Francisco Ferrer

"Out of context of one's life and reality"? Who would be in a better position to know the full context of a man's life than that man himself? Why is my friend's preference to continue working as an accountant any more subjective than John Galt's decision to take his own life to spare Dagny physical pain? If a man cannot trust his own preferences as being right, proper or objective, to whom should he turn? You?

It didn't take long: And it never gets any better. Rand was a conceptual thinker who used words as tokens for concepts. FF's approach is to use works to muddy concepts and play gotcha. Whatever rings your ding-a-ling. (I wonder if FF is the intellectual superior of Ayn Rand. He definitely is of me and everyone else who ever posted on OL and who ever will post. Hmmmmm... Come to think of it, he does trump Rand. In fact, she could never hold a candle to his shining light. ) Michael In what way have I sidestepped the issue? I have accepted Rand's definition of selfish ("the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose"). In applying the word "selfish" to the humanitarian aid worker in the video in your post I followed your own lead. You wrote, "I see this as a very selfish decision that brought him great happiness." I was quick to endorse that comment. In Post #34 you wrote, "If you define selfish as concerned with oneself's own interests as opposed to the interests of others, which is a lot closer to what Rand meant, her statements become clear and are perfectly logical." I did not disagree. I am willing to accept that definition, as well, provided that we see pursuit of one's own interests as distinct from but not necessarily in opposition to the interests of others. Such an interpretation would allow us to view as selfish the humanitarian efforts of the character in the video you posted. It would also allow us to see why Galt would have killed himself to spare Dagny physical torture. Now if that is not the "real meaning Rand used," then it appears that both you and I are both in opposition to Rand. It would not follow, however, that such opposition makes us the "intellectual superior of Ayn Rand." "Claim Rand was wrong, foolish, naive, etc." Where in this thread was such a claim made? "Congratulate oneself on being so much smarter than everybody else." Where was this done?

Yes, there are people who have felt guilty, inferior or unworthy for not achieving a prescribed goal or value. When I was a boy, masturbation and even sex in general were treated as sins by the adults in my devoutly religious community. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Matt 5:28-29 But penance is only one aspect of the religious life. Faith in God has been a source of strength and joy for billions of humans past and present. People will not continue to perform an activity if it produces only misery. If a particular belief system demands penance and self-denial, it usually makes up for it through feelings of certainty, harmony and brotherhood. Thus demands for self-sacrifice are followed only if there are compensating psychic benefits. Yes, even the flagellant monk acts selfishly.

No, we don't automatically act to make ourselves happier. Sometimes we make serious errors that we live to regret. However, all actions are aimed at increasing happiness. And we all act on the basis of the knowledge that we have. Obviously, smokers in the 1700's did not know the damage their habit was doing to their lungs. If they did, many of them would have given up tobacco. Yet there are people today who smoke despite the well-documented and well-publized dangers of nicotine. I have no doubt that there are things I'd do differently if my level of knowledge about my work, my hobbies and my health were to increase dramatically. On the other hand, there are only so many hours in a day. My decision to take a nap or watch TV or stare out the window instead of reading up on the financial markets is rational. Laziness is a valid choice. So is smoking, for that matter.

I'm defining it in the same terms Rand used: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose." In the video you posted, a man dedicates his life to helping others live. His happiness is based on the achievement of the happiness of others. Is that selfless? On the contrary, his actions are perfectly selfish. As you wrote, "He mostly did charity work . . . I see this as a very selfish decision that brought him great happiness." In attaining his goal, the humanitarian aid worker reaches a level of satisfaction that is just as rewarding as the architect who sees his building completed or the geologist who finds an undiscovered reservoir of oil or the entrepreneur who successfully launches a new product. All actions are directed toward the goal of increasing one's contentment, gratification, pride or comfort.

This makes me want to pick up the camera bag and get out of the house. Bravo!

