Francisco Ferrer

Bet that'll be the most popular ride at Beck World. And sure to please the enviros.

Heh. I just love non-producers who mock those who dream and produce. People used to mock Walt Disney all the time, too. It's funny how people now remember Walt, but don't remember the mockers. Just because Glenn stopped putting out press releases on his theme park project for the progressive media to mock doesn't mean the project has shut down. Delighted that Beck World is still cleared for take off! Maybe the Rootin' Tootin' Shootin' Gallery there will have cutouts of Mr. and Mrs. Norquist.

All of this will be forgotten once the Beck World theme park opens.

Clinton Foundation’s Deep Financial Ties to Ukrainian Oligarch Who Pushed for Closer Ties to EU Revealed

Your puzzled misinterpretation will continue as long as you begin with 'ownership' (of self and property) as the justification for rights. As I said, that's the end of the process, not the start. The 'start' is that a man is fundamentally solitary, a single organism; with no instincts, he must select what is good for his existence; with a non-automated mind he must volitionally bring it to bear on reality to accomplsh it; with a consciousness which is not transferable or supernaturally advised, it is his entire efforts of mind and body that lead him to live and thrive and gain values and ownership. Property, iow. The predator or tyrant comes along and interrupts that independent process (of "self-sustaining and self-generating action") taking for himself the individual's products or his freedom to act - metaphorically, the equivalent of pinning the wings of an eagle, or crippling a gazelle. Being a "fundamentally solitary," "organism; with no instincts" with "a non-automated mind" and a "consciousness which is not transferable" does not provide a set of reasons why any man must regard another man's life and property as off limits. It doesn't move us from egoism to constrained egoism. If a hungry man may roast the leg of a lamb, why may he not pin the wings of an eagle or cripple a gazelle? In other words, Rand provided the logical transition by simply saying there is a logical transition rather than showing it.

Mao's life doesn't show anything. I don't know that much about Communist China, so let's talk about Stalin instead. Stalin lived well, but what happened to Lenin? What if Stalin had been Lenin? Lenin succumbed to his injuries after he was shot. What happened to Trotsky? He was murdered with an axe. What happened to Zinoviev? He was executed? What happened to Kamenev? He was executed too. What happened to Bukharin? He was executed. Most of the original members of Politburo and more than half of the members of the Central Committee were eventually executed or murdered. Most of them probably thought that they were important, just like Stalin. They probably thought they were little kings or nobles, just like Stalin. In the fight for power, someone is going to come out on top, but Stalin had no realistic way of knowing he would win, though he undoubtedly thought he would. Therefore Stalin must have been destroyed as the price of his destruction, right? That would only mean that the likely price of being a dictator is the destruction of the dictator, not that "the price of destruction [is] the destruction of their victims and their own." Furthermore, there are opportunities to survive by looting others that afford a much lower risk than what Stalin experienced. How likely is it that an IRS employee is going to be destroyed for the price of his looting? You're giving examples of people that got lucky. I'm giving examples of people that didn't. Rand's claim does not include the variable of probability. It is a blanket statement: "Looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own." Something can't be a principle unless it is practiced virtually all the time. A person that stole constantly would soon be caught. Being honest doesn't require calculating the odds. Lying does. The principle may be to loot only when the gains are high and the risks are low. This is what the necklace thief did. This is what the person who stole my Mustang did. This is what IRS employees do. I'm afraid you're the one clinging to a failed theory. If it is not true that looters do not always get destroyed, when were the men who founded the inflationary and therefore looting Federal Reserve destroyed? Yes. The odds are against the liar, cheater, or thief. Would you assert that it is a good idea to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel because some people have done it successfully? What if someone offered a million dollars to anyone who was successful? Darrell The odds are not against liars at all. Every president of the U.S. has sworn to uphold the Constitution and very few did. Yet the liars were not destroyed as the price of their lying. Yes, we have had a couple of assassinations, but the assassins were hardly avengers of Constitutional government, exacting the "price" of unconstitutional government. And occasionally lying presidents get turned out of office. To face what? Nowadays a very lucrative second career with round the clock Secret Service protection. As for Niagara Falls, I understand that with improving technology and changing water conditions, a barrel jump today would not be nearly as dangerous as fifty years ago. If a person's life would be miserable or in great danger without a quick million dollars, a barrel jump might be a rational choice,

What on earth does that have to do with the topic? Response to your statement in Post #250: "And here you leave out the victims in 'all men' as a universal. For Salazar and Franco to prosper, others had to perish. There goes 'all men' down the toilet for the standard in those particular dictatorships." Rand: "What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival . . . An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." Not: the standard is "all organisms." They focused on the singular, not the plural, as in: "The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man’s body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life." Not "their lives." Perhaps John Galt committed the sin of "concrete-boundness" by beginning his oath, "I swear by my life . . ." Perhaps it should have been, "I swear by the lives of all men as a universal . . ."

