Roger Bissell

Stomp 'em enough, and then they'll sit back and listen to your stories? Sounds more like Peter Keating looking at unattractive people in a restaurant and reflecting on how seeing unsuccessful people made him feel good and worthy. Amazing. Trump, touted by some as another Howard Roark, much more like Keating. I love it! (Keating built buildings, too.) REB

MB typology is like horoscopes in some respects. They can be used for good or evil. They are fun. Some people like to associate them with mythology.They come in multiples of 2. Many people read what they want to into them and manipulate them to say what they want them to say. Some people make a living off of huckstering them. Those are some similarities between the MBTI and astrology/horoscopes. The dissimilarities are really more interesting, unless you're into pathology. REB

Here's a followup: Becky and I read through Donald Trump's "platform" yesterday and Ted Cruz's "platform" today and then rated them according to a 3 point system and positive and/or negative applied to each of Trump's 7 and Cruz's 9 categories of policy. We pretty much agreed that Trump rated approximately a 55-60% and Cruz 85%. Trump scored well on veterans affairs and tax reform, Cruz scored well on the 2nd amendment, jobs and opportunity, and shrinking federal government (including tax reform). Where Trump really fell down, by our standards, was immigration reform (including The Wall) and China trade policy. Trump had almost nothing to say about civil liberties or foreign policy/military, so we had to look things up in the Internet (but we didn't factor that into our rating) - we found that in the November CNN debate, Trump favored using troops and bombing, while Cruz only favored bombing which he unwisely characterized as "carpet bombing." For us, "boots on the ground" is a deal-breaker, so it was good that even one of them opposed committing troops to fighting ISIS. Cruz has mixed positions on religious and social conservative issues, but overall he was positive in our opinion. It was a good exercise. It made us feel not quite so bad about the prospects for someone to vote for this fall. (I'm sure we would have scored both Hillary and Bernie well below 50%.) REB

I challenge Roger Campbell to a stomping match. If I win Cruz gets nominated. If Roger wins Trump Cruz gets nominated. I win if Roger wins. --Brant MacGregor Brant, your words have revealed the psycho-epistemology of a prehistoric savage. You need to go back and read David Stuart Kelley's The Art of Rationalizing, or his previous book on the enumeration of Republicans, The Elephants of the Census, which he wrote under the tutelage of Pennard Leakoff. Good luck with your studies. Sincerely, Robert Bissell

Uh, oh - looks like a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y! OMG, OMG, OMG. You know what this means? Cruz realizes he has lost the Evangelical vote, and now he's gone full-tilt libertarian! Or, more likely, he's repaying Jeb, the drug dealer, by legalizing his side-business. But wait, wouldn't legalizing marijuana take a lot of the (criminal) profit out of it? Hmmmm. I know there's a dirty, dirty, dirty little plot somewhere here. The geniuses at (L)OL surely will be able to figure it out...REB http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/04/11/ted-cruz-supports-ending-federal-criminalization-marijuana/ Ted Cruz Supports Ending the Federal Criminalization of Marijuana By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | April 11th, 2016 at 01:30 PM | 76 This isn’t exactly a new position for Cruz, but it’s a nice contrast to Trump when you see a candidate with some intellectual consistency. I think that Cruz’s most hardcore base (deeply evangelical conservatives) are probably not all that keen on legalized weed. But Ted Cruz is a guy who believes in Federalism as a principle, and the issue of marijuana legalization (vel non) is more or less a quintessential state police function, which ought to be decided by the states. Ted Cruz agrees: In two interviews on Saturday, Ted Cruz reiterated his support for marijuana federalism. “Personally,” he told the ABC station in Denver, “I would vote against marijuana legalization. If the state of Texas had a referendum on it, I would vote no. But I think it is the prerogative of the states to make that determination. I think the people of Colorado have the right to make the decision that they’ve made under the Constitution, and as president I would respect that right.” Talking to The Denver Post the same day, Cruz explained the practical advantages of letting states go their own way. “It is an opportunity for the rest of the country to see what happens here in Colorado, what happens in Washington state, see the states implement the policies,” he said. “If it works well, other states may choose to follow. If it doesn’t work well, other states may choose not to follow.” He said it was too early to say how legalization is going in Colorado. Those comments comport with what Cruz said at last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. “I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the laboratories of democracy,'” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.” If this is your position on abortion, it makes no sense that it wouldn’t also be your position on marijuana. While Cruz often gets criticized for being a caricature of the hard core conservative, he’s actually a pretty thoughtful guy. I’ve known him over the years to seriously listen to anyone who has a good idea on something, and change his position when presented with new evidence. The marijuana issue is one of those issues – Cruz used to be a critic of the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce (probably unconstitutional) Federal law in Colorado when Colorado legalized marijuana, but now his thinking has clearly changed. It’s difficult to find a political reason for it since it will probably hurt him with voters he is trying to court, so the remaining explanation is that he’s trying to be consistent. Which, as I noted, is a nice change of pace.