I disagree. My friend is selfish. The ex-POW in the video in Post #1 is selfish. Mother Teresa was selfish. Everyone acts to enhance enhance personal satisfaction and thus self-fulfillment. Can an outside observer know that one person's selfishness runs to the core, while another's is only skin-deep? How? What instrument is used to take that measure? Now you say that my accountant friend Bill could increase his selfishness factor by "starting another venture in an interesting field - or returning to university to study astronomy, or something." Perhaps he could also marry a better wife, read better books, eat better food. But if any of those changes resulted in a lower level of satisfaction, he would hardly be acting selfishly, would he? I think he has atrocious taste in music (Richard Clayderman, for example). By the same token he cannot understand why I like the Goldberg Variations. Why should he make himself unhappy by listening to what others say is "better" music? So if studying astronomy would make Bill happier than working as an accountant, why hasn't he taken up astronomy? Obviously, it is because he prefers what he is doing now to any alternative. A person who acts to realize his preferences is acting selfishly. Am I ignoring cause and effect? I think not. Despite his complaints, doing other people's quarterly reports and income tax forms fulfills a need in Bill at some fundamental level. He crunches numbers, he complains, and he crunches numbers again. If he derived greater satisfaction from not doing it or doing something else, there is nothing that would prevent him from quitting. You write, "A man 'selfishly devoting himself to others' represents a contradiction in terms." Really? Then surely Rand made a serious philosophical error in having John Galt tell Dagny that he would kill himself if she is tortured to make him talk. (Atlas, Chapter 28) Wouldn't a truly selfish may say, "Go ahead and kill her. I'm looking out for number one"? As was discussed in the first few posts at the top of this thread, there need not be a contradiction between serving others and self-fulfillment. Here's what Galt said, "By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose." If it make you happy to serve others, then you are serving yourself.

If someone asks how to objectively identify the difference between a selfish person who serves others and an unselfish person who serves others, the best response is to call him "faith-based" and a "defender of bad ideas." Let's not talk about the question but about the questioner.

I think we already have agreed that we need not assume a dichotomy between achieving one's own life and happiness and serving the wishes and needs of others. One may help others and thereby increase one's own satisfaction and thus purpose in life. The only question is whether there are some individuals who act on behalf of others and in so doing do not increase their own satisfaction/purpose-fulfillment. If so, how would we distinguish them from those who serve others selfishly? Now the problem of blanking out information may come from time to time. I certainly hope that I have not blanked out any important information in this discussion. So, regarding the question of establishing the existence of truly unselfish people, where do we look for evidence? "Happy vibes"? I did not blank this out. I responded with the example of my accountant who gives off conspicuously unhappy vibes about the work he does yet refuses to give up the work. He crunches numbers, he complains, and he crunches again. At the same time there is little chance that his luxurious home and savings would go away were he to stop working. If Person A performs Action X again and again--even while complaining--why should we assume that he is not increasing his level of satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose? If in the absence of coercion an individual repeats or continues in an activity, negative vibes aside, there is no reason to suppose that person is not acting selfishly. See Post #1 for an example. If people attended a self-help seminar and appeared miserable afterwards, it might be a fair assumption that they regretted the activity. On the other hand, if they came back again and again, no matter how unhappy their vibes appeared to be, it is obvious that they are acting to increase satisfaction/fulfillment of life's purpose. How can one prove that, say, Mother Theresa, a poster child for altruism and a big complainer ("In my heart there is no faith, no love, no trust: there is so much pain") was not acting selfishly?

sophist: 1: philosopher 2 capitalized : any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century b.c. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning 3: a captious or fallacious reasoner None of those definitions fit me.

No. I used the labor-saving Ctrl + C shortcut on my keyboard. I'll quote from my Post #1:

Claim: The boiling point of water is 100°C or 212° F at 1 atmosphere of pressure (sea level). Proof (evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement): I can confirm this in a rented beach house with a stove, a pot, a thermometer and a few ounces of H2O. Thus there is objective proof for at least one claim about the world. Claim: Some people act unselfishly. Proof: . (still waiting)

Read Rand's first line. Is that not a great attention-grabber?

There's an accountant friend of mine who every spring works 18-hour days and curses his way through the great stacks of forms that have to move across his desk. He's quite wealthy and well past the standard retirement age. He could be enjoying these first warm days in the pool in his backyard or playing golf at his private club. Yet he grumbles and drags himself to work every day as if under a death threat. I ask him often why he doesn't just quit, and he tells me he'd hate not doing it more. I've come to the conclusion that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's best to assume that people do what makes them happy (or happier). As Mises says, "Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory." Perhaps we should not care about any objective differences between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others. Perhaps there are none. Perhaps there is no objective reason for assuming that anyone acts unselfishly.