You're starting to get it. And here you leave out the victims in "all men" as a universal. For Salazar and Franco to prosper, others had to perish. There goes "all men" down the toilet for the standard in those particular dictatorships. It is not clear that Salazar and Franco's standard of value had anything to do with all men. Indeed each dictator's standard might have centered on the dictator himself and included perhaps only a few beyond that. To paraphrase Rand, the standard was "my life, or: that which is required for my survival." In the beginning of her argument, the most persuasive part, Rand advances a fairly straight-forward egoism: "What is that standard? His life." "Its life is the standard of value directing its actions." Whether a man "will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value." Her argument becomes vaguer once she introduces the qualifier "qua" into the picture, and thus a potential conflict arises between living with one's life as the standard of value and living as man qua man. If I have not put forth a standard for all men it due to the absence of evidence for the existence of a universal standard of value. The question is: can looters "achieve their goals for the range of a moment" without the "price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own"? It does not follow that dictators must necessarily incorporate all men into their standard of value, and thus when "others had to perish," the predator may not have regarded it as a loss but as a gain. The destruction of the criminal or dictator is far from a certainty. I just gave you a perfect example above. But then, we are talking in conceptual terms, not concrete-bound ones. In your thirst to prove a proposition wrong, you missed Rand's meaning completely. Conceptually, you use double-standards. And that's OK for your position. It's just a misrepresentation to attribute your double standards to Rand. MichaelIt is not a double-standard to recognize that two men may have adopted different standards. It is not a double-standard, for example, to acknowledge that in this world there may be both altruists and egoists. Does Rand have a double-standard? Rand says, "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man." One of the problems is that this comes after Rand in the first part of her essay has argued for an egoism derived from life as the ultimate value: "The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival." "An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." "Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of 'life.' To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.” "The fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life." "The ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life." Now, suddenly, it's "man’s survival qua man." For Rand at mid-point to insert a different criterion in her ethics, not life but "man’s survival qua man," is to turn her back on what has already been established in her theory. We have now a separate premise sneaking in and Rand says nothing to defend it. It's a statement that she treats as self-evident, unlike the work she put into developing life as the ultimate value. We cannot, consequently, treat "man’s survival qua man" as a logically developed conclusion. More importantly, while "life" and "survival" are readily understood, "qua man" is an altogether different animal. When she suggests that she means "that which is proper to the life of a rational being," there may be no internal conflict--provided that we are not talking about something separate from an organism’s life as its standard of value or its ultimate value. However, simply declaring that "counting on productive men to serve as their prey" is irrational behavior is a non-sequitur. If in some cases predatory behavior successfully promotes the life or survival of the predator, it cannot in that context be considered contrary to exercising reason and sound judgment, given "his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." Rand does say it is a virtue to live "by the work of one’s own mind." But she does not say why that virtue must necessarily follow from man setting "his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." With "man's survival" and "man's survival qua man" both in play, we have potential conflicts. This is why Rand's system is not completely coherent. I will close by saying that I am categorically opposed to the initiation of force. However, I could not have used Rand's thought as the means for arriving at such a principle.

This is incorrect. It is a misrepresentation to claim something is a counterexample when it does not deal with the core idea, but the person presenting the so-called counterexample claims it does. And the claim in this quote is only apparent to the one quoted. In fact, this is an example of more bullshit through assigning wrong meanings. I could never believe a relevant counterexample is a misrepresentation. To allege I would is wrong. This poster knows that, too. Assigning wrong meanings to people is a hard habit to break once you start doing it. One thing is for sure. It is a lot easier than thinking through an issue correctly. All you have to do is make shit up, then turn your brain off and get stubborn. Michael Let's consider Rand's meanings as carefully as possible. Rand wrote, "Men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship." Rand did not provide a special definition for "destruction" in her essay. Therefore, it would be appropriate to take "destruction" here in the standard usage of the word: "The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired." Per Rand, not only can men not survive ("continue to live or exist") by "counting on productive men to serve as their prey," but the "price" (price: "unwelcome experience, event, or action involved as a condition of achieving a desired end") of looting will be "the destruction of their victims and their own." This, then, is the "core idea" that is being examined. Since Rand does not qualify "men" with the words "some" or "many" or "in most cases," it would follow that she means all men. In support of the claim of destruction as the price of looting, she offers "any criminal or any dictatorship." Yet, dictator António de Oliveira Salazar was not destroyed for having ruled Portugal for 36 years. He died of natural causes at age 81. Nor did destruction fall upon Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who died of natural causes at 82 after ruling Spain for 35 years. The truthfulness of a proposition about the world can be tested by looking for examples in the world. As I have pointed out previously in this thread, nearly 100,000 men and women are employed by a federal agency that is charged with the task of looting productive citizens: the Internal Revenue Service. Yet, based on what we can tell from news reports and personal observation, IRS employees do not have a particularly low survival rate. Consequently, we are justified in saying that Rand's claim is false. If it is "concrete-bound" to look to the world for examples or counterexamples for what is clearly stated as a general proposition, then why did Rand herself introduce evidence? "As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship." [my emphasis] If Rand was dealing in universal terms, why did she herself engage in such a "concrete-bound" display of evidence production? The assertion that I have ignored those who perished is false. In my earlier post of five counterexamples, I specifically mentioned the number of victims killed. No one on this thread has claimed that "man" does not include victims. No one on this thread has extolled dictators. You are welcome to prove otherwise by citing an example. However, that might require some "concrete-bound" looking.

Prosperous destruction or perhaps destructive prosperity. Apparently, it is a misrepresentation to point to counterexamples. Thus the only method of criticism that avoids misrepresentation would be to omit counterexamples. Who was it that coined the term "blank out"? "Men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey." "Survive": 1. to remain alive after the death of someone, the cessation of something, or the occurrence of some event; continue to live: 2. to remain or continue in existence or use: 3. to get along or remain healthy, happy, and unaffected in spite of some occurrence In her essay Rand did not assign the word a special meaning apart from the standard definition. The counterexamples of those who survived by using "productive men to serve as their prey" thus stand.

I have not defined "self-interest" in exclusively biological or materialistic terms. The counterexamples I offered did not all act for purely biological or materialistic motives. Cromwell certainly did not. Furthermore, Rand's ethics do not state that the ultimate value is non-biological or non-material. "The ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life." Nor do my counterexamples include men who survived in a "superficial, short-term" way. As for the soul, I have no doubt that Cromwell and many other practitioners of mass murder who read Mark and the other evangelists went to their graves satisfied that their souls had not been lost but assured safe passage to paradise.

I will answer the charge that I have misrepresented Ayn Rand's argument. Rand's postulates an ethics of rational egoism. "The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival." After establishing this self-interested standard, she warns us against any "attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud." But how does this follow from the premise? Because, she says, The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals. But just as animals would not be able to survive by attempting the method of plants, by rejecting locomotion and waiting for the soil to feed them—so men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship. In short, force and fraud against others are not in one's self-interest. If Rand's ethical theory is universalist (not relativist), it would apply to all mankind and not just to some members of the species. However, this is obviously not the case. History contains a long and bloody record of predators whose mass killing and looting did not bring about their destruction either in the short or long term. Too many lived out their lives without hanging from a noose or locked in a prison or lunatic asylum. I will mention only a few examples: Oliver Cromwell's 1649–53 conquest of Ireland, fueled mainly by anti-Catholic fervor, caused the deaths of about 618,000 people, or about 40% of Ireland's prewar population. Cromwell died of natural causes at age 59, although Royalists later dug up his body to perform a posthumous execution.Among other crimes, the Qing Manchu Qianlong Emperor ordered the mass extermination of the Dzungar people as punishment for a rebellion against Qing rule. Between 480,000 and 600,000 people, were killed between 1755 and 1758. Hymns were sung to the murderous troops when they returned from the slaughter. The emperor, a poet, essayist and avid art collector, lived in lavish conditions and died of natural causes at the age of 87.Andrew Jackson pushed the Indian Removal Act through Congress which led to the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee people from the Southeastern U.S. and an estimated death toll of 4,000 men, women and children. After his presidency Jackson lived comfortably on his 1,000 acre slave plantation until his death at the age of 78.King Leopold II of Belgian amassed a great personal fortune through the use of forced labor to extract rubber in the Congo Free State in the late 19th century. Estimates of deaths from his regime range from 5 to 22 million. Although the Belgian parliament eventually forced the king to cede the colony to the state, Leopold was never penalized for the murders or deprived of his ill-gotten gains. He died of natural causes in his 74th year.German General Lothar von Trotha was responsible for the deaths of between 24,000 and 100,000 members of the Herero tribe and about 10,000 Nama in German South-West Africa 1904-1907. His order was that "every Herero, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I will no longer accept women or children, I will drive them back to their people [to die in the desert] or let them be shot at." The scorched earth campaign included poisoning wells. Lothar returned to Germany, served as an infantry general and died of natural causes at the age of 71.So here is the hole in Rand's argument. Men, she says, "cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey." However, according to Aristotelian logic, an argument is invalid if it is contradicted by a counterexample. Thus, if there are men who do in fact survive beyond the range of a moment by preying on productive men, Rand's argument is false.

(9 x 7) + (9 x 10) = 153 ∴ 9 x 17 = 153

A theory of property rights is not needed to see the gap in Rand's ethics between identifying an organism's life as its standard of values and ruling out theft as a means to enhance or extend that life. This, I submit, is a perfect response of a concrete-bound mentality in the traditional Randian sense. I never thought I would agree with an example Peikoff once mentioned as I thought it was an exaggeration, but I see it clearly all over FF's posts. Here is a passage from "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand": I think one of the frustrations people feel with FF is not his tendency to trivialize evil or wallow in nit-picky semantic negative vibes. I think it is the impossibility of explaining what a principle is to him. He treats principles like concretes, that is, without any conceptual hierarchy, then asks for evidence or points to a surface contradiction (or "gap" or whatever), then claims he debunked this or that. You try to explain that a principle is integrated from many observations, not deduced from a single instance. But that gets ignored as the parrot kicks in. Look at how he does not understand the difference between goal and purpose (standard). He is not stupid, but this is not a simple lack of understanding, either. It is a refusal to understand based on a much deeper concrete-bound epistemological premise. One has to understand something correctly before one can debunk it. Ignoring the meaning will not get one there. Is his constant ignoring integration honest? I believe so. (Sometimes it is clever, too.) But it is frustrating to those who do think in principles. People constantly talk past him and he them because of his blinders. There's a hole in his perception where other people see stuff. I've given up on reasoning with this. I've now gone into satire. It's more fun than nitpicking semantics. He's entitled to his opinions, but he's not going to persuade anyone here that Rand was wrong through argument-by-repetition. Drip drip drip. There will also be my drip drip drip satire along with it. Then if he wants to persuade, he will have to use logic and reason--starting with addressing the fundamental parts he constantly leaves out. (I will not satirize that if he ever starts.) Once again, I have no problem with disagreements. Nor do I have a problem if someone believes Rand was wrong. I do have a problem when someone preaches a misrepresentation, honestly or dishonestly. In my evaluation, I don't think he has a clue about how Rand makes a logical connection between fact and value. I mean that literally. What's more, I think when he starts to get it, he resists. (But then, I would need more evidence than forum posts to come to that conclusion, right? Evidence, evidence, evidence... ) In an odd way, he reminds of a mini-celebrity named Anita Sarkeesian when she argues that video games exist just so young testosterone-driven males can oppress females and giant oppressor corporations can exploit this. She never goes to a 100% standard with this premise, but everything she says and does points to it. As she is intelligent, and this theme shows a breathtakingly stunted and/or warped epistemology when she simply leaves out obvious things (like garden-variety fun, the pleasure of puzzle-solving, neuroscience, etc.) but insists on attributing really obnoxious class-warfare motives to gamers (and all males throughout history--except left-wingers--for that matter), she has oodles of well-intentioned gamers constantly trying to make sense out of her arguments and then getting hostile with her when she refuses to consider the obvious while claiming the obnoxious part about them is all. Of course, she then blames all the hostility on their supposed misogyny. What's worse, you feel she is sincere. It's watching someone live in the real world with her body, but living in a self-imposed opaque bubble in her mind. Concrete-bound epistemology is like that, too. (I expect FF to now say I'm unfair because he never discussed video games. ) The frustrating part is you look at someone intelligent like that and wonder how they can do it. But they do... Apropos, I bet if I scratch this deep enough, I will come up with core story at the root. Michael No, rather than being concrete-bound, my approach is to require that ideas be derived from actual data rather than exist, in Rand's words, as "floating abstractions" or in another writer's words "a theory in search of a reality." I have never trivialized evil. Rather, my position is that opposition to evil does not follow logically from the basic premises of Rand's ethics. I agree that a "principle is integrated from many observations," and accordingly it is not from a few but many observations that I've concluded that Rand is in error in saying that the predator's "price of destruction [is] the destruction of their victims and their own." Of course, there is a connection between fact and value. However, the existence of that connection does not form a bridge from Rand's egoistic premises to her position on respecting rights. I grant the difference between goal and purpose (standard). What I question is that the predator's standard necessarily must be Rand's standard. And, yes, repetition is best avoided when possible. In the future I'll attempt to respond to posts with links to previous posts. You'll see, I hope, less drip, drip, drip and more link, link, link. There has been no misrepresentation of Ayn Rand. I never claimed that she endorses a prudent predator. All along my position has been that the rights-respecting conclusions she reaches (and that I concur with) do not follow seamlessly from her early premises. As for the accusation that I "wallow in nit-picky semantic negative vibes." It is true, that from time to time, I do enjoy wallowing, but I am always careful to choose a location where the vibes are positive and the semantics are free of nits. I agree that satire may be the best way to respond to my posts. The satirist is not required to paint an accurate portrait only an exaggerated one.

A theory of property rights is not needed to see the gap in Rand's ethics between identifying an organism's life as its standard of values and ruling out theft as a means to enhance or extend that life.

Most thoughtful of her to do it implicitly. Thus she provided her followers with the occupation of making things explicit. The one generating actions. Yes, you might say that in nature autonomous organisms survive, explicitly and sometimes implicitly, by being autonomous. Whereas non-autonomous organisms survive by being non-autonomous. The problem is that you have used the words "autonomous" and "independent" without ever defining them. I used "independent" in the sense of "not relying on another or others for aid or support." It may not be your definition but it is not inherently the wrong definition. The predator would take or not take depending on whether it is in his best interests. He may decide that avoiding death by starvation is a greater good than respecting the rights of the creator. On the other hand he may decide that the risk of death by crossbow is a worse fate than sleeping on an empty stomach. If he committed the action upon himself, then perhaps he can compensate himself by taking himself out to dinner one night. And what would be irrationally selfish about that?

Um. Yes, go ahead, what's your question? In most cases. hands follow the instructions of the brain. The answers are in my case, yes, yes, yes. In the case of some others, the answers may vary. At any stage? People have been known to blow out candles they've lit. However they cannot cancel history. Let's say there are two women. One has long, beautiful black hair. The other, due to illness, has a bare, scabby scalp. While Woman with Black Hair is sleeping, Bald Woman cuts off her hair and makes a wig of it to cover her own bare head. By the Theory of Self-Ownership one has title to her own body and all its parts. Thus, Bald Woman's action is a property rights violation.

A liar would try to conflate a date with a subjective opinion. The truth is found in your own subjective judgment of Mao as being a "gentleman". That's the kind of value you live by, and you reveal it with your own words. That's a two edged sword, Frank... and you've cut yourself on it. Greg The absence of evidence for a claim is not a subjective opinion. There are no reports of Mao ever expressing regret, remorse, or self-doubts about the Chinese Communist Revolution, its human toll, or his role in it. If, however, you have evidence of the psychic costs his murders exacted on him, please submit it. Or, lacking such evidence, you may instead post some comments about me. That should settle the matter.

Thank you. As a good host you look out for your guests. This will give people an easier position to argue against than the one I've actually taken.

So you think expressing remorse after being caught and convicted of a crime is not only a reliable indication of one's emotions, but also as exposing as coming clean about something that nobody knows about. Apparently there are no incentives involved in either case... right? What we are looking for is evidence for your claim that there are "necessary" psychic costs for a act of theft. In Post #195 your wrote, "Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that." Now if it is your argument that few or none will admit to experiencing psychic costs for crime, then you have adopted a position that is unprovable. You may as well argue that Obama worships the Devil and that he is so diabolical that he has hidden all evidence of this. On the other hand, I would argue that there is substantial clinical evidence that a segment of those who commit crimes have little or no empathy and thus little or no negative feedback for violating the rights of others.

But I wasn't referring to how she began the book. I didn't say she began her book with 'independence'. I said "she begins with the independent being" [... implicitly]. i.e. she approaches morality, metaphysically, with the premise of - man the autonomous being. Implicit in "the organism's life" is that each is an autonomous "organism". (It is not physically or mentally part of or connected to any other organism). Therefore: Autonomy -> Independence. Is -> Ought. Whatever threatens this autonomy/independence "is the evil". You will have noticed that all Rand's ethics follow from the metaphysical nature of man. As I pointed out - materialist, FF. Which explains your literalism. Do you not envisage the breach of a dictator's consciousness in the realization of his motives and actions always geared to manipulating or destroying masses of other people (also autonomous beings)? By existing, dependently, over them he - implicitly, again - becomes their slave. Without his physical, life-or-death power over them he'd be a zero; he has become so, anyway, and he has to know it. No. She does not start with man; she starts with organisms in general: An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival. Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life. Next, the fact that a being is "not physically or mentally part of or connected to any other organism," does not lead to the conclusion that creatures are not dependent on members of their own species for survival. Herd animals, such as zebras for example, stay in groups because it is much more likely that a predator will be seen by one of the herd members. This division of labor allows each zebra to spend more time eating and less time searching for threats. It is likely that early man lived in close knit groups for much the same reason. But let us stipulate that due to evolution and technology modern man has the power to survive independently. That fact does not magically yield the moral principle that he "should," "must," or "ought" to live independently. Some modern men may prefer the comfort, security, fellowship that a close knit group allows. It is true that collectivism does not promote innovation or an increased standard of living, but those gains may not be the highest priorities for individuals in a group. More to the point of this thread, you have not provided a reason what any particular modern human organism must necessarily respect the wealth created by others in order to survive or prosper or even enjoy peace of mind. You write, "Therefore: Autonomy -> Independence. Is -> Ought. Whatever threatens this autonomy/independence 'is the evil.'" No, it does not follow from the fact that one man plants and tills and harvests his food that another men "should," "must," or "ought" not take the bounty created by the first man. There may be in most cases the danger of being killed or imprisoned for stealing, but that fact does not yield the principle that is it never right to steal. Perhaps it is true that predators commit a "breach of . . . consciousness" and in some cases suffer what Rand calls "price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own." But where is the evidence that this is true in all cases? The unfortunate fact is that many predators repeat their crimes. In such cases the loot gained apparently offsets any psychic costs.

I thought we were talking about successful predators... Is this the quality of "evidence" you think I should be providing? What convicted fellons say after years in prison isn't a reliable source of anything. I am being theoretical because this is a theoretical issue... I cannot give you ostensible evidence because it would be as arbitrary as your Scared Straight refrence. Really what it comes down to is shame, and how it manifests. And again, shame is not something people go around talking about. In Post #195 you wrote, "Apparently the evidence you require is for someone to openly admit they have made a mistake with their own psychology. People don't really do that." The fact that there are innumerable newspaper articles, books, memoirs and documentaries in which criminals express regret for past activities and acknowledge their flawed thinking at the moment of committing the crime shows that people really do make such admissions. Now, as of Post #200, your position appears to be that we cannot trust what convicted felons say about their thinking because, well . . . because they're criminals. But why must we trust your assumption that there is a necessary psychic cost to crime? Your assumption is based entirely on what you think must be going on the head of a person you've never met. With just as much "proof" one could assert that all criminals suffer from the torture of Satan's demons. I have heard Christians and socialists say no wealthy man can be truly happy unless he gives a large part of his fortune to the poor. Evidence for this? Apparently they do not need to provide it because any evidence submitted for their position would be just as arbitrary as evidence submitted against it. This is the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance, as in "Nobody has ever been able to prove that there is no God. Therefore, there clearly is a God." You say it comes down to shame. The individuals I mentioned at the end of Post #198 gave not the slightest sign of shame. You may wish to argue that every criminal feels shame and that any wrong-doer not showing it is merely concealing it. But how could one draw such a conclusion without presuming to know how the entire species thinks?

Any information channel outside government control is a threat. Ayn Rand, to her great credit, was criticizing the FCC as far back as 1962: The basic evil in any theory of a "mixed economy" — an economy of freedom mixed with controls — is the evasion of the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force and that political power is the power of coercion. While a dictatorship rests on a blunt acknowledgment of this fact, on the motto that "might is right" — a "mixed economy" rests on pretending that no such distinction exists, that might and right can be safely scrambled together if we all agree never to raise this issue. The current policy of the F.C.C. has provided a spectacle of not raising that issue, on a grand scale.

As I told you in Post #149: "One does not himself have to be the exception to show there is an exception to a claim. To illustrate, if someone claims that pole vaulting above 6 mi is impossible, I do not personally have to pole vault 6.16 m to establish that such an action can be performed." In this thread I do not have to be a person without the ability or desire to introspect (and thus have regrets about theft) to know that there are such people.