Such a policy would be neo-Lysenkoism. Let's hope it stays "would be." There are some trying to make it "is." REB

What? I love me some facial ova. Makes a convenient snack when I'm too busy to cook or forage. REB

Well, sorry to be collectivist and imprecise about it, but somewhere in the past 214 pages of this thread some of you Trumpenproletariat mocked Cruz for doing it and/or some Objectivists for appreciating it. I don't know if there are Objectivists supporting Cruz because he read AS in the Senate - more likely because he has consistently taken good pro-liberty positions (at least on the economy) and that he also called attention to one of the most important pro-liberty, pro-reason pieces of fiction ever written in America. Even if Cruz doesn't get within a mile of the White House, ever, he has done reason and liberty a big favor by calling attention to the book. Which is a damn sight more than any of the other candidates have done, Rand Paul excepted. OK, so it wasn't on THIS thread. It was over on page 7 (heh) of the Cruz Nuz thread, which I have conveniently reposted there on the leading edge of today's posts. Turns out the mockery was by some obscure poster who runs a backwater quasi-Objectivist website that some have mocked as being the place where enemies of Objectivism go to die, or something like that. Anyway, here it is again, along with a little follow-up that you chose not to reply to. Enjoy. REB Cruz campaigned in Iowa taking a stand against ethanol subsidies, which are supported by the Establishment GOP and crony capitalists there. Yet, he came out the winner. Was taking that politically risky stand SAYING or DOING? (Fans of the fallacy of the false alternative will recognize that it was both SAYING -AND~ DOING.) REB This is wrong in so many ways. First of all, this is what I was referring to over on page 39,413 of the Trump thread as MSK and others "mocking" Cruz for reading AS on the floor of the Senate. If this isn't mocking per se, it's certainly attempting to reduce it to insignificance and hypocrisy. Secondly, as noted below, Cruz both SAYS AND DOES on many issues. No, he's not completely consistent, but he's not just a TALKER-NOT-DOER, nor are most ortho-Objectivists. (I don't know where one would get such information about ortho-Objectivists to base such a claim on, anyway.) I know quite a few Objectivists supporting Cruz, ortho or otherwise, who are both TALKERS-AND-DOERS, like Cruz. I'm sure there are Trump-supporters who qualify for each of the talk-action categories. So, why attack the character of people you don't even know? And more importantly, why FALSELY attack Cruz's character and record?? Go to his website and read the voluminous details of the things he has DONE, not just the things he has SAID. I've read Trump's web pages on policy twice and see NOTHING on what he has DONE to support the policies he proposes except TALK. Unfortunately, he sometimes says conflicting things on issues two or three times the same day (like on the abortion issue, recently). This is preferable to Cruz? Really? I wonder how Trump would govern. I wonder, I wonder...well, no, I don't wonder. He would no doubt continue to utter 3 contradictory things every alternate Thursday, and 6 on Sunday. (See below for more.) He has consistently (I'm not sure of any lapses) VOTED against subsidies in Congress - is that SAYING or DOING? To me, it's both. It's not just SAYING you're against them, it's DOING something against them, namely, voting against them. Similarly, in the Iowa caucus campaign, he remained consistent with what he DID in Congress, by continuing to oppose subsidies - when he could have gotten more votes by changing his position, as some others did. So, maintaining consistency in SPEECH and ACTION about subsidies is NOT doing. But "having your staff" SAY something is DOING? Sounds to me like you're mangling and reversing the distinction between Cruz's DOING and SAYING when it exists in a rather unclear situation, and ignoring his overall DOING ~AND~ SAYING consistently about subsidies, when the evidence is very clear-cut and first-person. That's really funny, coming from a supporter of the candidate who has a different position on issues each day of the week - and sometimes more than one position on a given day, or even in a single hour. REB I didn't notice a response to this post. I guess MSK was too busy stomping and stomping Robert and the governor of Wisconsin. (Feel better now, MSK?) Reb!