I have not read or heard of this essay until today. I know nothing about its provenance other than what I copied from the website below. from http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/taifc.html To All Innocent Fifth Columnists By Ayn Rand Note: To All Fifth Columnists is an open letter written by Ayn Rand around the beginning of 1941, when she was encouraging conservative intellectuals to form a national organization advocating individualism. She desired for the letter be issued by such an organization. You who read this represent the greatest danger to America. No matter what the outcome of the war in Europe may be, Totalitarianism has already won a complete victory in many American minds and conquered all of our intellectual life. You have helped it to win. Perhaps it is your right to destroy civilization and bring dictatorship to America, but not unless you understand fully what you are doing. If that is what you want to do, say so openly, at least to your own conscience, and we who believe in freedom will fight you openly. But the tragedy of today is that you — who are responsible for the coming Totalitarian dictatorship of America — you do not know your own responsibility. You would be the first to deny the active part you're playing and proclaim your belief in freedom, in civilization, in the American way of life. You are the most dangerous kind of Fifth Columnist — an innocent subconscious Fifth Columnist. Of such as you is the Kingdom of Hitler and of Stalin. You do not believe this? Check up on yourself. Take the test we offer you here. 1. Are you the kind who considers ten minutes of his time too valuable to read this and give it some thought? 2. Are you the kind who sits at home and moans over the state of the world — but does nothing about it? 3. Are you the kind who says that the future is predestined by something or other, something he can't quite name or explain and isn't very clear about, but the world is doomed to dictatorship and there's nothing anyone can do about it? 4. Are you the kind who says that he wishes he could do something, he'd be so eager to do something — but what can one man do? 5. Are you the kind who are so devoted to your own career, your family, your home or your children that you will let the most unspeakable horrors be brought about to destroy your career, your family, your home and your children — because you are too busy now to prevent them? Which one of the above are you? A little of all? But are you really too busy to think? Who "determines" the future? You're very muddled on that, aren't you? What exactly is "mankind"? Is it a mystical entity with a will of its own? Or is it you, and I, and the sum of all of us together? What force is there to make history — except men, other men just like you? If there are enough men who believe in a better future and are willing to work for it, the future will be what they want it to be. You doubt this? Why then, if the world is doomed to dictatorship, do the dictators spend so much money and effort on propaganda? If history is predestined in their favor, why don't Hitler and Stalin just ride the wave into the future without any trouble? Doesn't it seem more probable that history will be what the minds of men want it to be, and the dictators are smart enough to prepare these minds in the way they want them, while we talk of destiny and do nothing? You say, what can one man do? When the Communists came to power in Russia, they were a handful of eighteen men. Just eighteen. In a country of [170,000,000] population. They were laughed at and no one took them seriously. According to their own prophet, Karl Marx, Russia was the last country in which Communism could be historically possible, because of Russia's backwardness in industrial development. Yet they succeeded. Because they knew what they wanted and went after it — historical destiny or no historical destiny. Adolf Hitler started the Nazi Party in Germany with seven men. He was laughed at and considered a harmless crank. People said that after the Versailles Treaty Germany could not possibly become a world power again, not for centuries. Yet Hitler succeeded. Because he knew what he wanted and went after it — history or no history. Shall we believe in mystical fates or do something about the future? If you are one of those who have had a full, busy, successful life and are still hard at work making money — stop for one minute of thought. What are you working for? You have enough to keep you in comfort for the rest of your days. But you are working to insure your children's future. Well, what are you leaving to your children? The money, home, or education you plan to leave them will be worthless or taken away from them. Instead, your legacy will be a Totalitarian America, a world of slavery, of starvation, of concentration camps and of firing squads. The best part of your life is behind you — and it was lived in freedom. But your children will have nothing to face save their existence as slaves. Is that what you want for them? If not, it is still up to you. There is time left to abort it — but not very much time. You take out insurance to protect your children, don't you? How much money and working effort does that insurance cost you? If you put one-tenth of the money and time into insuring against your children's future slavery — you would save them and save for them everything else which you intend to leave them and which they'll never get otherwise. Don't delude yourself by minimizing the danger. You see what is going on in Europe and what it's doing to our own country and to your own private life. What other proof do you need? Don't say smugly that "it can't happen here." Stop and look back for a moment. The first Totalitarian dictatorship happened in Russia. People said: well, Russia was a dark, backward, primitive nation where anything could happen — but it could not happen in any civilized country. The next Totalitarian dictatorship happened in Italy — one of the oldest civilized countries of Europe and the mother of European culture. People said: well, the Italians hadn't had much experience in democratic self-government, but it couldn't happen anywhere else. The next Totalitarian dictatorship happened in Germany — the country of philosophers and scientists, with a long record of the highest cultural achievements. People said: well, Germany was accustomed to autocracy, and besides there's the Prussian character, and the last war, etc. — but it could not happen in any country with a strong democratic tradition. Could it happen in France? People would have laughed at you had you asked such a question a year ago. Well, it has happened in France — France, the mother of freedom and of democracy, France, the most independent-minded nation on earth. Well? What price your smug self-confidence? In the face of millions of foreign money and foreign agents pouring into our country, in the face of one step after another by which our country is [moving] closer to Totalitarianism — you do nothing except say: "It can't happen here." Do you hear the Totalitarians answering you — "Oh, yeah?" Don't delude yourself with slogans and meaningless historical generalizations. It can happen here. It can happen anywhere. And a country's past history has nothing to do with it. Totalitarianism is not a new product of historical evolution. It is older than history. It is the attempt of the worthless and the criminal to seize control of society. That element is always there, in any country. But a healthy society gives it no chance. It is when the majority in a country becomes weak, indifferent and confused that a criminal minority, beautifully organized like all gangs, seizes the power. And once that power is seized it cannot be taken back for generations. Fantastic as it may seem to think of a dictatorship in the United States, it is much easier to establish such a dictatorship than to overthrow it. With modern technique and modern weapons at its disposal, a ruthless minority can hold millions in slavery indefinitely. What can one thousand unorganized, unarmed men do against one man with a machine gun? And the tragedy of today is that by remaining unorganized and mentally unarmed we are helping to bring that slavery upon ourselves. By being indifferent and confused, we are serving as innocent Fifth Columnists of our own destruction. There is no personal neutrality in the world today. Repeat that and scream that to yourself. In all great issues there are only two sides — and no middle. You are alive or you are dead, but you can't be "neither" or "in between." You are honest or you are not — and there is no neutral "half-honest." And so, you are against Totalitarianism — or you are for it. There is no intellectual neutrality. The Totalitarians do not want your active support. They do not need it. They have their small, compact, well-organized minority and it is sufficient to carry out their aims. And they want from you is your indifference. The Communists and the Nazis have stated repeatedly that the indifference of the majority is their best ally. Just sit at home, pursue your private affairs, shrug about world problems — and you are the most effective Fifth Columnist that can be devised. You're doing your part as well as if you took orders consciously from Hitler or from Stalin. And so, you're in it, whether you want to be or not, you're helping the world towards destruction, while moaning and wondering what makes the world such as it is today. You do. The Totalitarians have said: "Who is not against us, is for us." There is no personal neutrality. And since you are involved, and have to be, what do you prefer? To do what you're doing and help the Totalitarians? Or to fight them? But in order to fight, you must understand. You must know exactly what you believe and you must hold to your faith honestly, consistently, and all the time. A faith assumed occasionally, like Sunday clothes, is of no value. Communism and Nazism are a faith. Yours must be as strong and clear as theirs. They know what they want. We don't. But let us see how, before it is too late, whether we have a faith, what it is and how we can fight for it. First and above all: what is Totalitarianism? We all hear so much about it, but we don't understand it. What is the most important point, the base, the whole heart of both Communism and Nazism? It is not the "dictatorship of the proletariat," nor the nationalization of private property, nor the supremacy of the "Aryan" race, nor anti-Semitism. These things are secondary symptoms, surface details, the effects and not the cause. What is the primary cause, common to both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and all other dictators, past, present, and future? One idea — and one only: That the State is superior to the individual. That the Collective holds all rights and the individual has none. Stop here. This is the crucial point. What you think of this will determine whether you are a mental Fifth Columnist or not. This is the point which allows no compromise. You must choose one or the other. There is no middle. Either you believe that each individual man has value, dignity and certain inalienable rights which cannot be sacrificed for any cause, for any purpose, for any collective, for any number of other men whatsoever. Or else you believe that a number of men — it doesn't matter what you call it: a collective, a class, a race or a State — holds all rights, and any individual man can be sacrificed if some collective good — it doesn't matter what you call it: better distribution of wealth, racial purity or the Millennium — demands it. Don't fool yourself. Be honest about this. Names don't matter. Only the basic principle matters, and there is no middle choice. Either man has individual, inalienable rights — or he hasn't. Your intentions don't count. If you are willing to believe that men should be deprived of all rights for a good cause — you are a Totalitarian. Don't forget, Stalin and Hitler sincerely believe that their causes are good. Stalin thinks that he is helping the downtrodden, and Hitler thinks that he is serving his country as a patriot. They are good causes, both of them, aren't they? Then what creates the horrors of Russia and of Germany? What is destroying all civilization? Just this one idea — that to a good cause everything can be sacrificed; that individual men have no rights which must be respected; that what one person believes to be good can be put over on the others by force. And if you — in the privacy of your own mind — believe so strongly in some particular good of yours that you would be willing to deprive men of all rights for the sake of this good, then you are as guilty of all the horrors of today as Hitler and Stalin. These horrors are made possible only by men who have lost all respect for single, individual human beings, who accept the idea that classes, races, and nations matter, but single persons do not, that a majority is sacred, but a minority is dirt, that herds count, but Man is nothing. Where do you stand on this? There is no middle ground. If you accept the Totalitarian idea, if the words "State" or "Collective" are sacred to you, but the word "Individual" is not — stop right here. You don't have to read further. What we have to say is not for you — and you are not for us. Let's part here — but be honest, admit that you are a Totalitarian and go join the Communist Party or the German-American Bund, because they are the logical end of the road you have chosen, and you will end up with one or the other, whether you know it now or not. But if you are a Humanitarian and a Liberal — in the real, not the prostituted sense of these words — you will say with us that Man, each single, solitary, individual Man, has a sacred value which you respect, and sacred inalienable rights which nothing must take away from him. You believe this? You agree with us that this is the heart of true