John Day

On last night's Stossel, the Branden affair was alluded to by an audience member although he was never mentioned by name. Yaron Brook said that we should focus on issues not personalities, but he still admitted that Rand had made mistakes in her private life. As the Objectivist movement is now led by people who've never met Ayn Rand, Objectivists are now beginning to have a more analytical view of Rand, at least outside the realm of philosophy. In that sense, I believe that the bulk of Objectivists are now "Open Objectivsts." There are still going to be tremendous philosophic disputes among Objectivist camps, but I don't believe any serious person currently holds up Rand as a perfect paragon of rationality.

Well, that claim was obviously not true because the history of Germany over the last 65 years has shown that the German people (at least those in West Germany) did just fine with their current space. But even if that claim was true, it would still be immoral to invade a country on such grounds because a need is not a claim. A country is not free to invade another country for the purpose of gaining resources. Poland had not initiated force against Germany or any other country, therefore, their sovereignty was in tact. As for the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War was retaliation for force that had been initiated against the colonialists. The Founders sought to achieve their ends through peaceful, political means, but they were blocked at every turn and they came to the conclusion that the only way to exist as a free people was to declare independence from Great Britain. This was not a move that was taken lightly. As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration: ..."That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ..."Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

I'm not in favor of draw-and-quartering anyone, but I would support hanging him as was done with the ten men convicted at Nuremberg and like the State of Israel did with Adolf Eichmann. "Should he have been killed while in Landsberg writing Mein Kampf?" Perhaps, but not for his propagandizing, but for having attempted to overthrow the Bavarian Government by force. The argument has often been made that Hitler came to power through legal and democratic means, but that was only after he tried to come to power through illegal and violent means. In my mind, anyone who tries to obtain power through physical force is a person who must be wiped out, not so much for retributive justice, but for one's own defense. Certainly, by the time Hitler initiated force against the Republic of Poland, he was worthy of execution. The use of warfare for expansionist purposes, as opposed to self-defense, is completely unacceptable and that's why the United Kingdom and France went to war with Germany.

Ayn Rand very aptly called religion "a primitive form of philosophy." As she explains it, it was "the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy." I would disagree with atheists such as Christopher Hitchens who assert that religion poisons everything. Over the centuries, it's given people a moral code to live their lives and has built civilization. Obviously, it's also done great harm to humanity (and I would argue has outlived its purpose) but the positive contributions do have to be recognized. Dennis Prager once posed a question to Christopher Hitchens: "If you were in an American city that you were not familiar with, alone, late at night, and you couldn't find your car, in a bad neighborhood, and you saw 10 men walking toward you, would you or would you not be relieved to know that they had just attended a Bible class?" Hitchens responded, "Not really." I would say that I would feel relieved because it meant that I was dealing with a group of men who were committed to morality, even if I disagreed with certain aspects of their morality.

Mr. Thompson: Barack Obama (Obviously) Wesley Mouch: Larry Summers (Hank Paulson under Bush) Orrin Boyle: Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman of Goldman Sachs (You may be noticing a trend here) Dr. Floyd Ferris: John Holdren Fred Kinnan: Andy Stern

I regularly see OPAR in the Philosophy section of major book chains, I have never seen a copy of "The Ominous Parallels" in person. Take that for what it's worth.

Rand quit smoking when she was confronted with objective evidence that smoking was damaging her health. You can make the argument that she was guilty of evasion for many years, but she eventually came to the rational conclusion. Reality decides. The rational man survives and flourishes. The irrational man is wiped out, unless he receives assistance from the rational man (or steals from him).

If a mentally ill man wishes to inflict pain upon himself and bangs his head against the wall to achieve that end, is he behaving rationally? Rationality is not just used to decide how to achieve an end, a rational man has to determine what the proper ends are to begin with.

The suicide bomber is clearly irrational, he is working for his own destruction and the destruction of others. The case of a man wishing to climb Mount Everest is more complex. He's not actively working for his destruction, but he engaging in a potentially deadly activity. To him, the feeling the achievement and/or exhilaration that he will find on the top of mountain is worth the potential risk of losing his life. My uncle, who has climbed Mt. McKinley, has said that he would never climb Everest because it's too dangerous (and too expensive). His life was more valuable than the feeling that would be achieved by climbing Everest. As is noted in Galt's speech, "achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death." To achieve life, we must be happy, and in order for us to be happy, we may have engage in activities that have some risk to them. One must carefully analyze the risks and then decide whether it's worth it.

To the extent that those cultures are able to survive, it's because they perform rational acts. (Hunting and gathering, and perhaps even a limited form of agriculture.) I'll admit that people from a primitive culture would be more likely to survive on a desert island because they come from a culture that rewards people with survivor skills, whereas modern civilization reward people of more abstract abilities. Peikoff probably wouldn't not survive in the savage's civilization, but I would venture that the savage would not survive in Peikoff's civilization (except through the generosity of the productive). Different societies value different things. It is not until the basic means of survival are met that civilization is possible. For example, things like philosophy and literature weren't possible until agriculture freed up people's time and allowed them to focus on questions other than "Where's my next meal coming from?"