Cruz campaigned in Iowa taking a stand against ethanol subsidies, which are supported by the Establishment GOP and crony capitalists there. Yet, he came out the winner. Was taking that politically risky stand SAYING or DOING? (Fans of the fallacy of the false alternative will recognize that it was both SAYING -AND~ DOING.) REB This is wrong in so many ways. First of all, this is what I was referring to over on page 39,413 of the Trump thread as MSK and others "mocking" Cruz for reading AS on the floor of the Senate. If this isn't mocking per se, it's certainly attempting to reduce it to insignificance and hypocrisy. Secondly, as noted below, Cruz both SAYS AND DOES on many issues. No, he's not completely consistent, but he's not just a TALKER-NOT-DOER, nor are most ortho-Objectivists. (I don't know where one would get such information about ortho-Objectivists to base such a claim on, anyway.) I know quite a few Objectivists supporting Cruz, ortho or otherwise, who are both TALKERS-AND-DOERS, like Cruz. I'm sure there are Trump-supporters who qualify for each of the talk-action categories. So, why attack the character of people you don't even know? And more importantly, why FALSELY attack Cruz's character and record?? Go to his website and read the voluminous details of the things he has DONE, not just the things he has SAID. I've read Trump's web pages on policy twice and see NOTHING on what he has DONE to support the policies he proposes except TALK. Unfortunately, he sometimes says conflicting things on issues two or three times the same day (like on the abortion issue, recently). This is preferable to Cruz? Really? I wonder how Trump would govern. I wonder, I wonder...well, no, I don't wonder. He would no doubt continue to utter 3 contradictory things every alternate Thursday, and 6 on Sunday. (See below for more.) He has consistently (I'm not sure of any lapses) VOTED against subsidies in Congress - is that SAYING or DOING? To me, it's both. It's not just SAYING you're against them, it's DOING something against them, namely, voting against them. Similarly, in the Iowa caucus campaign, he remained consistent with what he DID in Congress, by continuing to oppose subsidies - when he could have gotten more votes by changing his position, as some others did. So, maintaining consistency in SPEECH and ACTION about subsidies is NOT doing. But "having your staff" SAY something is DOING? Sounds to me like you're mangling and reversing the distinction between Cruz's DOING and SAYING when it exists in a rather unclear situation, and ignoring his overall DOING ~AND~ SAYING consistently about subsidies, when the evidence is very clear-cut and first-person. That's really funny, coming from a supporter of the candidate who has a different position on issues each day of the week - and sometimes more than one position on a given day, or even in a single hour. REB I didn't notice a response to this post. I guess MSK was too busy stomping and stomping Robert and the governor of Wisconsin. (Feel better now, MSK?) Reb!

And then there are the (proposed) laws making it a crime to disagree with "established science," such as the (bogus) theory of man-made climate change. Those two are "scientific laws," in a manner of speaking, and I find them much more troubling and worthy of concern than the kind being discussed here. But carry on... REB

Hey there, Mr. Scherk - I hear you, or your robot British guy voice, or whatever. You asked for me to explain to you, a possible, would-be Cruz supporter why I think Cruz is the best candidate for President, and you asked that I do so not just in regard to the economy, but also in regard to civil liberties and foreign policy - or at least to provide some reassurances that Cruz would not commit some gross evil in the latter two areas that would offset whatever good he might do in regard to the economy. Or something like that. Well, predicting what a Democrat or Republican will actually do once in office is a pretty risky matter, especially if they've not even held office before. But even the regular politicians, with actual track records, do not always keep going down the same path they were or campaigned on before elected to the Presidency. FDR is a good example. So is Bill Clinton. For better or worse, I guess you could say. I've finally gotten around to comparing Ted Cruz's website to Donald Trump's, which I looked at several months ago. Cruz has provided a great deal of material on his track record as well as details of policies and actions he will carry out if elected. Here's a link: https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/. I guess there's plenty there that libertarians or Objectivists could hate or be worried about if he were to be elected, as well as a lot of good things. I'd start there, just to see how reasonable or scary he sounds in detail. It might be fun to do a "report card" on his record of achievements and on his proposals, just to see how the things he's proud of doing or planning to do match up with your or my own standards. I tossed out a careless figure of 50%, which probably implied that I think Cruz meets that threshold of acceptability. I'm not really sure whether he does, and one thing I'll be doing shortly is to go through all that material and making some kind of overall rating, as well as identify any serious problem areas in which he might be likely to do more harm than good. I know that avoiding unnecessary war and defending civil liberties are important to libertarians, and I know that there is some concern as to whether Cruz would be a hawkish theocrat, which would be a bloody, godawful mess for all of us if he were. I personally do not think he would, but hey, FDR and LBJ campaigned against war, and look where voting for them got us. But I have no doubt that he would defend the Constitution and push to reduce the size of government taxation, spending, and regulation and in general free up the economy. Beyond that, I'm guessing and hoping like a lot of folks - mainly hoping he would have his priorities straight and not spend a lot of time and energy trying to overturn Roe v. Wade or a lot of precious lives in the meatgrinder of the Middle East (or anywhere else). REB P.S. - I made a little file of the 9 issues areas on Cruz's website, and it's attached here. It may be a handy reference tool to print out and mark up, as you figure out whether supporting Cruz over the other GOP and Democrat candidates would make the most sense. Ted Cruz for President.doc