Americanism, the basic principle upon which America was founded and which made it great — the Rights of Man and the Freedom of Man? But do you hear many voices saying this today? Do you read many books saying this? Do you see many prominent men preaching this? Do you know a single publication devoted to this belief or a single organization representing it? You do not. Instead, you find a flood of words, of books, of preachers, publications, and organizations which, under very clever "Fronts," work tirelessly to sell you Totalitarianism. All of them are camouflaged under very appealing slogans: they scream to you that they are defenders of "Democracy," of "Americanism," of "Civil Liberties," etc. Everybody and anybody uses these words — and they have no meaning left. They are empty generalities and boob-catchers. There is only one real test that you can apply to all these organizations: ask yourself what is the actual result of their work under the glittering bromides? What are they really selling you, what are they driving at? If you ask this, you will see that they are selling you Collectivism in one form or another. They preach "Democracy" and then make a little addition — "Economic Democracy" or a "Broader Democracy" or a "True Democracy", and demand that we turn all property over to the Government; "all property" means also "all rights"; let everybody hold all rights together — and nobody have any right of any kind individually. Is that Democracy or is it Totalitarianism? You know of a prominent woman commentator who wants us all to die for Democracy — and then defines "true" Democracy as State Socialism [probably a reference to Dorothy Thompson]. You have heard Secretary [Harold] Ickes define a "true" freedom of the press as the freedom to express the views of the majority. You have read in a highly respectable national monthly the claim that the Bill of Rights, as taught in our schools, is "selfish": that a "true" Bill of Rights means not demanding any rights for yourself, but your giving these rights to "others." God help us, fellow Americans, are we blind? Do you see what this means? Do you see the implications? And this is the picture wherever you look. They "oppose" Totalitarianism and they "defend" Democracy — by preaching their own version of Totalitarianism, some form of "collective good," "collective rights," "collective will," etc. And the one thing which is never said, never preached, never upheld in our public life, the one thing all these "defenders of Democracy" hate, denounce, and tear down subtly, gradually, systematically — is the principle of Individual Rights, Individual Freedom, Individual Value. That is the principle against which the present great world conspiracy is directed. That is the heart of the whole world question. That is the only opposite of Totalitarianism and our only defense against it. Drop that — and what difference will it make what name you give to the resulting society? It will be Totalitarianism — and all Totalitarians are alike, all come to the same methods, the same slavery, the same bloodshed, the same horrors, no matter what noble slogan they start under, as witness Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Principles are much more consistent than men. A basic principle, once accepted, has a way of working itself out to its logical conclusion — even against the will and to the great surprise of those who accepted it. Just accept the idea that there are no inalienable individual rights — and firing squads, executions without trial, and a Gestapo or a G. P. U. will follow automatically — no matter who holds the power, no matter how noble and benevolent his intentions. That is a law of history. You can find any number of examples. Can you name one [counter-example]? Can you name one instance where absolute power — in any hands — did not end in absolute horror? And — for God's sake, fellow Americans, let's not be utter morons, let's give our intelligence a small chance to function and let's recognize the obvious — what is absolute power? It's a power which holds all rights and has to respect none. Does it matter whether such a power is held by a self-appointed dictator or by an elected representative body? The power is the same and its results will be the same. Look through all of history. Look at Europe. Don't forget — they still hold "elections" in Europe. Don't forget, Hitler was elected. Now, if you see how completely intellectual Totalitarianism is already in control of our country, if you see that there is no action and no organization to defend the only true anti-Totalitarian principle, the principle of individual rights, you will realize that there is only one thing for us to do: to take such action and to form such an organization. If you are really opposed to Totalitarianism, to all of it, in any shape, form, or color — you will join us. We propose to unite all men of good will who believe that Freedom is our most precious possession, that it is greater than any other consideration whatsoever, that no good has ever been accomplished by force, that Freedom must not be sacrificed to any other ideal, and that Freedom is an individual, not a collective entity. We do not know how many of us there are left in the world. But we think there are many more than the Totalitarians suspect. We are the majority, but we are scattered, unorganized, silenced and helpless. The Totalitarians are an efficient, organized, and very noisy minority. They have seized key positions in our intellectual life and they make it appear as if they are the voice of America. They can, if left unchecked, highjack America into dictatorship. Are we going to let them get away with it? They are not the voice of America. We are. But let us be heard. To be heard, however, we must be organized. This is not a paradox. Individualists have always been reluctant to form any sort of organization. The best, the most independent, the hardest working, the most productive members of society have always lived and worked alone. But the incompetent and the unscrupulous have organized. The world today shows how well they have organized. And so, we shall attempt what has never been attempted before — an organization against organization. That is — an organization to defend us all from the coming compulsory organization which will swallow all of society; an organization to defend our rights, including the right not to belong to any forced organization; an organization, not to impose our ideology upon anyone, but to prevent anyone from imposing his ideology upon us by physical or social violence. Are you with us? If you realize that the world is moving toward disaster, but see no effective force to avert it — If you are eager to join in a great cause and accept a great faith, but find no such cause or faith offered to you anywhere today — If you are not one of those doomed jellyfish to whom the word "Freedom" means nothing — If you cannot conceive of yourself living in a society