RightJungle

Mary--I'm glad you found the article worth your while. In fact, so much so, that I am planning to take your advice and try reviewing the book after all. I've never done that before and it might be a good exercise.

Hmmmm. . ."Higher level Objectivists". . .That's just not how I think of myself at all. Higher level human is more like it. "What the heck are all those pathetic little things down there, anyway?" P.S. Mary: If you read the book--especially this book--you are qualified to review it. By "higher level Objectivists" I meant "more highly educated", or "more knowledgable Objectivists". Got a little careless there with my meanings. Read your article. I will look forward to seeing your new write up.

X-Ray brought up Nathaniel Branden's article: "In his article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosphy of Ayn Rand", Nathaniel Branden wrote: "Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. " Reading what he wrote here, it is obvious that he mis-interpreted what Ayn was saying. That may have been caused by his exposure to her controlling personality, but these words that he attributes to her and which are repeated else where by her actually make perfect sense. Her philosophy is described as an integrated, non-contradictory philosophy for living on this earth. And it sure looks that way to me. Sometimes posters here say that there are contradictions in Objectivism. But I can't see them myself. I would like to have them pointed out. As to Branden's claim that her statement leads to a religious following by her fans - that obviously happened, but that is more a statement about the fans under Rand's direct influence than about Objectivism. And another thing - Rand herself expected Objectivism to be expanded upon by others. Why is there so much talk about open and closed systems of Objectivism? Of course it is open - all knowledge is open ended. If I could make one wish about the split, it would be that it had not happened - that the players would have worked things out like the intellectuals they were but didn't live up to, and helped each other reach even greater heights - including Leonard.

I am bothered by this scene from the trailer: Dagny in Reardon's office saying, "I'm gambling on your metal .....it had better be everything you say it is." That strikes me as very un-Randian. Dagny didn't think she was gambling on the metal. She studied Reardon's reports and the formulas for the metal and made an engineering student's judgment that it was good. I hate nitpicking, but I don't think lines like this reflect the characters very well. Of course, it is a trailer and all of the lines are out of context. Still..... I agree with another post here that Ellis Wyatt seemed different than I would have expected. Of course, I also thought Angelina Jolie would be a great Dagny. Go figure.

I've been reading the book. I'm currently in "Metaethics: Objectivist and Analytic", Irfan Khawaja's article, "The Foundations of Ethics: Objectivism and Analytic Philosophy". What lured me to the book was the name Ayn Rand. I had already read Tara Smith's book on Rand's Normative Ethics, so this looked like something worthwhile, too. The Editors said that they aimed the book at academic philosophers. That is NOT me, but it is fun to read something with a new intellectual flavor and I'm actually finding some further clarification of Rand's thinking just by coming at it from another point of view. Of course I keep my philosophy dictionary handy. For some reason, though I understood the fact that you can, if needed, trace your abstractions back to "the evidence of the senses", I had been sloughing off a little on the importance of accurate concept definitions to understand reality objectively. I don't think I will ever lose track of that again because it gets a good treatment in this article and I was just looking for that uderstanding again. I'm not qualified to write a review of a book like this, so I will leave that to you higher level Objectivists. Suffice it to say, I love this stuff and I'm eagerly looking forward to what you all have to say about it.

O.K., Adam. Your explanation is very helpful. I will start paying attention to all of that as well. Time is the determining factor, but I see a relationship between what you say here and what one of my Iowa tea party felllows said about his view of the 14th amendment as bad. I was surprised, but didn't investigate it yet. Now I will. Thank you.

Adam, Could you expound on that last post a little? What are your main points and what is your judgment about them?

I think there are a number of reasons. 1) She found dude-on-dude to be "disgusting" (her words). I'm thinking it might be because she falsely equated gay male sex with anal sex, and many people do find anal sex quite unpleasant. However, it is an error to equate "gay sex" with anal sex, obviously, since straights can do it and quite a few gays and bis do not. 2) I think she had her share of gender issues (read "Ayn Rand; The Woman Who Would Not Be President" in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand). She was a genius in a social environment which regarded intelligence as male (these days it seems to have been reversed; intelligence is socially emasculated, at least amongst men). Thus she needed some sort of way to claim femininity for herself. Note that Dagny Taggart (a character Rand openly conceded was an escapist character for her) has a certain level of androgyny (by typical standards) to her, both in personality and appearance. 3) She loved the golden age of Hollywood. These films were pretty traditional in their understanding of sex and sexuality. The Passion of Ayn Rand makes it pretty clear that her childhood concept of joy was basically built on these films and via certain pieces of music. I wouldn't be surprised if she internalized everything in those films. 4) She seemed to understand sex entirely as an act of conquest (typical of not only her time but also pretty much all of Christianity-influenced civilization; male sexuality is portrayed as brutal and violent almost without exception... the Radical Feminists believe this too). Sex between peers without a power differential just doesn't 'compute' to this kind of vision of sex (of course, most gay sex seems to be conquest-oriented, but to Rand this wouldn't make sense). I think Rand had a few contradictions in her own psyche with this... she kept the idea of sex-as-conquest, but tried to preserve dignity and worthiness for both participants. Thus she kind of settled on the "noble hunter and worthy prey" view of things, a "Red Sonja Complex" you could call it. I consider myself an Objectivist, but it seems pretty clear to me that Objectivists need to stop trying to justify Ayn Rand's sexual psychology (I would like to make it clear that I am not accusing anyone in particular of doing this!). She, unfortunately, was not nearly as iconoclastic and free-thinking about sex as she was about ethics. Good Answer! I really like to see this kind of easy going, but well thought out analysis.