Well, sorry to be collectivist and imprecise about it, but somewhere in the past 214 pages of this thread some of you Trumpenproletariat mocked Cruz for doing it and/or some Objectivists for appreciating it. I don't know if there are Objectivists supporting Cruz because he read AS in the Senate - more likely because he has consistently taken good pro-liberty positions (at least on the economy) and that he also called attention to one of the most important pro-liberty, pro-reason pieces of fiction ever written in America. Even if Cruz doesn't get within a mile of the White House, ever, he has done reason and liberty a big favor by calling attention to the book. Which is a damn sight more than any of the other candidates have done, Rand Paul excepted. So, you don't Cruz's resume? I dunno - I read the section of his Wikipedia entry on his legal career, and it's pretty damn impressive to me. Maybe you see neocon and/or evangelical schmutz clinging to his achievements, in which case please enlighten us. I have personally accepted grant money to do editorial work for a project supported by the Koch Brothers. Does that make me a neocon or neocon profiteer? It's my understanding that the excessively crowded GOP field for this Presidential cycle was their brainstorm for offering the best assortment of possible candidates from which the best choice would eventually result. Maybe they should have butted out and let the Establishment (aka the Bushes) run the process? REB

Well, if that's your reasoning, then you should support Cruz. Despite his "dirty tricks," Nixon did one incalculably wonderful thing for every individual in the United States (and in particular, young men): he promised in his Presidential campaign to abolish the military draft, and he actually followed through and did it. Sure, he also did stupid, destructive things like imposing wage-price controls (which were temporary, unlike the abolition of the draft), but in the scheme of things, we should all be hugely grateful that he was elected President. Of course, Nixon had some horrendously dirty tricks played on him, too - namely, the voter fraud in Texas and Illinois, which cost him the election in 1960. LBJ was reportedly behind the fraud in Texas, and thanks to his being elected VP, he moved into the White House in 1963 (when JFK was assassinated), and played horrible smear tactics in his re-election campaign against the very nearly libertarian Barry Goldwater in 1964, then got us deeply into the Vietnam conflict, in which 55,000 young drafted men were sent to die FOR NOTHING. And he started the fraudulently named "War on Poverty," in which 5 Trillion dollars were spent FOR NOTHING (the poverty level which had been dropping for decades locked in place and hasn't budged in 50 years). Dirty tricks do not equate with bad Presidential records, nor do immaculate campaigns and behavior equate with good Presidential records. What matters is what policies do they put into effect - do they pass good laws and repeal bad ones? On balance, are they pro-freedom or anti-freedom in their actual results? In the present context, we have to examine candidates both in terms of what they have already stood for consistently in their policy speeches and what they have actually voted for and passed into law (good things) or repealed (bad things). Cruz is the only one of the remaining GOP candidates who is even in the ballpark for consistent words and actions on policy. While I'm on the subject, you and others have mocked Cruz for reading excerpts from Atlas Shrugged on the floor of the Senate, as if this was empty posturing. Well, who in the HELL would do such a thing if they didn't believe it and want it to be the direction for our country? Are you oblivious as to how deeply unpopular Rand's ideas and vision are in this country? Almost as reviled and hated as Cruz is by most of his fellow Senate members. Do you think he was just trying to irritate them further? Heh. No, Cruz's reading Atlas may have been a purer statement of principles he likes than the sum total of his Senate votes might indicate, but it is very similar to his stand in Iowa against ethanol subsidies. He is willing to go into the lion's den, as few others are, and to say what he's for or against and not back down. When he says he wants to eliminate subsidies, and he is willing to forego the votes of the constituents for subsidies, that means something very important to me. I'm surprised you disregard or discount it, as you clearly do. This is why when Cruz says he wants a flat tax and to abolish the IRS, I believe him. I take this as being on the same or higher level of believability as I did Nixon's (Quaker-faith-supported) promise to abolish the SSS (draft). I hope he gets the chance to campaign on this promise in the fall. Trump hasn't shown me anything faintly worthy, by comparison. Cruz is the only remaining GOP candidate who is even 50% acceptable to me. If he's not nominated, I'll definitely be voting (write-in) for Gary Johnson (assuming the Libertarian Party nominates him) - and speaking out on his behalf, as well. REB

I've actually thought about this issue. Lion Ted Cruzafix has a Sunni disposition. Nuff said on that. The preponderance of evidence suggests that T Ronald Dump is a Shi'it. His sons are in the fast food industry: one of them is a pizza Shi'it and the other is a chick Shi'it. I hope that answers your question. REB

THE DONALD and LION TED (Drumpf and Cruzafix dressed up Disney-style):

I'm sure you're right, George. At least, I know that when I grow up, I want to be like you! REB

George, I decided yesterday, based on my preliminary readings in Kant's ethics and aesthetics, that it would be a very good idea to see what correct arguments Kant may have made in his Critique of Pure Reason. The barking dogs of Objectivist Orthodoxy have, for most of my adult life, tried to discourage close examination of this supposedly genius-level, great philosopher who was, nevertheless, the most evil man in history (according to St. Ayn). Sure, we are encouraged to refer to the passages quoted (whether or not out of context) to verify that they are quoting Kant accurately in regard to his (purported) errors - but not to delve deeply into his metaphysics and epistemology to see what he might have gotten right. And by this, I don't just mean what correct conclusion he came to, but what really amazing and correct arguments he made. Do such exist? Or was he just a spider busy spinning daydreams? I already have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to find, judging from some of the commentaries I've read and a look at the related Kant passages. But I'll dig in, take notes, try to put it in simple terms and see just how nihilistic or rationalistic or evil or whatever his premises and arguments really are. I'm not aiming this at publication or even posting here, necessarily. I'm just doing it for myself, as an act of justice to the Kant and an act of intellectual honesty and defiance of those who have so robotically parroted Rand's second- and third-hand-based denunciations and condemnations of the man. If, in the final analysis, I find that he deserves being relegated to the lowest rung of hell, I'll make that judgment and move on. If, on the other hand, I find that, despite his errors, he has done some truly incredible, valid philosophizing, I will share that in some fashion, at some time, TBA. Anyway, thanks again for your most recent essay and for all your good work. Keep it up! REB

[Relevant to this discussion of Kant's ethics is the following excerpt from my review of Leonard Peikoff's DIM Manifesto, which appeared in 2013 in Vol. 13, No. 2 of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.] Rand's #1 apostle here on earth, Leonard Peikoff, takes care in his most recent book, The DIM Manifesto, to contrast Kant’s ethical views with those of Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle “advised the individual to seek his own personal happiness in this world by the active exercise of his rational faculty” (Peikoff 2012b, 32). While Plato and Kant both differ from Aristotle in that they favor sacrifice and renunciation, Plato embraced this as a means to fulfillment and salvation, while “for Kant, they are a hatchet” (38). Kant’s ethics, in Peikoff's eyes, is all about the duty to “sacrifice [one’s] values, all of them, because they are [one’s] values, and to not do it for any beneficiary, such as God or society, but as an end in itself ” (37). From this, you would conclude that the last thing Kant wants to endorse is your living for your own happiness. Quoting Kant’s frequently misinterpreted statement in epistemology, “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith,” Peikoff adds that, in ethics, “Kant also found it necessary to deny happiness, in order to make room for duty,” citing this as part of “Kant’s attack on reason, this world, and man’s happiness” (1982, 25). And yet, Kant did not attack happiness any more than he attacked knowledge. His thrust in epistemology was to limit knowledge to a basis in experience,and to insist that theoretical reason could not produce either a proof or a disproof of free will, the existence of God, and so on, which are not found in our experience. These latter things can only be believed in, not known. In other words, Kant was denying that knowledge could be had of trans-experiential things , in order to make it clear that they had to be taken on faith (or not)—and that theoretical reason and knowledge had nothing to do with them. So, Kant was not denying knowledge in toto, just denying the propriety of its trying to do what (he maintained) it, in fact, could not do. (See Seddon 2005, 189-202.) Similarly, he was not denying happiness in toto either, just denying the propriety of its trying to be what it, in fact, should not be—namely, that by which a man “is moved to his duty,” that is, “the real motivation of [one’s] acting virtuously” ([1780] 1952, 366). There is ample evidence that this is Kant’s view—and a strikingly familiar sounding argument for why happiness should not be one’s motivation in moral behavior. Here is Kant on moral virtue and happiness: [V]irtue (as worthiness to be happy) is the supreme condition of all that can appear to us desirable, and consequently of all our pursuit of happiness, and is therefore the supreme good. But it does not follow that it is the whole and perfect good as the object of the desires of rational finite beings; for this requires happiness also. . . . [V]irtue and happiness together constitute the possession of the summum bonum [greatest good or ultimate value] in a person. . . . When two elements are necessarily united in one concept, they must be connected as reason and consequence. . . . [H]appiness and morality are two specifically distinct elements of the summum bonum and, therefore, their combination cannot be analytically cognized (as if the man that seeks his own happiness should find by mere analysis of his conception that in so acting he is virtuous, or as if the man that follows virtue should in the consciousness of such conduct find that he is already happy ipso facto), but must be a synthesis of concepts. ([1785] 1952, 338–40; emphasis in original) Compare that with Rand: The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues>. . . . Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. (1961, 32; emphasis added) However, says Kant, “[H]appiness, while it is pleasant to the possessor of it, is not of itself absolutely and in all respects good, but always presupposes morally right behavior as its condition” ([1785] 1952, 339). Also, says Kant, If we deviate from [the principle of tracing in metaphysics the first principles of ethics] and begin from pathological [emotional], or purely sensitive, or even moral feeling (from what is subjectively practical instead of what is objective), that is from the matter of the will, the end, not from its form that is the law, in order from thence to determine duties; then, certainly, there are no metaphysical elements of ethics, for feeling by whatever it may be excited is always physical. . . . The pleasure, namely, which must precede the obedience to the law in order that one may act according to the law is pathological, and the process follows the physicalorder of nature; that which must be preceded by the law in order that it may be felt is in the moral order. If this distinction is not observed; if eudaemonism (the principle of happiness) is adopted as the principle instead of eleutheronomy (the principle of freedom of the inner legislation [i.e., choosing to act according to moral principle]), the consequence is the euthanasia (quiet death) of all morality. (365–66; emphasis in original) [Kant also famously uses the categorical imperative as the basis for an argument against making desire the motivation for one’s moral action. He points out ([1785] 1952) that any attempt to make “the maxim by which everyone makes [the desire of happiness] determine his will” results not in everything being harmonious, but instead in “the greatest opposition and the complete destruction of the maxim itself and its purpose.” He summarizes, “f I say that my will is subject to a practical law, I cannot adduce my inclination . . . as a principle of determination fitted to be a universal practical law; for this is so far from being fitted for a universal legislation that, if put in the form of a universal law, it would destroy itself ” (301).] Again, from Kant: [A]lthough the notion of happiness is in every case the foundation of practical relation of the objects to the desires, yet it is only a general name for the subjective determining principles,nothing specifically. . . . [P]ractical precepts founded on them can never be universal, for the determining principle of the desire is based on the feeling of pleasure and pain, which can never be supposed to be universally directed to the same objects. . . . It would be better to maintain that there are no practical laws at all, but only counsels for the service of our desires, than to raise merely subjective principles to the rank of practical laws, which have objective necessity. (300; emphasis in original) Compare again to Rand: [T]he relationship of cause to effect cannot be reversed It is only by accepting "man's life" as one's primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness—not by taking “happiness” as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidelines. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. To take “whatever makes one happy” as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one’s emotional whims. . . This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism—in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. To declare as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”—which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild. (1961, 32–33; emphasis added, original emphasis deleted) Yet again we see a substantial similarity between Kant’s way of thinking and Rand’s. Insisting that people should act according to moral principle rather than according to desire certainly doesn’t sound nihilistic and disintegrative. If it were, Rand would be tarred by the same brush! As for Kant’s supposed fostering of altruism by his advocacy of doing one’s duty and sacrificing one’s values because they are one’s values, of “sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, as an end in itself” (Peikoff 1982, 82), again this is a distortion of Kant’s views. Doing one’s duty, for Kant, does not require setting aside one’s values, but merely one’s personal inclinations and desires, and then acting according to moral principle. One of his chief illustrations of this point is quite revealing, particularly in comparison to Rand’s “ethics of emergencies”: To be beneficent when we can is a duty; and besides this, there are many minds so sympathetically constituted that, without any other motive of vanity or self-interest, they find a pleasure in spreading joy around them and can take delight in the satisfaction of others so far as it is their own work. But I maintain that in such a case an action of this kind, however proper, however amiable it may be, has nevertheless no true moral worth, but is on a level with other inclinations, e.g. the inclination to honor, which, if happily directed to which is in fact of public utility and accordant with duty and consequently honorable, deserves praise and encouragement, but not esteem. For the maxim lacks the moral import, namely, that such actions be done from duty, not from inclination. Put the case that the mind of that philanthropist were clouded by sorrow of his own, extinguishing all sympathy with the lot of others, and that, while he still has the power to benefit others in distress, he is not touched by their trouble because he is absorbed with his own; and now suppose that he tears himself out of this dead insensibility and performs the action without any inclination to it, but simply from duty, then first has his action its genuine moral worth. (Kant [1785] 1952, 258; emphasis in original) Now, it is true that Rand does not advocate being kind to others as a moral duty. Helping others, for Rand, is a highly conditional, contextual matter, tied firmly to one's self-interest, values, and happiness, and she discusses it at length, expressing principles such as the following: "If one's friend is in trouble, one should act to help him by whatever nonsacrificial means are appropriate" (Rand 1963, 53; emphasis in original). It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one's power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life) (55; emphasis in original). But observe that although these are conditional imperatives, they are imperatives, that is, moral principles. They are what is morally right for one to do, given certain conditions. And they are so not because one will get a heroic or warm-and-fuzzy feeling out of doing so—though one indeed may get such a feeling or other—but because they are virtuous acts. Specifically, Rand says, they are acts of integrity , which she defines as "loyalty to one's convictions and values...the policy of acting in accordance with one's values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality" (52-53). This principle even extends to strangers, Rand says, based on "[t]he generalized respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents—until and unless he forfeits it" (1963, 53). (See also Nathaniel Branden 1962, 27-28.) Such states of happiness that result from virtuous action, however, are the purpose of one's virtuous action, not a proper guide in carrying out such action. Kant, by contrast, observed that happiness is not an ultimate moral purpose but a crucial instrumental value, and thus that "secur[ing] one's own happiness is a duty, at least indirectly; for discontent wth one's condition, under a pressure of many anxieties and amidst unsatisfied wants, might easily become a great temptation to transgression of duty" ([1785], 1952, 258; emphasis in original). In other words, for Kant, happiness, while a moral necessity, is not an end in itself, but the means to the end of doing one's duty in general. Nonetheless, Kant too was concerned that, in Rand's words, cause and effect not be reversed, and happiness not be allowed to function as the standard guiding one[s moral actions. Unlike Rand, he had not the standard of "man's life" as the guide to proper moral behavior, but the impersonal "categorical imperative." (See also Rand 1970, 114-22.) Rand once said that "on every fundamental issue, Kant's philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism" (1971, 4). This is simply not true. As Seddon has demonstrated (2003, 63-64), one fundamental issue on which Kant and Rand agree is the fact that consciousness has an identity; and there are others. What is most startling and tragic about Kant's philosophical views in relation to Objectivism, however, is not seeing how grossly Rand and Peikoff have distorted the truth about his views and how vehemently and unjustly they have portrayed him as a mind-destroying, man-destroying nihilist. Instead, it is seeing how much like Objectivism some of a thinker's basic ideas can be and still now allow his conclusions to climb out of the black hole of the Humean nihilistic premises he has also accepted. this is not to excuse Kant, by any means—just to underscore yet again Rand's astute understanding of how collaboration with irrationality and evil can undercut a well-intentioned person and lead to disastrous consequences. The bottom line, however, is this: the decades-long Objectivist condemnation of Kant, the branding of him by the philosophy's founder as "the most evil man in mankind's history" (see rand 1971, 3), and Peikoff's equating of Kant with the Anti-Integration/Nihilist pole and his indictment of Kant's philosophy as a "systematic negation of philosophy" are overripe for a careful examination and discussion. References Branden, Nathaniel. 1962. Benevolence vs. altruism. In Rand and Branden 1962-65, 27–28. Kant, Immanuel. [1780] 1952. Preface and Introduction to the Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, with a Note on Conscience. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Volume 42, Kant, Great Books of the Western World. Edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. _____. [1785] 1952. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Volume 42, Kant, Great Books of the Western World. Edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Peikoff, Leonard. 1982. The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America. New York: Stein & Day. _____. 2012. The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out. New York: New American Library. Rand, Ayn. 1961. The Objectivist ethics. In Rand 1964, 13-39. _____. 1964. The anatomy of compromise. In Rand 1967, 144-49. _____. 1964. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. New York: New American Library. _____. 1967. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: New American Library. _____. 1970. Causality versus duty. In Rand 1982, 114-22. _____. 1971. Brief Summary. The Objectivist 10, no. 9 (September): 1-4. _____. 1982. Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Seddon, Fred. 2003. Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. _____. 2005. Kant on faith. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 1 (Fall): 189-202.

But...but...but...I thought that Herr Drumpf was "the master of the deal." Well, I guess that name-recognition and rudeness only take you so far. And then, the need for brains and understanding the system kicks in, and we find out who has done their homework and who has not. (That, I suspect, will turn out to be Brother Cruzafix - or, perhaps we Randy folk could call him Brother Hugh Astfurrit. ) REB

From HuffandPuff Post... Cruz's Wisconsin Win Could Put Nomination Out of Trump's Reach by Tory Newmyer April 6, 2016, 12:45 AM EDT Senator Ted Cruz embraces his wife Heidi Cruz during a campaign event in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on April 5, 2016 Bloomberg via Getty Images Trump now faces a steep climb to clinching the nomination before the convention. For once, Ted Cruz and the Washington professional class he claims to loathe agree on something: The Texas Senator’s win in Wisconsin represents a watershed moment in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. The candidate’s convincing Badger State victory — he romped over frontrunner Donald Trump statewide by roughly 15 points — raises the likelihood that the contest will tumble all the way into the national convention in Cleveland. That spells terrible news for Trump, whose recent run of wild statements on both foreign and domestic policy have helped rally Republican opposition to his candidacy and increased the urgency for party leaders to block his nomination. “Tonight is a turning point,” Cruz said in his victory speech. “It is a rallying cry. It is a call from the hardworking men and women of Wisconsin to the people of America. We have a choice, a real choice.” Cruz went on to cast his win as a call for “unity” and for “hope” — a message of uplift plainly meant to contrast with the severity of Trump’s appeals. Trump helped drive home the distinction himself by issuing a cascade of insults against Cruz in a written statement in lieu of a public appearance. Rather than congratulating Cruz, the Trump campaign’s statement called him “worse than a puppet — he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump.” Trump faces a more immediate challenge from the cold, hard delegate math. Once the Wisconsin delegates are apportioned, he’ll need close to 60% of those remaining to reach the 1,237 delegate threshold to clinch the nomination. And Trump’s campaign organization doesn’t appear up to managing a contest that will now be fought in significant part at the level of Congressional districts — to say nothing of mastering the arcane rules, gamesmanship, and delegate-wrangling necessary to prevail at a contested convention. The next contest, two weeks away in Trump’s home state of New York, offers the businessman the potential for redemption and to twist momentum back in his favor. But since the state awards its delegates on a proportional basis, only a lights-out performance there across every corner of the state would inch him closer to his goal of wrapping up the race before Cleveland. And that kind of win looks increasingly remote after his Wisconsin defeat.

If Drumpf doesn't win New York by at least...or, let's say...20 points, does that mean that his victory (if he even wins the state) doesn't mean that much? What percentage would Drumpf supporters take as a "bad sign" in the NY primary results? Or would even a loss be shrugged off as unimportant? Just curious. All day long, we were hearing that if Cruzafix doesn't beat Drumpf by double digits, his chances were over. Well, he got TWICE double digits. So, how the Drumpf supporters interpret THAT? As a sign that Drumpf's support is still GROWING! WTF??? I thought this was OL, not LOL. REB

Robert, I'm with you... The national GOP race is now Trump and Cruz neck and neck, within "the margin of error." That does not reflect "growing support for Donald Trump." Wisconsin was Trump's to lose several weeks ago, and he lost it BIG. True, he shot himself repeatedly in the foot the last couple of weeks, and SP's screetchy voice and wacked-out syntax hasn't worked its previous magic. But people seem to be catching on, and they are making their choice. REB

I really thought (and think) Cruzafix is a nifty spoof name for Lyin' Ted. I'm just using Drumpf by default, and I'm still working on one for Kasich - maybe Ka-sirrah-sirrah? Kasichandtired? Ka-pasa? Kasichdismissed? I suspect he'll be out of the race before I come up with a decent spoof on him. Meanwhile, I am and remain, the Bizzleschtick, stirrin' it up. REB

Roger, That's funny. I never hear you make that word game distinction when Ted Cruz says he's going to repeal Obamacare day after day after day. I wonder why not, I wonder... You wonder pretty good, but you don't observe and think very well. You figured out that by Drumpf I mean Trump. Who did you think Cruzifix was? I guess it is literally true that you don't HEAR me make that distinction about Ted Cruz, since I WROTE it. But literal nit-pickery aside, I didn't make the distinction about Donald Trump either. I referred to Drumpf and Cruzifix. Please recalibrate your mockery translator so that it is sensitive to more than just goofing on your pet candidate's name. REB