without personal freedom, a society in which you will be told what to do, what to think, what to feel, in which your very life will be only a gift from the Collective, to be revoked at its pleasure at any time — If you cannot conceive of yourself surrendering your freedom for any collective good whatsoever, and do not believe that any such good can ever be accomplished by such a surrender — If you believe in your own dignity and your own value, and hold that such a belief is not "selfish," but is instead your greatest virtue, without which you are worthless both to your fellow-men and to yourself — If you believe that it is vicious to demand that you should exist solely for the sake of your fellow-men and grant them all and any right over you — If you believe that it is vicious to demand everyone's sacrifice for everyone else's sake, and that such a demand creates nothing but mutual victims, without profiting anyone, neither society nor the individual — If you believe that men can tell you what you must not do to them, but can never assume the arrogance of telling you what you must do, no matter what their number — If you believe in majority rule only with protection for minority rights, both being limited by inalienable individual rights — If you believe that the mere mention of "the good of the majority" is not sufficient ground to justify any possible kind of horror, and that those yelling loudest of "majority good" are not necessarily the friends of mankind — If you are sick of professional "liberals," "humanitarians," "uplifters" and "idealists" who would do you good as they see fit, even if it kills you, whose idea of world benevolence is world slavery — If you are sick, disgusted, disheartened, without faith, without direction, and have lost everything but your courage — — come and join us. There is so much at stake — and so little time left. Let us have an organization as strong, as sure, as enthusiastic as any the Totalitarians could hope to achieve. Let us follow our faith as consistently as they follow theirs. Let us offer the world our philosophy of life. Let us expose all Totalitarian propaganda in any medium and in any form. Let us answer any argument, every promise, every "Party Line" of the Totalitarians. Let us drop all compromise, all cooperation or collaboration with those preaching any brand of Totalitarianism in letter or in spirit, in name or in fact. Let us have nothing to do with "Front" organizations, "Front" agents or "Front" ideas. We do not have to proscribe them by law. We can put them out of existence by social boycott. But this means — no compromise. There is no compromise between life and death. You do not make deals with the black plague. Let us touch nothing tainted with Totalitarianism. Let us tear down the masks, bring them out into the open and — leave them alone. Very strictly alone. No "pro-Soviet" or "pro-Nazi" members of the board in our organization. No "benevolent" Trojan horses. Let us stick together as they do. They silence us, they force us out of public life, they fill key positions with their own men. Let us stick together — and they will be helpless to continue. They have millions of foreign money on their side. We have the truth. As a first step and a first declaration of what we stand for, we offer you the following principles: We believe in the value, the dignity and the freedom of Man. We believe: — That each man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken from him for any cause whatsoever. These rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. — That the right of life means that man cannot be deprived of his life for the convenience of any number of other men. — That the right of liberty means freedom of individual decision, individual choice, individual judgment and individual initiative; it means also the right to disagree with others. — That the right to the pursuit of happiness means man's freedom to choose what constitutes his own private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement; that such a pursuit is neither evil nor reprehensible, but honorable and good; and that a man's happiness is not to be prescribed to him by any other man nor by any number of other men. — That these rights have no meaning unless they are the unconditional, personal, private possession of each man, granted to him by the fact of his birth, held by him independently of all other men, and limited only by the exercise of the same rights by other men. — That the only just, moral and beneficent form of society is a society based upon the recognition of these inalienable individual rights. — That the State exists for Man, and no Man for the State. — That the greatest good for all men can be achieved only through the voluntary cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit, and not through a compulsory sacrifice of all for all. — That "voluntary" presupposes an alternative and a choice of opportunities; and thus even a universal agreement of all men on one course of action is neither free nor voluntary if no other course of action is open to them. — That each man's independence of spirit and other men's respect for it have created all civilization, all culture, all human progress and have benefited all mankind. — That the greatest threat to civilization is the spread of Collectivism, which demands the sacrifice of all individual rights to collective rights and the supremacy of the State over the individual. — That the general good which such Collectivism professes as its objective can never be achieved at the sacrifice of man's freedom, and such sacrifice can lead only to general suffering, stagnation, and degeneration. — That such conception of Collectivism is the greatest possible evil — under any name, in any form, for any professed purpose whatsoever. Such is our definition of Americanism and the American way of life. The American way of life has always been based upon the Rights of Man, upon individual freedom and upon respect for each human individual personality. Through all its history, this has been the source of America's greatness. This is the spirit of America which we dedicate ourselves to defend and preserve. In practical policy we shall be guided by one basic formula: of every law and of every conception we shall demand the maximum freedom for the individual and the minimum power for the government necessary to achieve any given social objective. If you believe this, join us. If you don't — fight us. Either is your privilege, but the only truly immoral act you can commit is to agree with us, to realize that we are right — and then to forget it and do nothing. There is some excuse, little as it may be, for an open, honest Fifth Columnist. There is none for an innocent, passive, subconscious one. Of all the things we have said here to you, we wish to be wrong on only one — our first sentence. Prove us wrong on that. Join us. The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. But not without Freedom.