Adam, This event sounds like exactly the kind of resource that I would be able to use. I took Michael Stuart Kelley's advice to heart and did a little Googling on Koch Industries and found their downloadable Newsletter called "Discover". That looks like a pretty good place to start gettig to know about them. They are definitely from the White Hat class. Also thank you for your info on the Common Cause vs. the Justices battle. This is good information for lay people like myself who are seeking to also be a little influential in my community. A couple of the Objectivists of Des Moines group are coming out tomorrow. Between your post and Stephen Boydstun's posts, we will have some good new material to bring to bear on what we are doing. Thank you for being so thorough in your replys! Stephen, I read the Tibor Machan article "Libertarian Justice: A Natural Rights Approach". I like his discussion of rights. I hit one snag, though, that I haven't quite figured out yet. He says, "However, Natural Rights Libertarianism, which is the one richest in normative content, does not regard the rights of human beings as normatively primary." Maybe I need to get out Tara's "Normative Ethics of Ayn Rand.." again so I can check my thinking but I think that I have been treating individual rights as normatively primary in the philosophical area of Politics and Economics. I use statements like "The Individual is the Unit of Value in Politics." Given that the sole purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, wouldn't using individual rights as the value against which all statutes of law are measured make natural rights normative? Ah, I think I just answered my own question. Even though Individual rights pertain to action, they are not a model of behavior. They are the value that the behavior is going to act to gain or keep and thereby provide a way to describe the standard of behavior necessary to protect rights and political freedom. It is the behavior that is normative - that is, it is about normative ethics. Getting there, inch by inch. There's a scene in "Broken Arrow" when John Travolta is getting all excited about his "project" beginning to come to fruition and, eyes shining and a big smile on his face, he enthuses "Ain't it cool?" Except that my project is of a different nature altogether, I know exactly how that feels. Objectivist Living is proving to be a great place to visit! Mary Lee

Stephen, A couple of weeks ago I received an order of books from mises.org and one of the books that I had ordered was Liberty & Justice edited by Tibor Machan. It contains 4 essays: 1) Justice, Luck, Liberty by Anthony de Jasay 2) The exercise of Liberty and the Moral Psychology of Justice by Jonathan Jacobs 3) Liberty, Gender, and the Family by Jennifer McKitrick 4) Libertarian Justice: A Natural Rights Approach by Tibor R. Machan I had put the book in a stack in my office and was going to come back to it "soon". I will go ahead and read Machan's essay first. I will chase down the others soon, too.

