest that Rima Fakih is “a terrorist in a bikini” is to indulge in specious, xenophobic paranoia and to give the Islamists credit for a level of sophistication they clearly do not possess. Give the girl a break. She deserves enormous credit for having the courage and independence to break free from the strait jacket that so many Arab women adorn without audible protest. She deserves praise for her accomplishment, not bizarre conspiratorial aspersions.

Robert, I thoroughly agree. When I heard Peikoff advocate attending Catholic confirmation services, I decided there was no way this person had anything further to offer me. He has mainly been valuable as a memory bank for his wealth of information about what Ayn Rand did and said. He turned organized regurgitation into a career path. Nothing more was required of him than that. But now we have the embarassing spectacle of Peikoff groupies like Hsieh who look to him for wisdom and guidance, as if Rand had passed him her philosophical torch, which clearly she never did. When he stops being her scribe and tries to occupy her throne, he looks like a jester instead.

Michael, I agree that the same corruption occurs on the individual level but on a smaller scale. We just see more public evidence of it when the political leaders are involved. But corruption is essential to the Christian religion itself. The late George Walsh pointed out that much of Christianity’s appeal derived from the built-in structural superficiality of its moral code. He gave the founders of Christianity credit for crafting a morality that only demands proper behavior one day out of the seven. Wow. Nifty bit of fancy prescriptive footwork there. Look at the pay-off. People can act pious while devoting much of their time to the most disgusting forms of debauchery, corruption and evil. It all hinges on whether you repent on Day 7. (Or, as you say in the case of Catholics, go to Confession.) It’s why Capitalism has proven uniquely compatible with Christianity despite its fundamental tenets extolling sacrifice and service to others. There’s plenty of time for paying lip service to that happy horsecrap on Sunday. Until then, it’s deuces wild. Sheer genius. I don’t know about the prevalence of the “plain old decency” you refer to. Whether a given Christian is genuinely moral (i.e., honest, productive) is largely unrelated to his “religious values.” It may even be inversely proportional to his belief in those values.

Valliant’s inspirational inscription probably didn’t help… “To Choncey, Best Wishes and remember, it’s never too late to try to drag a good man’s reputation through antiquated, arcane muck…”

Hi Rich, I am far less inclined to defend Ayn Rand in this arena then you seem to be. When you are right and just about everyone else is all wet so often (as happened in the case of Ayn Rand), I think it’s understandable that you might start to make unwarranted assumptions about the universal validity of your emotions. E.g., she felt like a hero-worshipper, therefore all healthy women should feel that way. On the other hand, for someone who was so ruthlessly independent in her thinking on impersonal issues, demanding logic, proof and evidence every step of the way, it’s also very disappointing and even bewildering. When your only evidence is your own emotions, it is clearly not yet time to reach universal conclusions about human nature. It was bad enough to condemn gays for deviancy, but to assume that all men and women can be shoe-horned into such rigid sexual roles, thereby inducing guilt in anyone who did not comport with her internal model of proper sexual behavior, was, well, egregious (IMHO). She had to know the impact her words would have. I recall reading that Ayn Rand was unprepared to commit herself to the scientific validity of evolution because there was simply not enough evidence available. Her perplexing inability to apply that same characteristic, rigorous psycho-epistemology to her opinions on psychology suggests some not-so-admirable traits about her wish to exercise control over others. She came down extremely hard on people at times when benevolence would clearly have been warranted by the lack of evidence. Whatever was motivating her, I suspect that, unlike John Galt, her countenance was definitely not entirely free of pain and fear and guilt. And that’s too bad, because she just may have been one of greatest minds who has ever lived.

Now hang on, are you sure he didn’t mean it as a compliment? A thank you? It could be read as an inversion of The Emperor’s New Clothes, and you’re the honest child pointing out that his prose is soiled and he needs to wash up. Yes, of course you’re right. What was I thinking? Condemning Peikoff for sanctioning a religious ritual that sanctifies membership in the church and subverts a young person’s mind by forcing him to swallow and retain the worst kind of mystical drivel at a time when he is struggling to understand the world. How petty of me! How can I ever repay you and Phil for showing me how terribly unjust my criticism was? The only thing more astonishing than Peikoff’s public approval of Catholic confirmation services is so-called Objectivists who think it’s no big deal.

One area where Nathaniel Branden was quick to distance himself from Rand following their schism was regarding her views on masculinity and femininity. He had written articles for The Objectivist in which he basically defended and articulated her position, which was, in essence, to equate masculinity with dominance and femininity with submission. But there was no mention of that in “The Psychology of Romantic Love.” Since parting with Rand, I do not believe he has ever defended any elaborate explanation of either role beyond saying that the essence of masculinity was the emotional perspective that woman was the best idea nature ever had, and vice-versa. It is my clear impression that, after their break, he took the position that her views on sex were another area where she tended to confuse her personal feelings with objective reality. I agree with him. Whatever limited validity there might be to her perspective, the science of psychology is way too primitive for anyone to be making pronouncements about “healthy” and “proper” male and female roles. No area of human psychology is more stupefying in its complexity than sexual psychology. NB give a talk in the 1970s in which he was asked about Rand’s views on sex. On that occasion, as I recall, he summarized her view as follows: “As a woman, I see my sexual role as that of a hero-worshipper--and if you don’t, you’re in trouble!” As a psychologist, he knew very well just how ridiculous her position was and is.

Why is it that every time I can remember upon reading any of your responses to a post I made, I always feel like taking a shower?

Well, George, as I recall Jack Benny was still 39 when he died. Far too old to die young. I won't disagree with the points you make, but I must tell you that cultural descriptions don't help me understand individuals. I could not function if I had to turn my brain off whenever I encountered a brazen contradiction, yet most people seem to have no problem doing so. Saying that everybody does it leaves me none the wiser. The macro perspective does not truly explain the micro. I agree with Ayn Rand that freedom and capitalism will not survive unless people challenge the ethical premise of altruism, and that will likely depend on their acceptance of reason as an absolute and rationality as a primary virtue. So I would disagree with your libertarian hospitality to Christian values. But then that just restates the perennial Objectivist-libertarian controversy, scarcely a front page headline. Despite all that, it is a true pleasure to see you here on OL and to have a chance to interact with you again. I wish I could post more frequently, but I have to get my beauty sleep. (I'm not sure if that's the real reason, but it will have to do for now.)

Mmm, that may have flown under my radar. BTW, his podcast for today includes a discussion of open vs. closed systems. It's the first question on the podcast. It's useful as tits on a bull, he never addresses Kelley's arguments. The last time I debased myself by listening to a Peikoff podcast (in March, 2009), he was telling his throng how much he enjoyed attending Catholic confirmation services. He said it was cool to attend confirmation ceremonies because, like marriage ceremonies, it is a rite that can have a secular base. One of the most excruciating experiences I endured as a teenager was catechesis, a long period of strictly supervised instruction in the teachings of the Bible consisting of mind-numbing rote memorization, done in preparation for receiving the sacrament of confirmation. Catholic (or, in my case, Episcopal) confirmation is supposed to bring an increase and deepening of “baptismal grace.” According to one source, the purpose of all that tedious, agonizing study is to root the young person more deeply in the divine, uniting him more firmly to Christ, rendering his bond with the Church more perfect and giving the youth a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as a true witness of Christ. [What utter horsebleep!] Catechesis is customarily conferred only on those old enough to “understand” it. As I recall, I was around 13. I vividly remember being asked to study and memorize some of the most arbitrary, irrational garbage imaginable, and I do not recall ever feeling more utterly bewildered by what I was being asked to believe. At a time when I was desperately struggling to understand the world around me, I was being force-fed cognitive poison. I felt as though I were forcibly cast into a living nightmare. And here we have the self-annointed “leader” of the Objectivist movement claiming that Catholic confirmations are just ducky. I can just imagine going through the horror of my own "confirmation" and seeing Peikoff sitting in a pew, bestowing his blessing on my mystical indoctrination and the attempted destruction of my ability to think. He is not an Objectivist in any meaningful sense of the term. I don't know why anyone would care what he had to say about anything.

Are you sure there was a lecture? I've never heard of it, I thought there was just the essay, and that he's in fact publicly refused to discuss the subject further. The truth was revealed in all its henceforth self-evident glory in that essay. I clearly recall a Q & A period during which he did answer some questions regarding "Fact and Value," and I thought it was after a lecture derived from his 'Intellectual Activist' essay. At one point in the Q & A, the self-annointed "intellectual heir" effectively dared anyone in the audience to disagree with him on key points and suffer the consequences. On second thought, I believe this may have been an extended Q & A related to “Fact and Value” rather than a spoken rendition of his essay. It probably occurred at an Objectivist summer seminar.

Hi George, Wow! Amazing how time flies. Can you believe we are sexagenarians now? I must be a much worse prognosticator than you, because I was convinced that Objectivism would have had a huge impact on the world by now. Every day, I am amazed when I hear seemingly intelligent people talking about Jesus Christ, intelligent design, etc., etc. It makes me wonder how they can dress themselves in the morning. I try to be sympathetic and nonjudgmental and make an effort to communicate, but boy-oh-boy, I cannot help but feel some sense of despair. I am not condeming them; I truly would like to understand how they could still be spouting stuff I rejected as totally illogical fifty years ago. Did you ever hear Peikoff's course on "Understanding Objectivism," given soon after Ayn Rand's death? I thought it was terrific and that it suggested he would move Objectivism in a constructive direction of reaching out to those who might disagree on various points. He actually seemed to want to help people understand rather than preach down to them. Alas, that did not last long. His true colors were soon to emerge. As you say, Objectivism is even more of a cult now than when Rand was alive, and I think it is largely a testimony to the emotional power of authoritative moral judgment. Peikoff has assumed the role of the Grand Inquisitor, while offering true believers an easy path to salvation: idolize Rand as perfect in every way and join me in my condemnations of Branden, Kelley, Reisman, ad nauseum. He even said as much in the Q & A period after his "Fact and Value" lecture announcing the Kelley schism. (Oh yeah, and there's a third step in the ascendance to moral purity: you had better agree that Objectivism is a closed system or you are a no-good, worthless, corrupt "tolerationist.") If anyone ever wanted a public demonstration of the power of moral judgment, all they would need to do is ask Peikoff's legions of obedient sycophants if they can do a better job of defending those three positions than Peikoff has. It is sad to see alleged Objectivists try to wallow through that muck. But they obviously feel it does not matter what they say in defending that nonsense: "Father Peikoff likes me if I believe this way, so my soul is safe from persecution." Truly pathetic. For Peikoff's sake, I hope we are right to deny all the silly speculation about an afterlife. If Peikoff ever does cross paths with Rand again in some mystical never-never land, she will surely show him the true meaning of Hell. She invested all that time and energy writing Atlas Shrugged to change the world, and he has done everything he could to bury her ideas under the moralistic cloak of a lunatic fringe. From what I have seen, I think Yaron Brook may be a step in the right direction. He has shown no reluctance to address any audience which he believes might be sympathetic to Rand's ideas, and so far (strangely) Peikoff has given him free reign. Time will tell. (I started to say, "we shall see," and then I remembered I am 62. Sigh.)

It bears repeating that there is no confirmed evidence that Rand designated him as her “intellectual heir”, that is, beyond the rumoured codicil stuffed inside Russell’s teapot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot Just wondering, why does it say “former member” under your picture? Now that you mention it, I do not recall ever reading a statement by Rand endorsing Peikoff as her philosophical “heir” in the same way that she had previously sanctioned Branden (in the original “Afterword” to ATLAS SHRUGGED). I clearly remember a Q&A session following a taped NBI lecture in which Rand explicitly told Branden that he had, in effect, “a blank check” to speak for her. Her introduction to THE OMINOUS PARALLELS was somewhat guarded and delimited to that book, which she had personally overhauled from beginning to end. Perhaps she did have strong reservations about extending any intellectual authority to Peikoff, and for good reason. As her (self-proclaimed?) intellectual heir, he has been a walking-talking disaster. I was a “former member” for a long time and recently rejoined OL after a prolonged leave of absence. I guess Michael will get around to correcting that tag eventually. The main reason for my departure no longer applies and is undeserving of further attention.

Barbara and Robert—Thank you! I really wish I could take full credit for this summation, but I might be accused of plagiarism from the author of the article on Christian fundamentalism. The similarities are quite amazing. The principles are essentially the same. Only the concretes differ. Isn’t it a riot? Peikoff and his sycophants think they are blazing a radical new trail through philosophical history, when, in fact, their version of Objectivism perpetuates the same madness that ushered in the long, barbaric nightmare of the Middle Ages. You can’t ask people to surrender their brains, no matter how wonderfully rational your explicit philosophy might be. As soon as men begin acting like sheep, there’s no telling what new horrors could engulf the world. I heard George H. Smith give an excellent talk on ‘Objectivism and Religion’ back in the early 70s, shortly after I moved to California from Tennessee. I remember thinking that the issue would resolve itself as soon as the Rand-Branden schism was no longer in the forefront. After all, in her PLAYBOY interview, Ayn Rand said that ‘Objectivism is its own defense against those who would treat it as a dogma.’ But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir. When Bush looked into Putin’s eyes, he should have seen the soul of Joseph Stalin. When Rand looked into Peikoff’s eyes, she should have seen the soul of Immanuel Kant.

I was thinking about how I might try to summarize some of the key points of Barbara’s lecture when I came across a website devoted to Christian fundamentalism. One particular passage seemed to say it all. I did have to make a few changes beyond substituting “Objectivism” for “Christianity,” but not all that many. Please note that this is my summation, not Barbara’s. I do not mean to speak for her, and I humbly apologize in advance if I have misrepresented her in any way. Objectivist fundamentalists share important key traits with religious fundamentalists. They are certain that they alone possess true knowledge of the fundamentals of Objectivism and that they therefore represent “true” Objectivism based on the authority of a literally interpreted Ayn Rand. They believe it is their duty to carry on the great battle of modern history, the battle of God (i.e., Rand) against Satan (i.e., the Brandens), of light against darkness, and to stamp out all dissenters who attempt to undermine Objectivism. Faced with this titanic, historical struggle, they condemn any non-orthodox “objectivists” as unfaithful to Rand and therefore not genuinely Objectivist. They call for a return to an inerrant and infallible Objectivist canon based on a purified, idolized image of Rand and her “official” statement of the Objectivist doctrines, from which there shall be no deviation. Any criticism of Rand herself is immediately deemed evil and blasphemous. Fundamentalist leaders typically deny allegations of personal power-lust, but their demand for blind, unquestioning obedience suggests otherwise. To accomplish their imperious, tyrannical goals, they use every means available—including cruel, vitriolic screeds (i.e., PARC), vicious public denunciations based on an appeal to arbitrary moral authority and the flagrant rewriting of history—to defend their ideological domain and propagate their fundamentalist faith and practice.

Wow. Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff both speaking in Las Vegas at the same time. I wonder: Could an avowed Objectivist somehow manage to attend both presentations and not meet the DSM criteria for dissociative identity disorder? Or, at the very least, hallucinogen-dependence?

Freedomfest 2010 will take place at Bally’s Las Vegas from July 8 to July 10 and will feature talks by Steve Forbes, Charles Murray, Rick Santelli of CNBC and many, many more. I am posting this notice here because the conference highlight will undoubtedly be Nathaniel and Barbara Branden discussing the life of Ayn Rand. There will also be a special luncheon event featuring Nathaniel and Barbara. The Freedomfest 2010website states that you must register before April 15 to save $100 on the registration fee.

Victor, You ask: “How am I able to extract anarchism from George’s argument?” This is how: He states that it amounts to tribalism to say that “only non-Americans are fair game.” This drops the context that Americans live in a free society under a government that respects individual rights. This is the essential principle which separates us from Iran, not the geographical area in which we live. (I feel sure he would agree that the real issue is where a person chooses to live, not where they were born.) The fact that George, as an anarchist, does not recognize the moral authority of the US government prevents him from considering anything as relevant other than our national identity. Now—a sad note. After seeing Diana Hseih’s comment at SOLO PASSION about your drawing, Victor, I took another look at it. That is what has provoked me to take some time out of my schedule to post another comment, when I really should be attending to other matters. I ignored the cartoon initially, passing it off as too silly to be worth any attention. But the fact that you portrayed Diana in the nude—and that Michael has endorsed your little prank—has permanently stained “Objectivist Living” as anything but a respectful forum for Objectivist discussion. I have been an outspoken critic of much of what Diana has had to say, but this is disgusting beyond belief. I thought OL wanted to set itself apart as a website that refused to stoop to the level of such insulting, mindless tripe. It is almost as if you wanted to earn the stamp of “immoral” that others have been so eager to throw your way. Congratulations. I’m curious. Kat—are you okay with this? Are other members of OL going to remain silent on this issue—or, much worse, endorse it as Michael has? If so, this may well be my final post. I am embarrassed to call myself a member here. Angie, I can tell you devoted significant time to your post, and that you are very sincere in your questions. If OL decides to become a decent, respectful venue again, I promise to give an equally thoughtful response. Dennis

Dan (belated response), Thanks for the kind words. I sincerely hope you will continue to participate in discussions here. The emotionalism, acrimony and sarcastic vitriol that the current topic has engendered are not typical of Objectivist Living. Most of the discussions tend to be intelligent and respectful and make an effort to avoid disparaging and insulting those who disagree. Kat and Michael deserve credit for creating a unique forum for Objectivist discussion. Sadly, many of the posts on this thread are unworthy of OL. They reflect all the intellectual depth of religionists attacking abortionists as baby-killers and murderers. You demonstrate considerable skill at thinking in principle, and—as the current thread clearly indicates--we can use all of that we can get. Michael, I will look forward to reading your clarification of how you disagree with the Objectivist argument (as shown in my previous post). Thanks for taking the time to further clarify your views. Brant, I suppose the main reference you are asking about is SOLO PASSION. I regret describing the anarchist argument as “George’s argument,” since I certainly have no business speaking for him. (I have edited my original post to reflect this.) I am aware that he supported the invasion of Afghanistan, although I have no idea how he (as an anarchist) would go about defending that view. “Dennis’ argument” and the Objectivist argument are certainly identical. If you find fault with either of the arguments I presented, please let me know where. Victor, Sorry, I will have to postpone a response until later in the week. Reality (and the inexorable demands of daily living) beckons… Dennis

Michael, Your last post to me (#280) basically declined to offer any responses to my aguments. None of the Rand quotations cited by you even begin to contradict Rand’s principles regarding the delegation of an individual’s right of self-defense to the government, or a free nation’s right of territorial sovereignty. "Disproving" my position in this way amounts to setting up a smokescreen of verbal obfuscation (combined with some underhanded implications that quoting Rand is somehow inappropriate). We are always “left with our own thinking.” How else are we going to apply principles to concrete situations? You seem to be operating on the principle that you have already proven your case that ARI is guilty of tribalism/collectivism, and that therefore you do not need to argue it further. I submit that that you are aware (on some level) that your case is in fact indefensible, and this is your way of evading the issue. Quoting Rand extensively and then announcing to the world that we must toss out her thinking because the quotes prove that she contradicted herself will not work. To begin with, they do no such thing. But beyond that, you have to show how she is wrong. You have not done that. She made clear logical arguments that nation’s have the right to act in self-defense based on the delegation of that moral authority from individual citizens. That is the Objectivist premise underlying the positions on war adopted by ARI and Biddle. You have said nothing to disprove the Objectivist position. Victor applauded George Smith’s comments on another website to the effect that Biddle’s defenders are advocating views suggestive of tribalism. I’m curious is you are prepared to accept the consequences of George’s logic. No doubt you are aware (Victor may not be) that George is an anarchist. Given the premises of anarchism, George may have some basis for his arguments. He could (potentially, since I obviously cannot speak for him) defend his case as follows: Individuals have the right to be free from the initiation of physical force. Governments have no legitimate authority to act on behalf of their citizens, and thus cannot properly exercise the use of physical force in a given geographical territory. No citizen in any nation has any right of self-defense against the citizens of predator states, because no government in fact represents its citizens. Individuals in a predatory dictatorship who have not individually initiated force have the right to be free from foreign aggression in war. Any conflict between nations amounts to my tribe against your tribe. Note that this argument (the anarchist argument, which I previously mistakenly called 'George's argument') requires the inherent illegitimacy of all government as a premise. George's non-Objectivist views would naturally lead him in that direction. Are you prepared to endorse anarchism? Because that is where your arguments (that governments, in effect, have no moral authority to represent their citizens) should naturally lead you. Here is the Objectivist argument, in essence: Individuals have the right to be free from the initiation of physical force. Individuals delegate the right of retaliatory force to governments, in order to create a society where force is excluded from human relationships and to place the use of force under objective control. Government is the [objective] entity empowered with exclusive responsibility for exercising the use of physical force in a given geographical territory. If government abuses the use of retaliatory force and initiates the use of force against foreign citizens, the citizens of the aggressor state must take the consequences. Since they effectively empower that government, they must take responsibility for restraining it. Of course, it is very relevant to note that a society based on anarchism—where force is not placed under objective control--will inevitably lead to tribal warfare of just the kind you describe, where there is no such thing as the individual rights of the citizens of a free nation. But that is more logic which you may prefer to bury in more extensive verbal obfuscation. Dennis

Michael, Your quote: It is also what Ayn Rand "preached." Ayn Rand (from “The Roots of War”) From “Collectivized ‘Rights’ “ That is how Ayn Rand applied the moral-political principle of individual rights to the national level. Maybe you can help me understand how that leads to moral equivalence and collectivism. I can’t wait. Your quote: In a prior post, you did say that dropping bombs on civilian populations would be justified That last criterion—“when military-to-military options are no longer effective”—amounts to saying: as a last resort or when all else fails. In other words, when large numbers of our own military have been killed. This can only mean that you consider the civilians of an enemy nation to have more rights than those of our soldiers. And it is clear from your condemnation of Biddle and others who support his proposals (at least in principle) that you believe the targeting of civilians as a preventative measure to reduce the risk of American loss of life is evil. And that, once again, is altruism. I appreciate the general tone of courtesy in your posts, but please make an effort to avoid accusing me of intentional misrepresentation. I do not mind apologizing for my mistakes, if and when I make them. I assure you that I am doing the best I can to understand your perspective. If you would like for me to discontinue participation in this discussion (or participation in OL), all you need to do is assail my honesty in the best ARI/Objectivist tradition. Isn’t it interesting how this issue has effectively reversed the moralistic attitudes of the two Objectivist camps? It is now the TAS contingent that is spewing all the contemptuous hatred. Can’t we all just get along? (Sorry. I couldn’t resist a little levity.) Dennis

Michael. Your quote: This is an interesting argument for moral equivalence between the US and Iran. It implies that, once war begins, might makes right and it makes no moral difference who wins or loses, regardless of which nation was the aggressor. It’s like the school yard counselor who tells two boys caught fighting: “I don’t care who started it!” But that counselor is wrong, and so are you. In a prior post, I made the following statement, which is partially reminiscent of your comment: However, I added the following at the end: The police in that situation are using retaliatory force against the initiator, and they have every moral right to do so as made clear in the following quote from Ayn Rand: You have prohibited the US government from dropping bombs that would kill civilians. And advocated minimizing civilian deaths on both sides. (Of course, you have also said that it was okay to flatten Hiroshima, so forgive me if I get a little confused about which side I am arguing against at times.) You do not consider that a severe limitation? You have also endorsed the Just War principle of “proportionality,” which amounts to recasting the 'Sanction of the Victim' into a rule of war. How do you square that with your statement that Putting the kind of shackles on the military that you have advocated (at least some of the time) will lead to the sacrifice of American lives. That’s altruism. Here’s a little quote from Ayn Rand regarding Vietnam: What part of “all of its power” strikes anyone as ambiguous? Does that sound like someone who would be ashamed of the Objectivist viewpoints on war put forth by ARI? Here’s an additional thought about the expressed fears of risking the loss of a fledgling Ayn Rand due to the bombing of civilian centers during a war. Ayn Rand considered We, The Living to be a kind of philosophical autobiography. Kira Argounova—with whom she explicitly identified in terms of essential values and convictions--refused to conform to the Soviet system, and eventually died trying to escape to freedom across the border in the snow. Writing in The Objectivist in January, 1969, Ayn Rand wrote that, despite her awareness of the futility of political protests in Russia, she would “probably have been one of those protestors in the street” if she had not been lucky enough to flee the country when she did. I think it is reasonable to presume that she would have joined an underground resistance movement at some point in the hopes of eventually taking down the Soviet regime. It is a well-known fact that, in Nazi Germany, the resistance movement welcomed the Allied bombing of German cities and the disruption it caused. They hoped to use the breakdown of law and order to their advantage and mobilize the resistance forces to take control of German cities. There is little doubt that Ayn—like Kira--would have been more than willing to risk her life for a chance to live in freedom. Dennis

Dan, Yes, absolutely, although I would change your wording: “…if doing so were the best way to minimize the loss of further American lives.”Although I realize you are emphasizing a principle here-- that attacking non-combatants in war is not inherently immoral—I think it is important to clarify that Biddle specifically argued for targeting the Islamists, not civilians as such. (I believe Andre may have alluded to this in a prior post.) You expressly refer to civilians, rather than innocent civilians. With regard to the truly innocent, I think that Brook and Epstein expressed the point most clearly in their article analyzing the evil of ‘Just War Theory”: Those who attack Biddle for deliberately targeting innocents use a bizarre form of argumentation. They condemn the bombing of mosques and massadrahs because we have no way of distinguishing the Islamists from the non-Islamists that may be occupying them. (They imply that that we should let the Islamists be free to plan their destruction of the free world because they cannot be isolated.) Then, in the next breath, they imply that Biddle is advocating the targeting of innocents. This strikes me as pure altruism masquerading as humanitarianism.Sadly, I agree with you that “most Libertarians and most of the TOC crowd” seem to lack moral self-confidence in applying the principle of egoism to a nation at war. And I fully agree that “The ARI speakers are the only ones with the moral courage to take the proper stance on this issue.” This thread has become a fascinating (and, frankly, somewhat discouraging) study in some key differences among Objectivists. It is amazing to see how many people seem eager to condemn me because I consistently defend egoism. (For the most part, they do so without directly referencing me, but the implications are clear.) Perhaps this is one reason why Objectivism to this point has been a dismal failure as a philosophical movement: because so many of its alleged adherents are so eager to apologize for their own ideas. I realize that last statement—along with many of my prior arguments—may have distanced me from most OL members. If I am now to be shunned as evil and a leper, so be it. There is no value to be found in any friendship that requires that I live as a fraud. Michael, To my profound amazement, you argue against the following principle: You say: You clearly do not realize it, but you are the one advocating tribalism and collectivism. The essence of tribalism is the principle that the individual's identity derives from membership in the group, that the tribe or collective has some mysterious value but the individual does not. Americans merely want to live in freedom. They are simply asking to be left alone—they want to be independent, i.e., moral and rational. The same cannot be said of the citizens of a predator state. They cannot claim equal moral status and continue to help sustain a statist entity which preys on others who ask for nothing but their freedom. Consequently, they look to their ethnic-racial or national or religious identity for their moral significance. Both Nazism and Islamism are obvious examples of this. In urging that we severely limit our efforts at self-defense, it is precisely the tribalists that you are defending. Further, if the individuals of a free nation are not free to defend themselves in the most efficient way possible from foreign attack, they are being denied the moral right to act as ends in themselves, and have instead become the means to some “higher” end—that of sacrificing themselves to the needs of the group (in this case, their enemies). That is the essence of altruism-collectivism. Dennis

Michael, I would have opposed the bombing of concentration camps, for the same reason that many Jewish groups did when this was proposed during the war. Bombing the camps would likely kill Jews imprisoned at the camps with little hope of actually stopping the extermination of other Jews. Yes, as I said, the Jews who did nothing are at least minimally responsible for their fate. If the Green party began to talk about the need to stop blond, blue-eyed atheists from contaminating the gene pool, and I did nothing about it, and it eventually led to my own incarceration and death, then yes, I would say I was partially to blame for doing nothing to stop it. I have a moral obligation to fight for my own life and happiness, and if I don’t, then to that extent I am blameworthy. But there are degrees of evil, and obviously the individuals pushing the extermination program are incomparably more evil. (Nothing personal against the Greens.) Brant, I am not an expert on history by any means, but World War II suggests that overpowering military power can definitely take the wind out of the Zeitgeist. If nothing else, bombs and technology can convince savages to crawl back in their holes and stay there until they get so bored that they decide to test us again. And, then, hopefully, the Great Satan will give them same lesson in unabashed capitalist greed they got the last time. Dennis