How would an objective observer know the difference between a man selfishly devoting himself to others and a man selflessly devoting himself to others?

Another demonstration that altruism is not evil. Branden asked, "What is to be the goal or purpose of a man’s actions? Who is to be the intended beneficiary of his actions? Is he to hold, as his primary moral purpose, the achievement of his own life and happiness—or should his primary moral purpose be to serve the wishes and needs of others?" ("Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in The Virtue of Selfishness) Examine the last sentence above. Why must we assume a dichotomy between achieving one's own life and happiness and serving the wishes and needs of others? In some individuals, as in the video above, the purpose may be the same.

Greg: Are you victim of the government? Frank: Yes. Greg: It's your own damned fault for not living like an American. Frank: Living like an American means speaking out against evil. Just as there were "Good Germans" who "overlooked atrocities while denying personal moral responsibility by appeal to his submission to supposedly legitimate authority," so there are Americans who do the same with regard to their own government. Better to pass judgment than to acquiesce in evil.

The essence of those questions have already been answered by yourself with your continual complaining that the government is robbing you, Frank. I know your kind well. Perpetrators claim to be victims of what they do to others. What goes around comes around, and you certainly aren't an exception to that moral law. Greg If my answers are what matters, then let's review them: Q: Did you take something that belongs to someone else? Ferrer: No. Q: Are taxes a form of theft? Ferrer: Yes. Q: Do you deserve to be taxed? Ferrer: No. Q: Does anyone deserve to be taxed? Ferrer: No. Thanks, Morrie, for giving me a chance to clear up any misconceptions.

1. Cooper is wooden as Roark, but what other star in 1949 could have played him? John Wayne? Robert Taylor? Ray Milland? 2. Massey is perfect as Gale. If he seemed too patrician as a kid from Hell's Kitchen, remember that the nouveau riche often took on the manners of aristocrats. Wynand/Massey built a cold exterior and allowed the passions to flicker inside it. 3. Neal delivers as good a performance as one could expect in a role that is fundamentally mystifying. I fell in love watching her in The Fountainhead. So did Cooper. Their affair went on for several years. 4. Some of the architectural drawings and models are bland, but the Enright Building is quite good, as is a house based on Fallingwater. 5. The film's running time is 1:54. This was not an epic feature and there was no reason Warner Brothers should have been expected to give it more time. Sure, there are many omitted characters and scenes. But Rand's screenplay delivered the message, and in film it is always safer to err on the side of brevity.

I'll make that even clearer, Frank. Your whining that the government is taking from you means that you're taking from someone else. That's how moral law works. I understand you fantasize yourself as an innocent victim of government oppression, but the reality is that you're the only one who can screw yourself over by your own lack of values... ...and you're getting exactly what you deserve. Greg First of all, if it's true that I'm "taking from someone else," then you should be able to answer the following questions: 1. Exactly whom did I take something from? 2. What exactly did I take? 3. When and where did this taking take place? 4. What evidence (testimony, fingerprints, fibers, DNA) is there that a taking took place? Sorry to put you to any trouble, but in most parts of the United States people generally put together a group of facts, called a "case," before accusing someone else of taking something. It's a politeness thing. Secondly, if I am "getting exactly what I deserve," then it follows that what I have legitimately belongs to me and was not taken from anyone. Finally, doesn't your whining that I have taken from someone else mean that you have taken from someone else?