No write-up yet because politics is getting very busy in Iowa. But here is what I have grasped so far: 1) There has been a truckload of seemingly illogical and anti-individual rights decisions delivered by State and Federal Supreme Courts. 2) There have been half a truckload of seemingly logical and pro-individual rights decision delivered by State and Federal Supreme Courts. 3) Thanks to those of you who have sent me off to research the subject, I am now convinced that none of this is Rocket Science, so why was it so hard to get? 4) I read a half dozen decisions that were recommended to me by you. That was very helpful. Nothing like a good example to help clear up misapprehensions. 5) I have read about half of the Federalist Papers, with emphasis on Alexander Hamilton's 78th which addresses the judiciary. That probably gave me the best fuel for my argument against impeaching the balance of Iowa's Supreme Court. Our state constitution provides for the Court acting as an appellate and a CHANCERY court. That last is what gave them the o.k. to correct the inequality before the law of gay and lesbian couples who were not allowed to marry and now are. It also is the basis in law for them to direct the government clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. This is not inventing a new right or passing a new law. So they have not actually committed the malfeasance that their detractors are claiming. In #78, Hamilton cleared up a question that was kind of be-deviling me - I see us electing our representatives by majority vote and our states put all of their electoral college votes on the candidate who wins the majority of votes in the states, etc. and I wondered how, then, does our government control against majority rule? Hamilton answers that question when he points out that the Constitution itself is the expression of the will of the people. It is the fact that it was written by their representatives in 1787 and was thereafter ratified by the states that made it the voice of "We the People". It allows for modification of the voice of "We the People" through a slow and rather painful process of amendment, but it can be done. In the meantime, the legislative branch is expected to pass laws that can be interpreted as constitutional. If they don't, the executive branch gets a shot at vetoing a bill that it judges to be unconstitutional. If he/she doesn't veto, then the judiciary is expected to bring their non-politicized judgment to bear on the constitutionality of the law and to strike it down if it is deemed unconstitutional. No guarantees of perfection, but the cards were definitely stacked in favor of the final result being "the right thing." I particularly like Hamilton's description of the judiciary as standing guard over the constitution against attack by the passions of the citizenry - passions that would cool and be seen as poorly directed after the passage of time. In addition the judiciary is protecting against "men of ill humours" who whip up the public against the constitution or executive or even the legislature. Our man of ill humours in Iowa is Bob Vander Plaats who has taken off on another "impeach the justices" campaign. I worry about him because of his response to my question about the minimum wage laws. He was totally for them.....and he's a Republican (I Know - So what?). So, if you are still interested, keep those recommended sources of information coming. I will continue to study this subject because I really, really, really want to understand it as thoroughly as possible. Also, I'm trying to make sure that I actually do understand the foundation of and the meaning of Individual rights. If you have any sources on that outside of The Virtue of Selfishness please point me to it. Oh, one other thing. Congresswoman Michelle Bachman is going to be in Des Moines tomorrow to meet with the grass roots organizations leaders. I was invited, but asked one of the young men in the Des Moines Objectivist group to attend in my place. I think he is a smart, capable Objectivist, and I need to not be doing so much myself. He provided me with a Reason Magazine article in addition to the one provided by Stephen Boydstun that showed Scalia to be an imperfect champion of Individual Rights. I'm kind of curious about what the experienced Objectivists think of Michelle, if you do think about her. Thanks for your attention and help, ya all. Mary Lee P.S. On Fox, their medical expert is arguing that the U.N. bill of rights says that health care is a RIGHT and he asked the question "How can we provide health care without doing damage to our Constitutional rights?" We're really making progress, aren't we. Nothing's easy anymore.

The Art of Living Consciously and Taking Responsibility are expansions of a couple of his pillars. Good detail for those of us who admire his work. I still think fondly about Breaking Free and The Disowned Self because I found them when I was very young and much in need of their insights. My copies were paper back and wore out so I no longer have them. Sigh.

Anita, Just came here for a little "recreation" and saw your post. In the old days I didn't call myself an Objectivist because I thought that I didn't know enough. I still think that I have some pretty ignorant stretches of mental real estate on that subject, but now I constantly introduce myself as an Objectivist because the isms are becoming important in terms of offering shortcuts to people who want to know from whence you are coming and because I have a little to say on the subject and hope to arouse some curiosity about it. The more time I spend in studying the Objectivist philosophy, the less terrifying the daily news is to me. More importantly, I'm becoming acquainted with other O'ists and so have others to turn to when I need answers in an area with which I'm not knowledgable. In short - being an Objectivist makes me happy. May you find some happy times here in OL land.

Stephen Boydstun, Thank you for the Reason article reference. I read it yesterday. About a week ago I started reviewing Tara Smith's "Why Originalism will Never Die" article. Both of these have helped me grasp the definition of "Judicial Activism" - FINALLY. Gulch8. I will read those books that you recommended as time permits. (The Dirty Dozen , Tom Wood's Nullification and the two websites). I've gotten involved in all of this political activism precisely because I do understand the need for me and our fellow citizens to understand what I/they are doing when they enter the voting booth. Here in Iowa, post election disappointments are already beginning to set in. Whew. Geek Girl Thank you for the reference to another case to use as an example (Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld) I will read up on that as well. By Thursday I hope to have a write up of my own - done to make sure I have understood the subject. I will post it here, and then hope for the same good and thoughtful responses that I've received from you all so far. That's longhand for "please let me know if I really get it or not." You have helped me get a better grasp on this and I will continue to work on it until I have a "responsible citizen's understanding of the issue."

GeekGirl, Before 1964, Ayn Rand was quite active in politics. She worked very hard on the campaigns of several politicians and dropped out after the Goldwater defeat. If you get a copy of Letters of Ayn Rand, you will be able to follow some of her attempts to influence politics up to that point. This is a book carried out under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute, and the editing by intellectuals from over there leans toward making lots of changes in the texts without telling folks where the changes are. So you get a somewhat sanitized view of Rand in ARI publications. And there are many selective omissions to make sure people who are now in disfavor are not represented correctly according to their importance to, and/or influence on Rand. But Michael Berliner (the editor of this volume) is a bit better than some of the other ham-handed efforts from ARI, so at least you can get a gist of Rand. A gist is better than nothing at all, but so many of us would like a correct portrayal when her own writing is involved. Anyway, even with these reservations, I still recommend the book. You can also get a terrific overview of Rand's interaction with conservative intellectuals and politicians of the time in the recently published Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. Jennifer was able to consult the archives and had access to many more letters than were included in the book above, including a lot of other material. And Jennifer did a stellar job of covering the topic. (You will here grumblings from more dogmatic Randists, who prefer a more sanitized Rand or wanted Jennifer to preach Objectivism according to their understanding in her book, but I hold she did a marvelous job developing her theme and documenting it.) Obviously, I recommend the different biographies of Ayn Rand as they also give an overview of what she did and when she did it, especially The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller. Now, as to the question surrounding Rand's later withdrawal from direct involvement into politics, here is an excerpt from The Ideas of Ayn Rand by Ron Merrill.. pp. 131-132. It is the best explanation I have read so far, and it puts all the other stuff into context. The way this situation got interpreted by many Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people over the years was for people to barricade themselves in small ivory towers and complain bitterly about the world. As these ivory towers were fairly hermetic, the inevitable happened. Gossip and power. Then bickering. I, personally, have been involved with the online Objectivist community (the outcast side) since 2004, when I came back to the USA from Brazil. I didn't expect to find what I did, but there it is. I was looking forward to community, activism, movement, etc., but I did not find a center. Instead, there was a group of different organizations, cliques and efforts that didn't like each other too much. Some got (and get) along, but there was not what anyone could call a general unity of purpose. In fact, usually when Objectivists organize "activism," I have found that they have no understanding at all of public relations. The best they do is write ham-handed letters to the editor of various publications, and the worst is probably sundry attempts to skew public or online surveys in favor of Rand or Objectivism (or related stuff). But there are some good things happening. Some isolated real-world attempts at activism are being done by ARI with distributing Rand's books to high-schools and sponsoring student contests. With TAS (The Atlas Society), they do seminars, but their real cultural and political impact will be seen in their involvement in the Atlas Shrugged movie set for release next year. Robert Tracinski puts out a wonderful publication, The Intellectual Activist, which is not quite mainstream, but is a cut above other similar attempts, both in quality and quantity. And he, as an author, does write in the mainstream. Once in a while, you will see other Objectivist intellectuals in mainstream publications, and radio and TV shows. Yaron Brook does some stuff and one of the most active on our side of the fence is Ed Hudgins. I enjoyed your own approach of getting in people's faces in normal everyday situations when they spout leftie stuff. I do this, myself. This is a far more refreshing idea than organizing another group and jockeying for a leadership position. (God save us from any more Objectivist guru-wannabees!) As to OL, I have devoted this site to what I hold is Rand's greatest message to all of us: for each person to think for himself and herself to the best of their ability. I take this very seriously and I understand that different people have different paces and paths toward understanding. So it might appear that there is too much tolerance here, but that is an illusion that is created only when you look at a discussion forum as a pulpit. This has ruffled some feathers, but I believe it is the best way. For keeping a lid on things, when I sense a lot of nonsense and/or mindgames are going on, or there are attempts to spam the forum and things like that, I intervene. Otherwise, I prefer to let people work out their own thinking in their own manner. You are correct to wonder what you are supposed to do with good ideas once you have them. Elitist posturing in ivory towers is a waste of time. If you are interested in some real-life stuff, Selene (Adam) and gulch and some others have their fingers in real politics. There are several libertarian members of OL who are involved in politics, also. I, myself, am very interested in the awareness that Glenn Beck and Fox News have brought to the country. Kat and I went to Beck's Restoring Honor rally last year, which I believe is one of the most important political events in recent history. That's because it was not devoted to politics, but to forming and reforming character as a basis for doing politics. Some around here obviously disagree with me (especially due to Beck's religion), but when I do things like that, I do what I believe will cause the greatest effect on improving our society. This aligns with how I believe it should be, too. We use a forum to discuss ideas and work through them, but activism, per se, should be done where it will actually have an impact. Anyway, once again, welcome to OL. Maybe you will like it here, or maybe you won't. I do and will wish you well either way. The important thing for you--and for me--is for you to decide with your own independent judgment and to act according to your own values. I believe when two or more people who are like that agree and get together, they change the world. And I further think that, maybe, waiting for the emergence of this attitude as a norm--i.e., independent thinking that cannot be bought or manipulated--was what Rand was getting at when she dropped out of politics. Michael You have provided some good info, Michael. I sometimes lose track of the full context of the background of the Objectivist movement. I read everything that I can get my hands on about or by Ayn Rand, but sometimes I just don't take the time to wade in as deeply as some of you experienced Objectivists do. Thank you for your willingness to take the time to take it seriously.

Hey Geek Girl, I like your style. You write like a real Radical for Rand. I am out and about in the Midwest - I go to the Tea Parties, teach what I know about Objectivism at every opportunity, and am trying to engage with the state government. Currently, I'm working with a group of groups of people who will be spending time with our new Iowa governor telling him what we think the top priorities of the state should be. The groups have lots of different names that usually include the "tea party" phrase. Guess what my group is called. The Objectivists of Des Moines". We are brand new and we are meeting tomorrow for lunch to plan our topic for the first meeting with the governor. I can't wait to see what happens. Actually, I didn't vote for this Governor. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Eric Cooper (gasp! Libertarian!) My theory on why Ayn Rand paid attention to politics: She had read Frederick Bastiat and took seriously his admonition that when your country's politics were getting into bad shape, you needed to get involved in politics. That doesn't mean you have to run for office, but you have to DO SOMETHING. Ayn Rand sure knew philosophy and she set a great example for how to think and write clearly. You have obviously learned that for yourself. Geek Girl, I'm absolutely delighted with your passion and your obviously well developed understanding of Objectivism. Looking forward to more of your posts on anything at all. (and just between you me and this fence post, you were right about SJW. He asserted that Rand was wrong on several important topics but then did not go ahead and say what they were. Tsk, Tsk.) And finally, to get back on the thread that started this off - Objectivists do talk about current events - they are everywhere. Even Yaron Brooks is on Pajama TV regularly.

Michael, I’m going to just weave my comments among yours. Some of your statements seem to be UnObjectivish and unAynRandish. Please pardon my unnecessary new concepts. I’m trying to understand the things being said about the Judiciary because I am deeply puzzled about why Individual Rights are not the first consideration of, well, all of us, but especially not of our legislatures, and sometimes of our judiciary. Neither Politics nor Economics are rocket science. All of us average intellects have the capacity to grasp the principles that govern these subjects and we need to do so if we are going to carry out our civic responsibilities of choosing our representatives in government according to their principles. So I will just get on with it. Posted Today, 02:30 PM Mary, One of the things I think many people miss in discussing government is that human beings are complicated animals. O.K. I get that. I know that sounds like a truism, but I have something very specific in mind. Humans are not only rational, they are also prone to violence driven by emotion, they are prone to seeking power and unfair advantages over others, they are prone to attacks of jealousy with destructive consequences, etc. In this sense, humans are not perfect. If Ayn Rand was alive today, she would be rolling over in her grave. Objectivism, according to Rand, holds that men are not born with a tendency toward any form of irrationality. It holds that each of us is a self-made man and that that is a result of being born knowing nothing with only physical sensations being integrated into perceptions happening automatically (like the higher animals). The rest is not due to proneness, but is, rather, due to what some of us have learned. Look at all the people who are not prone to emotional violence or a need for power over other people or are looking for a way to get an advantage over others. For instance, the power that I am seeking to develop right now is the power to persuade. The phrase that humans are not perfect implies a standard that no one can achieve. Looks to me like we are perfect human beings. We aren’t perfect possums or perfect horses. But we all have a thoroughly perfect humanness. I think that what you really mean is that people are not omniscient or omnipotent. That is absolutely true and as a result we make mistakes in judgment and in our knowledge attainment and integration processes. (If they were, there would be no need for ethics.) One of the many beauties of Objectivism is that it describes our need for ethics even if we are all alone on a little country acreage raising our own food and making our own clothes. “Morality is a code of values that guides the course of our lives.” ( Probably not an exact quote, but I’m thinking, not reading.) We need ethics just to survive another day (unless we have someone providing for our every need because we are in a coma). Now here's my point. If humans are not perfect, how is a system of governing them (or a system establishing the rules of human coexistence) ever going to be perfect? Such a system is not for robots, but for humans. This puzzles me, too. Why can’t beings who are in fact perfect humans develop a perfect system of government? We’re pretty smart. We’ve been around the mountain a few times. If we put our heads together, and get our best minds to apply themselves to the problem, what would be the barriers to that project? Even if you devised the perfect system, that will not make human nature disappear. Human nature will still be there in living human beings, and I assure you that the dark side of this nature will prompt some people to find a way to exploit any and all vulnerabilities they can find or provoke in the system. Well this one just stopped me. All I can think to say is that the whole purpose of our perfect system is to make it possible for human nature to be actualized and for the humans with that nature to flourish. I know that humanity has produced some pretty nasty people, but I don’t think “dark side” is a universal trait of human beings. So, one of the basic values of a governing body has to be to preserve itself--if for no other reason than protection against the bullies. If the people in a government act towards its destruction, they will have to take what follows. There is no way to eliminate that reality. You’ve talked in other posts about bullies. I have to admit that I have slid past those references without giving them much thought. Do you refer to those who would seek unfair advantages as bullies? Wouldn’t a perfect form of government virtually eliminate the opportunity to bully? I can understand how a governing body would want to maintain the stability of a reliable governing body, but is that a form of self preservation or is it a response to the need to be predictable for the benefit of the residents of that state or nation? If what follows is not clear and viable (and better than the status quo--and I mean that in a practical sense, not an ideological one), with a designed structure previously examined and available for implementation, it will be winner take all and the bullies will win. They form gangs and bash folks on the head. That's all the structure they require. That makes sense. You are talking about the anarchy that waits at the end of the life of a socialist country that has no freer country to keep it in business. I think also that you are referring to “plan for freedom” - I think….. That's why people who act against the government are considered enemies of the state and punished harshly. But not all people--and this is one of the beauties of our system. For example, some of the present newly elected members of Congress (hopefully) wish to dismantle some of the government. But they have strong practical indications based on historical proof that things will be better for the citizens by doing that. Thus they are not considered enemies of the state, but instead reformers. On the other hand, the Wikileaks guy (and collaborators) have moved to destroy the government, but he has no semi-guaranteed better future to present. He has provoked vulnerability in the government without a safeguard against the bad guys, so he is considered as an enemy of the state. (I'm not judging that issue at this moment--merely using it as an example of how these things are classified from the government's view.) Yeah, Assange is a subject for another post. If a choice arises between ideological perfection and self-preservation, you can expect any governing body to choose self-preservation. This is because a governing body is not just made up of laws, it is also made up of people. As to ideology, they usually don't throw it out during self-preservation actions, but they definitely put it in second place. I’m guessing that you are referring to, among other incidents, GW Bush’s “I’m going to violate market principles in order to save the market” thinking. But, you know Michael, if our governors, along with us residents, are actually seeking moral perfection in our political principles, self preservation would be guaranteed as long as our principles are based in reality and recognize the human nature that makes the protection of our moral rights moral. (hmm, did I just say that?) All this is important when considering legislating from the bench, which is what you have been seeking to study. <BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> I still don’t understand that phrase. I don’t understand how declaring an existing law to be either constitutional or not equates to legislation. It seems to me to be just a thumbs up or thumbs down. Nothing new is brought into existence by that. I am beginning to understand that making any decision and writing any opinion is considered to be Activism. Tara Smith’s articles on the judiciary decision processes describe the goofy idea of inactivist judges pretty well. Are you familiar with those essays? They are on the ARI site. The very first case I know of that involved both preserving the governing body (the USA government) and actually legislating from the bench came with Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803. This, to me, shows a superb manner in which our Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances worked to improve the viability of the American experiment (essentially, our way of life over the alternatives). It showed where flexibility was possible and where the lines not to be crossed were. Yeah, you did good sending me to Google on that case and others. What was I thinking? Actually I thought I was looking for examples of actual activism vs inactivism, but….. In all actuality, I don’t understand what you are saying in that paragraph. I read the description of the case and I think I understood that – maybe. I’ll try to come back to this, too. Well, I’ve come back to it and it’s getting too late to say more. Maybe later. Maybe we all understand it the way you intended it to be understood. In too many libertarian and/or Objectivist discussions on government I have observed, the default best presumption is a perfect system based on principles. I contend that the best system has to be one that is based on principles, but also takes human nature into account and it also survives. This strikes me as another case of unObjectivish thinking, Michael. The Objectivist and, of course perfect, principles already consider human nature, so Objectivists talking about the principles of a proper government are already assuming that the rights, ethics, values, virtues, etc. are based on the requirements of human life and on human nature. This paragraph points both up at the prior paragraph and down at the following paragraph. You either go for ideological perfection in politics, or you go for how to make ideology work with human nature. I think the latter is preferable since it is easy to ignore reality in the first. I would prefer ideological perfection plus human nature, but I don't see how that will ever work. Not without major changes to human nature. At any rate, there is no certificate of quality I know of that ensures that the original charter documents of our country were ideologically pure--nor that they should be. Consistency is a virtue, but so is self-preservation, and so is defanging the dark side of human nature as much as possible. I realize that all of our founding documents are not philosophically pure. But, if they could be, why shouldn’t they be? And what if it takes a hundred years or so to make them that way? There’s that omniscience problem again. And, gee whiz, Michael. The objectivist virtues don’t include consistency and defanging dark sides. Self-preservation is supported by the seven virtues which are rationality, independence, honesty, integrity, productiveness, justice and pride. (It took me a good three minutes to remember integrity – it’s a sign!) If three fundamental ideas bother you (or anyone) and you prefer to boil everything down to only one idea that takes precedence over all others, I strongly believe that the key concept is balance, not rights, although rights are crucial to my manner of thinking. (I didn't always think this way, but I've seen too much in life to believe that humans will become angels if only after-the-fact restraints are put in place.) I can tell you this, Michael – I’ve wrestled this need of mine to get to the one main consideration in politics for weeks and I’m still having to point to two things – the first that reality must always be the final arbiter or maybe the basis of all our thinking, and that individual rights must trump all other possible considerations. I’m either stuck here because it is true, or because I’m unable to see the truth. The notion of balance didn’t even occur to me, even in light of “the balance of powers.” So back to Chief Justice John Marshall and legislating from the bench. He faced a dilemma and he used the system of checks and balances to establish a judicial precedent (which can be called judicial activism) that has impacted the life of every American since. It involved the midnight appointment of a judge (William Marbury) by the outgoing President John Adams--who was anything but friendly to Thomas Jefferson, his successor. Without going too deeply into it, Marbury didn't receive his commission, so he sued directly. Here is a description of what followed from A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen (pp. 162-163):<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> Schweikart and Allen said: Chief Justice Marshall wrote an 1803 opinion in Marbury that brilliantly avoided conflict with Jefferson while simultaneously setting a precedent for judicial review--the prerogative of the Supreme Court, not the executive or legislative branches--to decide the constitutionality of federal laws. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grants the Supreme Court this great power, and the fact that we accept it today as a given has grown from the precedent of John Marshall's landmark decision. Marshall sacrificed his fellow Federalist Marbury for the greater cause of a strong centralized judiciary. He and fellow justices ruled the Supreme Court could not order Marbury commissioned because they lacked jurisdiction in the case, then shrewdly continued to make a ruling anyway. The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction, Marshall ruled, because a 1789 federal law granting such jurisdiction was unconstitutional; the case should have originated in a lower court. While the ruling is abstruse, its aim and result were not. The Supreme court, said Marshall, was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of federal law. In Fletcher v. Peck (1811), Marshall's court would claim the same national authority over state law. Chief Justice Marshall thus paved the first segment of a long road toward nationalism through judicial review. In the Aaron Burr treason trial (1807), when the chief justice personally issued a subpoena to President Jefferson, it sent a powerful message to all future presidents that no person is above the law. Notice that Marshall imposed law where none was given, but it was within a very small area of procedure. This shows that the intellectual products of humans (like a constitution) reflect the incapacity of humans to make a perfect system for all times and cases. I hold this is due to humans being too complicated for any perfect system. I am having a problem seeing that Marshal imposed law. The case could be said to be involved in a milieu of legal stuff that established judicial review of congressional action. From what I’ve read a companion case related to Marbury, Stuart Vs Lair, was where justice Patterson strongly implied that it was constitutional for the Jeffersonians to abolish the Federalist circuit judiciary. That political power probably went a long way toward separating the men from the boys. In Marbury, Marshall just said that he was not going to get the commission. Did I miss something? As far as the incapacity of humans in concerned, in one sense they were able to define a perfect system for all times and cases by making the law of the land, the Constitution, amendable. They set forth the procedure for doing so. However, this is different than the "living document" approach of the Progressives. These folks seek to contradict the Constitution and expand their own power by baby-steps using case law, not fill in and make things work where the Constitution left a hole. Yeah, and they did it by introducing the idea that the founders were a bunch of selfish old men just trying to protect their fortunes with a Constitution that they could control. Far out. Since the Constitution is a small document, it left a lot out, too. And this was reflected by another case of judicial activism--one that had very positive effects on American history. I'll just give the next sentence as an example (a continuation of the quote above on p. 163), but the book gives quite a few examples. Notice that capitalism is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Now read this:<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"> Schweikart and Allen said: Equally as important as judicial review, however, Marshall's Court consistently ruled in favor of capitalism, free enterprise, and open markets. So not all judicial activism is bad. At least not from where I sit. That fits with what Tara Smith said, if you don’t like it the judiciary is overstepping their bounds. If you do like it, it’s just cool activism. That was definitely not an exact quote. Once again, there is no key concept involved, but instead some key concepts: individual rights, self-preservation of the governing system, checks and balances. (There might be more, but these are the ones I have thought about so far.) The essence of Capitalism, though not the term itself, is mentioned in the Constitution in the 9th Amendment and the bill of rights. What makes Capitalism a moral economic system is its strict recognition of individual rights. In a way, when you say Capitalism, you are saying individualism and vice versa. The underlying idea is that you cannot get rid of power in human affairs because of the way humans are made. And this makes a pure system of individual rights impossible in practice. But you can slice and dice power up within a republic so that individual rights have the best possibility of leaving the confines of written documents and discussions and jumping out into reality--to the benefit of all of us. Michael Know thyself... I liked the poetry of the last sentence in the paragraph above, but I still feel the need to argue with the notion that human nature is somehow the enemy of individual rights when it is human nature that maks individual rights necessary. Also, I don’t see a problem with “power in human affairs” as long as the power sought is not the power over other people. Well, that was an excellent exercise. I learned something about the way I frequently depend on incomplete knowledge. That should be helpful in the future. Thanks for taking the time that you did with me, Michael. I really appreciate the fact that the Oists take ideas seriously. (I had to look up Stare decisis, too. Who knew?)

It helps a little that Tracinski's TIA Daily just came to me - 9th amendment is his subject. I'm a slow study, but I WILL get it. Thank you for helping.

I have a few more questions related to this. Given that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the DOI "to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men" what is there in the constitutional designations of the power of the three branches of government that will guarantee that these rights are not violated by the federal government or by the state governments that were guaranteed a Republican form of government? Is the law that we are talking about the Constitution? Did the Supreme court do the wrong thing when they struck down FDR's National Recovery Act as unconstitutional? What does the 14th amendment mean if it doesn't mean that the supreme court can strike down laws? Do I have an agenda? I do. I'm trying to figure out if our constitution actually protects individual rights and if the Supreme Court is supposed to concern itself with individual rights. Any thoughts? OMG, I had forgotten about this case that I found with Michael's help: The slaughterhouse cases of 1893: "Holding 13th & 14th Amendments Don't Guarantee Federal Protection of Individual Rights Against Discrimination by Their Own State Gov'ts <BR style="PAGE-BREAK-BEFORE: always; mso-break-type: section-break" clear=all> Facts: A Louisiana law of 1869 created a state corporation for the slaughtering of livestock. The corporation was given exclusive power to slaughter livestock, and all other private slaughterhouses were required to close. Independent butchers could use the corporations facilities for a charge, but could not conduct independent operations. Procedural Posture: The butchers not included in the monopoly claimed that the law deprived them of their right to "exercise their trade" and challenged it under the 13th and 14th amendments. The highest state court sustained the law. Issue: Whether the 13th and 14th amendments guarantee federal protection of individual rights of all citizens of the United States against discrimination by their own state governments. Holding: No. " Good Grief.

No joke. Justice Marshall usurped a power not granted to the Court under the Constitution. All appellate decisions should be based on Fact and Law. The Court has no power under the constitution to nullify a law passed by Congress. All it can do, constitutionally is apply the constitution and the existing laws to the case in question. Having said that, the doctrine of stare decisis would mean other courts would be bound to apply the same decision to future cases which are similar. Ba'al Chatzaf I didn't know that the Supreme Court did not have the power to strike down an unconstitutional law! I am way out of touch on that one. Thank you all for your prompt responses. Very helpful. Michael Stewart, I asked this for one really simple reason - want to know about ACTUAL activism. I think I may be getting too deep into all of this. Again, thanks - and I do know how to use Google. It's just that......

Does anyone have examples of Judiciary Activism at either the Federal or the State Level - preferrably using actual case names so I can read them? I have been trying to get my hands around this whole idea and the conflicts arising from it. If you have web site links that would be very helpful. Also, if you have given this some thought and have an opinion to express, I would appreciate that, too. Thanks, Mary Lee

Michael, you said, "Take the ideas to the Tea Party! Take them anywhere you see people doing good things that you believe in and succeeding. Make friends at those places. Take part and provide value. Then expose them to Rand's ideas (and your ideas) as you go along. Give people time to digest. And let them come to their own conclusions in a spirit of fellowship. If you are at a place where there are good people, they will continue to be good people even if they end up disagreeing with you about Objectivism. Meanwhile, you are still making the world a better place and yourself a better person. How cool is that?" I have been doing just that here in the "first in the nation state of Iowa", and we need to get it right by Jan. 2012. I welcome any advice or guidance that you have to offer. I have Ayn Rand's "What Can One Do" article form 1972, but other's wisdom would be welcomed. Thank you for your comments on Anthemgate and for the optimism you bring to our efforts to make a difference.

This has been an enjoyable thread. I had listened to Professor Grim's philosophical lectures and liked his way of differentiating deduction and induction, namely that Deduction provides certainty but no new information while Induction provides new information, but no certainty.

Back in eighties in Houston, Tx. a Frenchman came into town and did a huge concert in which he projected images on the downtown skyscrapers and played music on a moog synthesizer. We all went up on the hills to a location specified by him as best for viewing and listened to the music on our radios while watching images of burning buildings, animations, portraits of great men projected, etc. It was one dynamite show. By now, the images would be better, so I'd say - that can definitely be done.

My husband and I just just got back from our fall trip to Utah. Thanks for this post, I wasn't aware of this show. My favorite cowboy artist is James Bama. Years ago I worked for an Ayn Rand fan, told her about Bama and she filled her office with his work. I just loved getting called into her office. I will keep this show in mind for our trip next year.