Holiday themed articles certainly aren't new for ARI writers, but Onkar Ghate wrote a very fine piece for US News and World Report that avoided some of the banality and redundancy of past pieces and gives a little bit more of a personal touch. Check it out: http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/12/18/commercialism-only-adds-to-joy-of-the-holidays.html

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it." - Atlas Shrugged, page 1018 More simply, a man's code of values and rationality will determine his survival.

You could make the same argument with the first Star Wars. Luke seems to be more distraught over the death of Obi-Wan than Leia is over the destruction of her planet. But properly mourning a loss like that would seriously detract from a film's plot.

While I disagree with the pro-redistribution positions King took late in his life, "Letter From Birmingham Jail" is a incredible piece of work showing King as a rigorous philosophic thinker.

My guess would be somewhere around 1973. Abortion was becoming much more prevalent of a political issue because of Roe vs. Wade. Before Roe, abortion was an issue for the states and not something would receive much attention in a presidential race. Rand's primary objection to Reagan in the 1976 primaries was based on Reagan's anti-abortion views and that Ford was vaguely pro-choice.

I'll probably find the film's message to be overbearing, but I'm still very interested in the film from a technical standpoint and I very much enjoy big action movies. I'm not sure if I'll see it yet.

Spirited but good-natured discussions are practically an institution in my family‘s Thanksgiving and Christmas parties. My family isn’t crazy religious but the altruistic tenants of Catholicism has a major impact on their thinking. I’m certainly the most ardent defender of individualism and capitalism in the room. I always enjoy my conversations with my very altruistic college professor aunt who for instance, supports mandatory national service for those in their early 20s. We both have a respect for each other’s intellect and that allows us to have a more fruitful exchange of ideas. There are some family friends who occasionally show up at these functions who are obnoxious in their leftist views, but I don’t think they’ll be there this year. One didn't like me referring to Cornel West as a "celebrity professor" and me defending Larry Summers actions toward him. I hope everyone on the board has a fantastic Thanksgiving!

The Weekly Standard isn't as inherently mystical as the National Review, so editorially, they would be more inclined to review Rand on her merits. Interestingly, neoconservatives could almost be seen as secular defenders of the religious right. (Examples include Bill Kristol's early advocacy of Sarah Palin and the Standard's frequent defense of "intelligent design.") They know that the particulars of religion are nonsense, but they don't trust the people to hold a morality based in reason and instead must have a morality based in faith. Consider Irving Kristol's famous quotation: "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

The SEPTA strike here in Philadelphia is entering its second week. Suburban Station has filled with long queues during the morning and evening rush hours because the subway lines and buses have been closed down and only the Regional Rail is still operating. The Inquirer told a story of a man in New Jersey whose commute to the King of Prussia Mall went from an hour and a half to over three hours. There was another story of a high school student who walked eight miles to maintain his perfect attendance record. It’s not often that a major newspaper reports on the triumph of the human spirit in everyday life, but there is was in full glory. Over the course of the week, I've been thinking about what the proper ethics of going on strike are, particularly for public employees. I've thought about the Calvin Coolidge quote: "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time." But the strike that Coolidge was talking about was a police strike, and the police department is the important and most legitimate service a government provides. Transportation is a secondary service, and in an ideal society, all transportation would be privately-owned. Despite that, the realities of life present a situation in which thousands of productive workers are dependent on using SEPTA to get to their job in a reasonable length of time. This strike has made harder for them to live up to their full productivity. There are obviously situations in which going on strike is moral, that's what the whole plot of Atlas Shrugged was about. An individual has the right to fight for his interests even if it is detrimental to the society around him. As the men of the mind withdrew from society, society completely broke down and many innocent people suffered greatly. If John Galt’s goal was to stop the motor of the world, than Transport Workers Union Local 234 President Willie Brown’s goal is to stop the motor of Philadelphia. So then why is John Galt a hero and Willie Brown a villain? One difference is that a union that goes on strike denies its individual members of their freedom to work while the strike is ongoing. In contrast, every striker in Atlas Shrugged was on strike on his own accord. The other difference is a public’s expectation of services. If individuals are to coerced into paying for public services, they should at least have the confidence that those services will always be available. In his radio address, Galt tells the world, "We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you." [emphasis original] This certainly is not the case for the transport workers. SEPTA receives a great deal of funding of the city and state and would not be able to survive as a private institution. If Michael Nutter wants to win over the appreciation to the people of Philadelphia, he should do what Ronald Reagan did in response to the Air Traffic Controllers’ strike. With unemployment at over 10%, there are thousands of competent people who would be willing and able to do the job.

House's facial expressions make the whole scene. Perhaps the endless promos during the World Series will have sufficiently brainwashed me into watching House and Bones.

My reaction: The Republican Party can still be the party of suburbanites if they stay off the social issues and focus on jobs and economic recovery. Christie didn't run a great campaign, but he didn't need to, Corzine was such a horrible governor that he was never going to get re-elected. The polls high showing for Daggett was just the voters expressing frustration about a horrible field, but in the end, the anybody-but-Corzine vote was going to win out. In Virginia, McDonnell ran a fantastic campaign by promoting himself as the "jobs governor" and steering clear of his social conservative past. He avoided all the mistakes Jerry Kilgore made against Tim Kaine in 2005. As for NY-23, the national conservatives overplayed their hand. Sarah Palin and the like should have never gotten involved, and the Republican establishment lining up behind Hoffman took away from his independent credentials. The 23rd seems like a pretty independent minded area and they didn't react well to having a bunch of people come in and tell them how to vote. That said, I'm glad that Hoffman ran and that the Republican caucus won't have to deal with someone like Dede Scozzafava, a supporter of card-check and the Obama stimulus. It just goes to show the importance of primaries and that the voters, not party bosses, should decide who a party's nominee is going to be.

Kirsch claims that Rand's source of popularity was her ability "to convince so many people, especially young people, that they could be geniuses without being in any concrete way distinguished." If that was the message her readers took away, they must not have reading her very closely. Productive achievement, according to Rand, is man's noblest activity and she would have little time for a "you're perfect just the way you are" mindset. There is a tremendous difference with Rand's rational selfishness and the amoral narcissism that is seen so much today. See Rand's essay: "Selfishness Without A Self." http://freedomkeys.com/withoutaself.htm

Christopher, Rand did not believe that man possesses any form of instinct. She believed that all of man’s knowledge is obtained through consciousness and understanding of abstractions. While I would agree with her that that is the fundamental difference between humans and animals, I would add that humans still possess a limited sense of instinct. The refusal of Rand to admit to the existence of human instinct is one of biggest flaws of her philosophy and largely the reason why she dismissed evolution as “just a theory.” But regardless of her lack of understanding biology (and arguably human nature), she still wrote the best one sentence summary of morality I have ever encountered: “All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.” As I apply that to my understanding, I would say that an instinctual act, so long as it’s “proper to the life of a rational being” is moral; but one should never abdicate his rational faculties in favor of instinct.

Did Barbara Branden ever make the claim that her book was "balanced and impartial"? Peikoff's disdain aside, I would say that is very difficult for someone who knew Ayn Rand for as long as Mrs. Branden did. It's certainly very interesting to hear someone's inside account, but emotions, whether positive or negative are going to color that account in some fashion. I haven't read The Passion of Ayn Rand, so I can't say to what extent it's "impartial."

Michael Sandel's course simply called “ Justice” is one of the most popular courses at Harvard. So popular that WGBH Boston has created a series based on his lectures entitled Justice: What‘s the Right Thing to Do?. I was first made aware of the series when I saw Sandel interviewed by Charlie Rose. While I disagreed with Sandel’s leftist conclusions on redistribution of wealth and other issues, I was intrigued by a series that discusses the philosophic roots of morality and what past philosophers have contributed to society’s notions of it. An episode of particular interest to me was Episode Six entitled Mind Your Motive, in which Sandel introduces his students to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Sandel does an impressive job of explaining Kant in easy-to-understand language and I was actually interested enough to take some notes to summarize his lecture, or you can watch the whole thing here: http://justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=13 (55:14 in length) Sandel starts off by explaining that according to Kant, the source of rights comes from being a rational being and autonomous. (I found this interesting because it’s not far off from Rand’s view of the source of rights) In contrast to Jeremy Batham, Kant does not view pain and pleasure as the "sovereign master" of man, instead our rationality puts us above animals. Kant believes that freedom is when we act against our nature. If a man eats food to satisfy hunger, he is not acting freely, because of his natural inclination to desire food. To be free or autonomous is to act according to a law I give myself. (I.E., not inclination). Freedom is to chose the end for its own sakes, not for means. Shifting to Kant’s view of morality, Kant believes that it’s wrong to use humans as means. Rather, we should respect them as ends. So what gives an act moral worth according to Kant? Motive and intention; good will is good in itself. Kant presents a struggle between duty and inclination. For example, if a shopkeeper gives a customer exact change he believes it to be in his self-interest rather than out of a sense of duty, is he acting morally? Kant says no, his act is only moral if duty is his motive. At around this time, one of Sandel’s students asks a very perceptive question. If being autonomous means acting according to a law I give myself, then what stops morality from being completely subjective? The Kantian response is that the universal rationality of man makes for a universal morality. (An answer which I find very unconvincing) Sandel then gets into an explanation of Kant’s formulations of categorical imperative such as the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity as an End. Obviously, as an Objectivist, I disagree strongly with Kant’s notions of morality (for Ayn Rand and myself, self-interest is the very essence and purpose of morality); but I always appreciate the chance to get a better understanding of philosophic ideas. One cannot fully debate an idea until one understands it.