It is possible to include all taxes as a cost of doing business in the price charged for goods and services. This is standard business practice, and only someone like you who produces nothing would be ignorant of it. And the taxes fall exactly where they should on every end user. If you can't afford to pay them it's your own fault for failing to become a Capitalist producer. All you can do is to victim/whine about something you have no power to change. Greg No one has said that businesses do not include the cost of taxes in pricing. But, as I have pointed out repeatedly, taxes cannot always be shifted forward without negative costs to the manufacturer or merchant raising prices to cover costs imposed by the government. I have already cited the depression suffered throughout the U.S. yacht building industry in the 1990's as a result of a 10% federal luxury tax. You may have missed this the previous two times I mentioned it. You say, "Taxes fall exactly where they should on every end user." Why should taxes fall on the end user or any one else for that matter? This makes no more sense than saying that the costs of counterfeit money, credit card fraud or shoplifting should fall on the end user. The nature of property rights is that no one is entitled to money they did not earn or obtain through gift. The goal of justice is to act against property rights violations, not treat them as something a particular class deserves. In fact, the only difference between a tax collector and a common thief is that the tax collector gets a government pension. If Harding and Coolidge were able to reduce taxation in their administrations, the same feat can be performed by future governments. The idea that it cannot be changed is patently false.

Probably because it has nothing to do with proving your argument without some additional facts. I guess a lot. However, when you throw a poor fastball high in the zone it is easy. The Moralist has asserted that "people who complain the government is robbing them. . .means that they are robbing someone else." Since the Moralist did not list exceptions, it would appear that this is a general rule. I submitted the example of Coolidge who regarded high taxes as a form of theft and asked if that meant that the Moralist would not have done business with Coolidge, the subject of an admiring video that the Moralist posted at the top of this thread. He countered that "Coolidege [sic] wasn't complaining that it was being done to him... and you are." Coolidge, a successful lawyer, mayor, governor, and president would certainly have been in an income bracket to qualify to pay taxes. Why then should we suppose that Coolidge's comparison of high taxes to larceny meant that he was happy with the level of taxation he himself paid but just wanted it reduced for everyone else? Why should we suppose that his complaint did not apply to his own taxes? Now, perhaps you could do a little research and help the Moralist show that Coolidge, a perfect altruist, only wanted taxes cut for the the rest of the population, not on his own income. But now I remember that the Moralist reaches his conclusions without reference to facts.

One of the best in a decade of great movies.

Wrong on both counts. 1. My criticism of taxation, like Rand's and that of every other philosophical tax critic, has never focused on my own needs but on the moral principle that taxation is a violation of rights. You might recognize the prohibition of theft as one of the Ten Commandments: "The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking or keeping the goods of one's neighbor and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods." In this regard, I should point out that your idea of shifting taxes forward is a form of acquiescence with evil. Even if it were possible to shift all taxes forward (it isn't), the legalized theft would not disappear; it would merely fall on someone else. Furthermore, when Coolidge said, "The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny," why should one suppose that Coolidge was not himself forced to pay higher taxes (unnecessarily)? Why should one suppose that Coolidge did not himself hope to benefit from a lower tax rate? 2. Calvin Coolidge did not elect himself president. Through persuasion he was able to convince millions to cast their ballots for him. His platform emphasized "reducing taxes, collecting foreign debts, passing the protective tariff, opposing farm subsidies for crop prices, enacting the eight-hour workday, banning child labor, and passing a federal anti-lynching law." The public preferred their agenda over the Democrats' "reduction in the tariff, a graduated income tax, farm relief with easier credit and farm subsidies for crop prices, independence for the Philippines, a national referendum on the League of Nations, strict enforcement of antitrust laws, and public works projects to reduce unemployment." Coolidge won 54% of the vote. Like Coolidge, I believe in fighting for the hearts and minds of a majority of Americans. Government has become destructive of liberty and the will of the majority is needed to alter or abolish it. Americans have known how to erect a superlative material achievement in the midst of an untouched wilderness, against the resistance of savage tribes. What we need today is to erect a corresponding philosophical structure, without which the material greatness cannot survive. A skyscraper cannot stand on crackerbarrels, nor on wall mottoes, nor on full-page ads, nor on prayers, nor on meta-language. The new wilderness to reclaim is philosophy, now all but deserted, with the weeds of prehistoric doctrines rising again to swallow the ruins. To support a culture, nothing less than a new philosophical foundation will do. --Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual