Ayn Rand Institute's Former Participant essay submission

Below is my submission for the ARI former participant essay contest where I won third place.

Here is the prompt: What was your initial response to the novel(s)? In what ways has reading Ayn Rand inspired you and the choices you have made in your life?

For more information on other contests visit the AYN RAND NOVELS website.

Also, for more information about The Ayn Rand Institute visit their website HERE.

Here is my essay: How Ayn Rand has Affected Me.

“Howard Roark laughed… He laughed at the thing which had happened to him that morning and at the things which now lay ahead.” Roark is laughing at the fact that he has been expelled from Architectural school. He is laughing because there will be more obstacles, and he knows he will win. Seemingly his career should be over, yet he shrugs the incident off as would a child who has scraped his knee and quickly goes back to play. Immediately, Roark’s viewpoint in life had a deep impact on me.

Throughout the novel Roark is never deterred from his goal, and never imagines he might be unable to accomplish his deepest values. Dominique on the other hand believes Roark’s success is not possible. He is great, but greatness can’t live for long in this world, she thinks. While Roark waits for clients and struggles from commission to commission, Dominique actively seeks to ensure he does not attain any commissions. His view is that values are achievable, hers that they are not.

Ayn Rand called these metaphysical views the benevolent and malevolent universe premises.

I was constantly confronted with the malevolent viewpoint. It was a view that seemed always to hamper my progress. At the age of 16 I decided I wanted to be a public speaker and open a seminar production company. I was promptly informed this was not possible, because I’d have to prove myself in some way first. This seemed like good advice, so at 17 I planned out in great detail how I would achieve financial independence by the age of 35 through real estate investing. “Make sure to be practical,” and “that isn’t a likely outcome, but good luck,” were common reactions to my goals. I had no defense against these proclamations except for my desire to run my own seminar production company and travel the country expressing my passion for life. I continued with my plans while this doubt was still picking at my brain.

As I started out on my course of action I realized this plan had a huge hole in it. I did not enjoy real estate investing. How could I stand waiting 15-20 years to do what I actually wanted to do? I had no answers, and that doubt, which became fear, was that I didn’t know if it was even possible.

At 17, fortunately, I read The Fountainhead. In it was the man who laughed at the actions of the Dean, and at Ellsworth Toohey’s attempt to destroy him. I witnessed the portrayal of a hero achieving against seemingly impossible odds. I started to create a new vision of what was possible for me. I had stifled a passion for film years prior, because I was assured nobody can really become successful in the film industry. But, as Roark says to the dean, “I have, let’s say, sixty years to live. Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture.” Roark’s courage, his view that values are achievable, gave me courage, and a similar view of what is possible began to emerge within me.

At 18 I read Atlas Shrugged, and met Dagny Taggart and John Galt. Here I saw the full demonstration of what I felt in reading about Roark and his struggle. I saw what is possible at the deepest philosophical roots. I understood Dagny’s race to find the inventor of the motor, while all the men of the mind are disappearing around her, comes from her deep set need to view the best possible in man. She requires a reaffirmation that man is a being capable of achieving high values on earth. Her search, and the entire novel, showed me the contrasting views of the benevolent and malevolent universe premises, and what the consequences to each were in such vivid detail I no longer held any doubt.

By the age of 20 I was fully on my way to becoming a writer and producer of films. The inevitable responses of how impossible this would be began. However, now I had a deep philosophic base upon which to draw. I often pointed out to people the hundreds of individuals in the credits of just one film, and the hundreds of movies made each year. They made this film, why do you think it impossible for me, I’d ask. Those were the lucky ones, and realistically that rarely happens, I was told. I saw the malevolent universe premise peering its ugly head at me. The people around me did not view achievement as a possibility to any but the born lucky. This was the view of James Taggart, Orren Boyle, and Howard Roark’s Dean. They didn’t believe true success was possible in the world.

For me however, I knew that so long as one assessed reality and oneself, as Roark, Dagny and Galt do, what I sought was achievable. When Dagny looks up into Galt’s face after crashing in Atlantis she says, “We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?” This was the expression of the benevolent universe premise, which has been deeply ingrained into my soul. Success is possible, it is not given to man, he must create it, but it is possible to create the career he desires, to create the life he wants – I can be what I want to be.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy as demonstrated in her novels, and elucidated in her essays, has given me the assurance and courage to pursue my dreams. May, 2011 marks my graduation from film school. During my time there I began a film production company where I’ve produced and written over 14 short films, documentaries, commercials, and promotional videos. I also wrote my first feature length screenplay. The difficulties occur regularly as they do for Roark, and as they would in the pursuit of any worthy endeavor. The benevolent universe premise that is now deeply integrated into my ideas always helps me gain perspective of what I can accomplish.

In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand calls the shack which contains Galt’s motor, “an altar.” The connection to a religious symbol is not coincidental. When Dagny meets Galt she is witnessing the ideal, the possible. If Galt exists, anything is possible.

Ayn Rand’s work gives me the same euphoric feeling, a feeling of worshipful grandeur, and a fuel to continue through the inevitable difficulties. I can laugh at the unimportant, the irrational, while holding the knowledge that if Rand exists, anything is possible.

Life: Capitalism's Motive Power

In today’s political climate Americans are more thoroughly confused than ever. In the 2008 elections Obama was elected by a large portion of voters long considered politically inactive. A year later these same Americans were utterly shocked when Obama followed through on his espoused ideological aims. There is also a mass of uncertainty in the realm of political issues. A tea party attendee may carry a sign that states, “Keep your hands off my medical care!” But when addressing the issue of financial reform, this same person is likely to say “we should do something about those Wall Street fat cats.”

Constituency shifts occur regularly between the right and left. Moreover, the two major parties have converged into one ideological pot. Lifelong republicans branch away from the party to join libertarian or “constitutional” parties. Claiming they are the “real” conservatives. Liberals join neo-conservative movements and juxtapose concepts of American patriotism with progressive ideas; such as the wholesale slaughter of American soldiers for proportionality in war: As if this is somehow American.

This confusion among serious minded Americans stems from the only alternatives presented to them: Either; a heavily regulated and controlled financial industry, or complete nationalization; a self destructive war or endless and unhindered terrorist attacks on our own soil; today’s semi-free, partially capitalistic, mixed economy - or total statism. There is no large support for any other alternatives. When people are given the choice of death by firing squad or death by slow torture it should be clear as to the reason for American’s difficulty in deliberation.

In the two major parties it is the democratic progressives that have continually accumulated numerous policy wins. The republicans have only accomplished slight speed bumps on the road to a larger socialist state. In any dispute between democrats and republicans, it is the democrats who are called “fiscally irresponsible,” but it is the republicans who are called “morally irresponsible.” The major opposition to Obamacare was that the bill was too big to understand and would lead to economic destruction. There were very few voices questioning the outright enslavement of doctors and the obliteration of individual rights.

Democrats have been long time supporters of a growing moral movement: environmentalism – which establishes as the moral that which is best for nature. The republicans have long been supporters of religion, which states the moral is that which God commands. In practice, the difference means that the democrats claim to hold the morality of reason, science and secularism, while the republicans hold the morality of supernaturalism and faith. In any debate it is the secular moralists vs. the religious zealots.

This has been the state of the fight for capitalism. The moral defenders are pitted as the irrational religious, while the ‘humanist/progressives’ hold reason and science as absolutes. For example, in regards to a complex scientific issue such as energy reform, to whom should the populace agree with - the religious moralists or the secular scientists? So has been the achievement of most of the democratic policy wins.

The democrats have won by moral default. They hold up to a nation of life lovers the ideal that voting for them is a vote for this life, reason and the future of science and technology. They are believed to be the only advocates of earthly motivations to live by.

Men yearn for motivations. And so long as a man desires to live he must take actions. In this there is no choice. As with all living organisms, there must be an acquisition of values in order to continue functioning. A single celled amoeba must obtain its food by surrounding and capturing its prey in accordance with its nature. A plant must photosynthesize sunlight into energy and absorb nutrients from the soil; if these living creatures do not do this, they perish.

The values these creatures seek are set automatically by their nature, and are determined by the type of entity that they are. For instance, a tiger could not survive by seeking the values a shark requires. Neither could a dog plant its feet into the ground and attempt to photosynthesize the sun’s light and absorb nutrients from the dirt. The same is true of man.

Men must seek values congruent with their nature. Man is not born with the knowledge necessary for life. In order to accomplish the continual process of survival and flourishing, men must take certain actions. To not act is a choice which will lead to the death of any organism. Much like a prey’s inability to act in the face of a predator leads to its death. In every hour of every day man is inundated with actions he must take. Upon waking he must decide to stay in bed or get up, eat breakfast or leave without it, work or beg.

This illustrates that every action, from talking to the beautiful woman in dance class to what shirt to wear for the big business meeting, implies choices that must be made. Even taking the action of inaction is a choice. As has already been indicated, animals make their basic choices based on their nature and instincts. A plant can grow towards the sun, but it cannot build a ditch to ensure it receives water. A man cannot absorb moisture and nutrients in the manner a plant can. But he can choose to use his unique tool of survival; reason, to build a ditch.

What then are the values a man should seek? Since man does not have the ability to automatically know what actions to take, what actions are right for him, he needs a guide: a compass that can help direct him to a correct course of actions. Man cannot act without a motivation to do so. A car cannot move or even start without a motive power, gasoline, so to humans are incapable of making decisions without motivations, or a motive power to act as their energy source. For machinery, motive power is its primary energy source. Steam was the motive power for boats in the 19th century, and oil for boats today. A motive power is the reason a machine can move. What then is man’s motive power?

Many individuals accept one or both of the two dominant ideologies in America today, Environmentalism and Religion. These two systems offer a ready-made guide to human actions. They claim to hold the right motive power for man.

Man requires a code for all of his values – i.e. an ethics (or morality). As philosopher Tara Smith puts it, “Ethics is a code of values whose purpose is to steer human beings to the achievements of the more concrete values that fuel an individual’s existence.”(Emphasis mine) Even the seemingly innocuous choice between cheerios and cyanide does not come automatically to a person; there must be a reference to all the values man ought to make.

There are various moral theories each offering their own version of what is the proper motive power that moves man. Three codes in existence today are utilitarianism, altruism, and egoism.

Utilitarianism offers the motive power of the “greatest good for the greatest number.” This theory advocates ensuring the actions of each individual are allotted towards the greatest good. When a person deliberates on a career the choice should be that career which provides the greatest good for the majority. It would be irrelevant whether a ‘selfish’ person wanted to enter the field of law enforcement if the majority decided there needed to be more teachers.

Utilitarianism is a variation of one of the oldest motive powers in human history - altruism. But altruism does not require merely a motive power in terms of good for the majority; altruism requires sacrifice to anyone. It is irrelevant to where a person’s rewards are distributed – whether to the old, the poor, or the handicapped person down the street – so long as the person creating the rewards does not receive them. Altruism literally means “other”-ism - the standard upon which all decisions should be made is what is good for other people. Moreover, this means everyone is a slave to any other person’s random need. If other peoples good is the standard of value, the motive power for each man, than any moocher with a cup in his hand requires the sacrifice of anyone capable of filling that cup. Utilitarianism discriminates upon the “others” saying the rewards should be a maximizing of the majority of peoples good. Altruism requires a person to give up any values to any person or thing; to the dipsomaniac, the bum, the enemy to humanity, any tree, rock, or pasture that supposedly needs something. As Dr. Peikoff explains, “altruism is not a synonym for kindness, generosity, or good will, but the doctrine that man should place others above self as the fundamental rule of life.”

There is, of course, never a rational basis to adhere to any of these moralities. Their defense usually boils down to some form of authoritarianism. People are told these moralities are correct because “God said so,” or it is the “will” of the majority, or our noumenel selves demand it as our duty, or the Fuehrer says so. Never are they expounded by the facts of reality. Thus David Hume’s statement that “an is does not imply an ought.” Moreover, these moralities are advocated as the only options available.

Egoism, the morality discovered and advocated by Ayn Rand, is that other alternative. Egoism should not be confused with hedonism, which is the morality that claims the motive power is that which maximizes pleasure. Rational egoism is the theory that advises taking actions which are in an individual’s best long-term interests. A person does not act in their own interests when they destroy their ability to live long-term, as in cases of subjective egoism (i.e. hedonism), wherein a person sacrifices others to self. Rand’s discovery is the idea of non-sacrifice. Opponents of egoism will point to such men today as Bernie Maddoff and Tiger Woods as crude egoists. Bernie Maddoff swindled millions of dollars from people and ended up losing his family, friends, self-respect, money, business, and freedom. Tiger Woods engaged in indiscriminate sex and alienated his wife, lost millions of dollars of endorsements, and lost the respect of most of the nation. It is absurd to proclaim these men were somehow acting egoistically; they in fact acted towards the destruction of all their values.

Life is not a onetime accomplishment. It is an ongoing process. Tiger Woods may have valued his wife enough to marry her, but marriage is not the end of a relationship, it’s the beginning. Certain actions need to be taken in order to maintain the relationship, trust being merely part of that equation. Much like a person wouldn’t try fixing their car by putting vinegar in the gas tank, so to a person shouldn’t undercut other values in their life by sabotaging them with a string of one night stands. When Bernie Maddoff was running a successful investment firm he had to work hard to ensure his customers were happy and would return for repeat business. Tiger Woods worked towards achieving success in golf from the age of three. These true successes do not occur overnight.

Egoism promulgates the idea that man’s proper motive power is his own life. That in the choices he ought to take are those choices which coincide with the values required by the type of being that he is. This would mean not taking actions congruent with the values of a dolphin, amoeba, or redwood, but that of the rational animal.

People living in close proximity, and engaging in beneficial activities require a social system to implement rules of actions that are to be tolerated or outlawed. Murder and theft are normally the first actions to be forbidden. When it comes to more ‘complex’ rules such as: private property, free expression, and freedom to pursue one’s own goals, people need a guide to help them decide. Men living together require rules or chaos will ensue. A system – such as feudalism, communism, fascism, or capitalism – is mandatory. The obvious problem is what rules are proper, and what principles are necessary to guide a society when establishing a social system.

It must be stressed that there must be social rules in any society. Even in a so-called “anarchist society,” eventually one group will rise up and enforce their social rules. Whether the rules are based on, slave to master, proletariat to bourgeois, or that of free men trading their goods for mutual gain and mutual benefit. These social rules must be more than mere taboos, they must be enforceable absolutes. For instance, throughout history, the social rule of property rights has been largely abnegated. That an individual be allowed to utilize and dispose of their property in any way they see fit. The degree this rule was allowed or outlawed is the degree to which that country and its citizens were prosperous – or impoverished. In almost all social systems some form of private property is allowed, if not merely de facto. Feudalism allowed for peasants to own some of their property that was unable to be fully controlled. In communist Russia small and private gardens in people’s backyards outgrew all of Russia’s massive ‘community’ farms.
The purpose of a government is to enforce the social rules believed to be correct by a society. A government is pure force. It serves no other function. A government cannot create, it can only dictate. It cannot produce, it can only command. However, this function is vital to a human civilization. There must be some societal norms which some entity must uphold. A government is that entity.

The type of social system a person, or nation, will advocate is based directly upon the motive power they hold. For someone who holds that the basic motive power for men should be the needs of others he will believe, implicitly at least, in some form of socialism. To hold that proper actions are those that benefit others at the expense of self (i.e. altruism and utilitarianism) inevitably means a country must force those who are not doing their part, to contribute. The same applies to rules against murder; people not respecting this rule must be forced to do so, because it has been established as morally wrong to murder. If sacrificing part of one’s possessions to others is morally right, then those who don’t must be made to do so. The reason Obamacare, or any welfare program in the last 100 years, has passed is because the majority of Americans believed it was right. It makes no difference that this last set of welfare programs woke some Americans up to the bankruptcy these bills will bring about; people needed them, and so something ought to be done about it.

Holding that man’s motive power is “the greatest good for the greatest number” means that person will advocate social rules which put this moral policy into effect. To say what is right is that which benefits the greatest good is to admit that there are no standards, and that man is subordinated to any two people who claim a need. There is no way to quantify or identify a “greater good” in actuality, greater good becomes whatever the “greatest number” says it is. If 51% of the population decides to take the other 49%’s property, this would be the enforceable social rules under this moral social system. This may occur in the form of income taxes, or in the act of a literal destruction of a minority of ‘undesirables’ within a society; the theory is the same, destruction and abnegation of the individual.

Egoism in morality leads to capitalism in politics. If each individual is their own sovereign entity, to which no one can rule, then this will lead a society to delegate government into the role of protector of the individual. This means recognition of each individual’s right to life, liberty, and property. This system has the distinguishing characteristic of recognizing that man’s motive power is his own life.

Respecting this motive power means recognizing the requirements of man qua man. This includes utilizing reason to solve the problem of survival through production, and enjoying the effects of one’s success. Whether the enjoyment is manifested in eating an extravagant meal with a loved one, listening to a symphony, or globetrotting in a private plane; the individual that created the rewards keeps them.

This is the purpose of the concept “Rights” (more specifically, individual rights); recognizing the fact that in order to survive each man must utilize his own tool for survival, means recognizing that each man has a fundamental right to choose which actions he thinks will lead to his success. This concept is also vital to understanding that a person has a sphere of rights that are limited. A Right is a concept which sets the terms for enforceable social conduct in a society based upon mans proper motive power. As Rand elucidated,

Rights are a moral concept – the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others – the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context – the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Laissez-faire capitalism respects these rights by banning the initiation of force among men – either direct or indirect – within a given geographical area. In this system all property is privately owned and government is strictly assigned to the protection of individual rights, and they are forbidden interference in the economic realm. This means that if a person wishes to convince others to buy their products they must create the best product available and offer it at the best price. They cannot force a person to purchase their products. Nor can they attain subsidies from the government. There are no subsidies, government creates no money. There are no special favors, government has no power to arbitrarily make new rules that must be obeyed. Objective law is the only king. Businesses cannot lobby, government can do nothing for them, but protect their rights as they do everyone else’s. Wal-Mart may become the richest corporation in America, but there are plenty of people who refuse to step foot in their stores – and there isn’t a thing Wal-Mart can do about it.

Capitalism allows each man to judge his own situation as he sees fit, allowing each to receive their due rewards. Every individual person is able to take actions, unhindered by outside forces. It allows everyone to decide which products or services they desire and gives them the ability to choose which path they deem proper to achieve their values. A person can decide to take actions to save money for the possibility of a medical emergency, or they can neglect to do this, but they will suffer the consequences of their own choices. Society will not fix the irrational decisions of each of its citizens. If someone decides to imbibe alcohol and watch television all day, they are perfectly free to do so, but they are not free to run to the government and ask them to use force on more responsible adults to pay for their irresponsibility. In a just society the population is encouraged to make rational decisions, if they don’t, they, and they alone, suffer the consequences.

Imagine a bank in a free society. This bank can enact policies to lend out money based on a person’s need, but if this policy leads to bankruptcy there can be no bailout by the government. Once these irrational policies catch up to them, they are done. At the same time, a company that provides great products that the majority of people want, and decides to compete by offering a free service with every purchase, they are allowed to do so. Even if this means their competitor must shut down. Each person keeps the rewards of their actions, and decides what to do with them. It is irrelevant whether the person is a janitor or if they represent the collected interests of many individuals that voted them to run their multi-billion dollar corporation.

Capitalism’s defenders give half-hearted defenses for advocating the system of private property and individual rights. Their defenses serve to undercut the core that allows the system to operate; selfish pursuit of ones values. These are normally counterproductive at best and absolutely devastating at worst. To say, for instance, that capitalism is the best system because it provides the greatest utility for the greatest number is to destroy the morality necessary for each person to pursue the values congruent with their nature. In other words, the defense goes, capitalism should be allowed, in spite of the depravity of its motivations, on the premise that it has the awesome ability to produce goods which brings happiness or pleasure to the greatest number of people. As Peikoff points out, “the essence of this argument is the claim that capitalism is justified by its ability to convert ‘man’s baseness’ to ‘noble ends.’ ‘Baseness’ here means egoism; nobility means altruism. And the justification of individual freedom in terms of its contribution to the welfare of society means collectivism.” He goes on to explain that the father of modern utilitarianism – to whom the above argument derives – John Stuart Mill, understood the contradiction in “trying to defend an individualist system by accepting the fundamental moral ideas of its opponents.” This led Mill to eventually proclaim his advocacy of socialism.

Men must be given explicit moral reasons to advocate capitalism. Much like the progressives have given people moral reasons to vote socialism into America piecemeal, so to must advocates of capitalism give moral reasons to scale government back to a point where its only job is to protect the individual. A motive power, a person’s moral code, is what gives energy to each person to make decisions in their daily deliberations. It is the fundamental reason that enables men to decide upon any particular action. The vast majority of proponents for capitalism point out every possible economic reason to fight for capitalism. It brings prosperity, they say. It allows for the free flow of goods and services, they proclaim. There have been thousands of books and articles that show all the economic reasons to establish a capitalist society. Even with all of this there is no massive movement towards unfettered capitalism; in fact the opposite is true. The choice is still between a mixed economy and a completely controlled economy.

Socialist and Communist countries are even beginning to adhere to the economic praise for capitalism. They are proclaiming countries should utilize freedom to achieve ‘progressive’ ends. When the supposed defenders of capitalism sound exactly like the enemies of capitalism, it is time to alter course.

When men join a cause or a war (intellectual or otherwise) they do so for purely moral reasons. No one has ever gone to war or advocated a revolutionary new ideal because their economist decreed this new regime’s economic policy would increase GDP by 25%. When someone goes to war, it’s because they were given a moral motivation to do so.

In 480 BC the Persian Empire, ruled by Xerxes proclaimed King of Kings, attempted to conquer the known world based on the moral ideal of Zoroastrianism. This was a view that split the world in to two parts: Those in the Persian empire of “light and truth,” and everyone else of “darkness and lies.” It is no wonder they voraciously attempted to bring “light and truth” to the world. America’s Founding Fathers fought purely for the moral reason of their “inalienable rights.” The rebellions over tea taxes (economic reasons) were only representational of the moral indignation held by the founders. In fact, previous taxes were much higher than the tea tax which set off the revolution. In 1860 America, the south was motivated by the collectivist moral ideology of states’ rights and white supremacy. That each state could justify any collectivist goal they desired – in this instance; chattel slavery. As Dr. John Lewis shows, the north and south were fundamentally skewed by two opposing motive powers. “Alexander H. Stephens, vice-president of the confederacy, knew it, and expounded upon this at the Georgia convention on March 21, 1861: ‘our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [from abolition]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.’” And from the north, by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, “’slavery is essential to the community, or it must be fatal to it, - there is no middle ground… War has flung the door wide open, and four million slaves stand ready to file through… What the peace which the south has broken was not doing, the war which she has instituted must secure.’” Right or wrong, these men had a motive power to fight for their cause.

Whether the men were ancient Persians, Athenians, Spartans or modern Americans, Japanese, or Germans, they have always, and will always, fight because of the morality they have discovered. The destructiveness of giving men only economic reasons to accept an idea is that it cedes the moral high ground to ones opponents. Like saying one should adhere to a diet of eating healthy foods, but fail to defend against assertions that health should not be purpose of a diet. Instead, the purpose should be the sugar farmer’s needs; therefore, advocate high sugar diets.

Prosperity is not the reason to accept capitalism. Freedom is the reason. No other system allows a motivation of one’s own life as an end in itself.

To win the fight for capitalism, an absolute acceptance of the moral reasons for it are more than necessary, it is mandatory. Most men yearn to live a moral life, simply witness the vehement outcries against capitalism; they are all moral. Capitalism should be advocated because it is the only moral social system that is consistent with the rights of man.

Those who fight for tomorrow live in it today. The fight ahead will be as tough as any revolution; albeit, hopefully a bloodless battle of ideas. Winning is not guaranteed merely because someone is right. However, to those people who choose to struggle for the promise of future values achieve those values during the struggle. No matter the outcome, merely the possibility of long-term values is worth an attempt at the enormous feat ahead. Men must make choices to live. Let us choose life.


Endnotes

1. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue Of Selfishness. (New York: Signet, 1964), 17-20

2. Ibid., 21-23

3. Smith, Tara. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 23

4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. October 9th, 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/ (accessed August 7th, 2010).

5.Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. (New York: Penguin Group, 1991), 240

6. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Oct 29, 2004. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io (accessed July 28, 2010).

7.Craig Biddle, “Capitalism and the Moral High Ground,” The Objective Standard Winter 2008-2009. Especially read pages 21 -22 for specific reasons that have been given as to why one should advocate a morality that requires enslavement of self to others.

8. Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics. (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 168

9. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue Of Selfishness. (New York: Signet, 1964), 107-115

10. Ibid., 146 -149

11. Rand, Ayn. "What Is Capitalism?" In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, 1-30. (New York: Signet, 1967)

12. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue Of Selfishness.( New York: Signet, 1964), 92

13. Armentano, Dominick T. Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1982. There has been an immense amount of literature destroying the myth that free markets create destructive monopolies of any type. This book investigates all major cases of antitrust in America since its inception in 1890, and showing them all to have falsely identified the problem. Other sources worthy of investigation are: 1) Greenspan, Alan. "Antitrust." In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, 63-72. New York: Signet, 1967. 2) Branden, Nathaniel. "Common Fallacies About Capitalism." In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, 73-100. New York: Signet, 1967. 3) Epstein, Alex. "Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company." The Objective Standard, 2008., 4)Daniels, Eric. "Antitrust with a Vengeance:The Obama Administration's Anti-Business Cudgel." The Objective Standard, 2009-2010: 21-29

14. Peikoff, Leonard. The Ominous Parallels. (New York: Meridian, 1982), 120

15. Lewis, John David. Nothing Less Than Victory. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010), 13-17

16Ibid. 143

Use It or Lose It

We find ourselves in a peculiar era today. There are many people still alive who can recall a time when America was the envy of the world. Millions of immigrants fled to our borders for the chance to work even a menial job here. Intellectuals, doctors, scientists, and businessmen of all flavors came in droves to the freest country earth has ever held. Yet, we look around today and all the hard work seems to be crumbling in on itself. There are American cargo ships that must prepare for the possibility of pirate attacks (yes, pirates!). The greatest military the world has ever witnessed is unwilling to do what is necessary to protect American vessels on the open seas. Our country currently has over-zealous followers to a demagogue that resorts to extremely derogatory language against any who oppose them. This, of course, is not new, but the fervor has increased to the point of classifying anyone who disagrees with the present administration as right wing extremists (or “teabaggers”), and clumps them with right wing terrorists. Consider what this could mean if someone disagrees with a political policy and is deemed a terrorist under the Patriot Act (especially if the act is expanded).

This is the same country that flooded the world with unimagined goods and services. This is also the country that ushered in an era of unfathomed prosperity. Today, the average person living below the poverty line owns: a television, a car, a refrigerator, shelter, has money for food, and dozens of other amenities never possible to the richest kings of old.

The question becomes how did we get from where we were to where we are? The answer is simple. The hard working people, who produced all the great values we now enjoy, never spoke up against a government that grew brick by brick around them. It is the old story of the boiling frog experiment. Put a frog in a boiling pot of water and it will immediately jump out. Put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and slowly turn up the heat, and it will boil to death. Well folks, it looks like today we are the frog and we’re boiling.

But it’s not too late.

There are a myriad of ways a government can grow to eventually dominate our lives. It inevitably starts with words like “temporary” or “public interest.” A temporary fix will always lead to more “temporary” fixes. Once the government fails, which it almost always does, it will clamor for more, and bigger, “temporary” fixes. Anything done in the name of the public interest or public good is even more dangerous, primarily, because there is no such thing as “public interest.” A public is merely a collection of individuals, each with their own wants, needs and desires. When someone says they are doing something for the “public interest,” ask them; “Well, who decides what that is?” The answer in some form or another ends up being, “I do.”

Medicare in the 60’s was instituted because it was said to be in the best interest of the elderly to not have to rely on private charity. Despite the glaring fact that elderly people who were incapable of paying for their own medical care were taken care of by private charity. Social Security was instituted because it was in the public interest to have a guaranteed retirement plan paid for by everyone together. It was in the best interest of the country to force banks to invest in risky communities they normally avoided (e.g. the Community Reinvestment Act). It was in the interest of America to appease terrorists abroad for decades. Look what appeasement has gained us. The trend continues today. We are told it is in the public interest to bailout big banks, and big automakers. They are too big to fail is the alleged theory. The government tried to tell us it was in our best interests to let them take over our health care industry. Finally, some individuals decided to speak up.

These are only a fraction of our government’s policies for the past sixty plus years. They got away with it because of one reason. Like the frog, the American people never realized they were being boiled alive. As our freedoms were being slowly expropriated, there was silence. The only voices heard were arguing over which freedoms to eliminate next, and how to do it.

Our most important freedom, which is being hampered by both the Right and the Left, is our intellectual freedom. Our freedom to speak out is our protection against the formulation of a tyranny. Our founding fathers had a definite structure to the constitution. The Bill of Rights is our first set of amendments, with our first amendment being strictly about intellectual freedoms; such as free speech. They understood that without these freedoms, none others are possible. Unfortunately, it has been those against individual rights who have spoken their minds the most. The men and women who attempt to corrupt the concept of rights and apply them to whatever they desire.

What else is the meaning of the right to medical care, housing, jobs, food and all the other supposed rights? This is the idea that some people have the right to anything so long as they need it. Who shall provide for their need? This is when a proper right – or a right that infringes nothing on anyone else – is corrupted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. The people advocating these policies force one group of Americans to pay for the need of another group. They accomplish this by shouting for the biggest gun in the world; the American government. The fact that this group expropriates the wealth of some to give to another by the use of the government, elucidates their true belief; might is right.

The people who advocated these so-called rights were the main individuals in the political and intellectual forum. The hard working American’s who paid for these policies were too busy producing values, and living their lives, to bother looking up long enough to notice the devastation around them.

We see where this silence has led America.

It is now time for those who never spoke up to take a stand, or one day we will all wake up to a totalitarian dictatorship with access to the most advanced weaponry on the planet. To stand by indifferently, crying that this can never happen in America is all our enemies’ desire of us. They aren’t interested in our support. They have their minority of fervent followers. They merely want you out of their way; they’ll gladly take your indifference.

If you do not use your freedoms, you will lose them.

To arm ourselves intellectually will take time and hard work, but it’s worth it. It is much easier to stop a dictatorship from occurring in our country than it will be to overthrow it. One can begin by reading books, articles, blogs newspapers and whatever else is available to start understanding the issues. Listen to intellectuals to hear what all are saying. Find sources on the internet, podcasts, and other online writings of people spending their time fighting for their liberties. Understand this, not all ideas were created equal; tread carefully. Hard work this may be, but vital to our future.

Once armed, it is necessary to be prepared to shoot your enemies on sight. Don’t be afraid, stand up on principles, such as the principle of individual rights, and you will soon discover your intellectual enemies will crumble like a house of cards – assuming you have rational ideas of course. It is very likely you will take fire, and this is why building your intellectual ammunition is so vital. Remember, once that freedom is gone, we’ll never see it again.

If it is your goal to bring America back to our intellectual foundation it must start now. It must start with each one of you. It is in all of our self interests to learn what is occurring in America today and take a stand. There is no longer an easy way to win back our freedoms. The easy way ended over a century ago. Now, we must work towards our own bright future. But not to worry, there have been great thinkers of the past, and today, that you can rely on. They were and are men and women who have paved the way for the possibility of a future with freedom; mental giants all. And, once you expose the enemy for what they are, mental midgets with an inferiority complex, they will shy away from any and all rational responses. Reveal their disguise and fight back the torrent of evils, now, before it’s too late.

The Reality of Medical Care

People forget that words have specific meanings and that certain ideologies can accrue very real negative consequences; whether intended or not. The health care question is not merely what type of government takeover we want, but how much our government can fake reality. American’s today are so far disconnected from reality that their concept of rights, among other concepts such as medical coverage versus medical care, has been eroded to mean whatever politicians or intellectuals tell them it means.
Ignoring facts has deadly consequences. For example, many American’s are under the impression that other industrialized countries are far superior to America because they all have some form of single-payer government medical care. The idea that a whole country is ‘covered’ for medical services will not alter reality. Medical services are a limited resource and thus it is impossible for every person in a country to have access to their own MRI, CAT, or private doctor twenty-four hours a day. Rationing must take place. The possible choices historically are to either allow the government to ration in any way it sees fit, or to allow prices to ration objectively in a free society. Looking strictly at the practical results it is the latter option which has proven far superior.
In Canada, a country that has a single-payer system, the average time a person might wait from being referred by a general practitioner to actual treatment is over 17.7 weeks according to The Fraser Institute’s annual waiting list survey. Depending on where a Canadian patient resides the time could range anywhere from two to twenty-four weeks simply to receive a diagnosis using machinery such as MRI’s, CT’s or ultrasounds. Britain is no different, worse even. In 2002 the London Observer (3/3/02) published statistics illustrating cancer patients waiting over eight months for treatments, during which time cancer can become incurable. Even taking into account America’s heavily regulated medical industry, it usually only takes a few days to receive diagnosis and begin treatment.
The evidence that socialized medical care systems are deadly can be seen by simple investigations into any countries with socialized medicine. Yet, the country always damned, America, is the one country the entire world depends on for new medications, treatments, technological advances, and more.
Another absurdity often touted is that unchecked capitalism has allowed greedy business people to run up costs on innocent and unsuspecting customers. To believe this idea is to completely divorce oneself from reality. Our government is the single largest spender of medical services in America, totaling nearly half of all spending in the industry. The so-called ‘private’ companies are subject to thousands of federal and state mandates, regulations, oversights and more. To call this capitalism is an absolute abnegation of reality.
A more serious abnegation is American’s vast disconnect with reality in regards to the concept of rights. To believe that someone is born with a right to have unlimited access (or any access) to medical care; is to disregard the fact that medical care doesn’t grow in nature, and that someone will have to provide this service whether they want to or not. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave.
It is claimed that every American has the right to life; after all, it says so in the constitution. Once again, words have specific meanings and to negate the concept of rights is to destroy all of humankind’s progress so far. A right can only pertain to actions. A person has a right to pursue a career in order to make money so they can buy a house or pay for a health insurance plan that fits their needs. They do not have a right to a car, a house, health care, a cell phone, a trip to Fiji or any other such good or service which must be provided at the expense of someone else.
To those who say that many American’s are unable to afford health insurance; look at reality. American’s can most certainly afford medical care. Where do you think the government gets the money it spends? They get it from the American middle class taxpayer. Although, the rich do pay higher taxes, there are vastly more middle class American’s than there are rich ones, and the burden will assuredly fall to the middle. For those truly unable to afford insurance, they must rely solely on other people’s charity. Regarding this concept and its modern negation, consider two points.
First, there can only be a small minority of people who truly can’t afford healthcare in any country considering comprehensive single-payer health care. If a majority couldn’t afford medical care that country couldn’t afford a massive government takeover.
Second, this small minority must rely on private voluntary charity, which is abundant in a free society. In the 1960’s when Medicare and Medicaid were being pushed through congress, liberals did not claim that the elderly were not receiving medical care, because they were. Less fortunate elderly people should not have to rely on charity is what they claimed. Switching the meaning of a word doesn’t change reality. If some people receive a service at no cost to them, and paid for by others, this is charity. It doesn’t matter what name someone gives it. To assume the government taking money from one group of individuals and giving it to another is not forced charity is like saying a college student receiving most of their income from their parents is ‘self-reliant.’
Evading facts of reality doesn’t change anything. To continually push our country down the road of socialism and call this a good solution is to flat out ignore all the countries throughout history that have suffered under socialist ideology. It is time we advocate “change;” let’s try capitalism for once.

The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade - A speech by Dr. Keith Lockitch

Come see Dr. Keith Lockitch explain what the Climate crusade is really all about.
Located in Denver Colorado on the Auraria Campus on November 18th from 6:30pm-8:30pm

The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade
Environmentalists claim that our use of carbon-based energy is altering the climate, making us more vulnerable to climate disasters. Human survival, they insist, requires the immediate abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free sources. So why do environmentalist groups vehemently oppose projects involving every alternative form of energy ever proposed to replace fossil fuels—including wind farms and solar power plants? And why do they ignore the dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events? Before we rush headlong into drastic climate policies and energy rationing, a critical examination of these policies is urgently needed. Dr. Keith Lockitch will address these important issues and answer audience questions.

Click HERE for more information.

Integration of Music and Movies

Today, movies and music go hand in hand, and it seems hard to imagine a time when movies had no sound; in fact, even from the very outset of images on screen music was played alongside them. Throughout the 20th century many possibilities have been attempted in regards to the integration of movies and music. These attempts usually became the conventionalities we see today, such as the cliché on screen of playing a slow sad musical composition with a slow sad scene in a movie. Eventually it has been attempted – somewhat successfully – to juxtapose two mixed aspects of sight and sound in order to convey some mixed concepts; this is when a director has a high suspense action scene and has a slow classical composition as the background music, and many times this contrast can effectively – if in a bromidic fashion – emphasis the event occurring on screen.

These attempts at using images and music can, if done correctly, result in magnificently portrayed abstract concepts. However, in almost every instance a movie director has a certain task – such as to project love – and merely uses love songs along with the story of Romeo and Juliet; when this happens all the director has accomplished is a simple bromidic surface level concrete of this complex abstract idea, and no one is left understanding what love really means or where it comes from. The combination of images and sound are capable of portraying much deeper concepts. Unfortunately, this has not been attempted properly very often; however, there are three movies where they have been: Immortal Beloved by Bernard Rose, Copying Beethoven by Agneszka Holland, and Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus by Milos Forman.

The first of these Immortal takes place primarily in the form of an inquisitive search. Beginning with Beethoven’s death, a letter is found; Beethoven’s last will and testament, which he names a new heir to his estates and it’s not his brother, but his immortal beloved. The letter sends one of Beethoven’s most faithful servants – Schindler – on a journey into Beethoven’s past. He discovers a troubling man. It is a story that delves into the making of a musical genius; it’s theme: the effects music has upon our emotions and what it can do to their creator.

The next movie Copying Beethoven covers a much smaller time span in Beethoven’s life; mainly the composing and debut of his 9th symphony. A female musical copyist is sent to help Beethoven finish his composition before the appearance in four days. The story is more about the copyist’s revelations through the genius of Beethoven.

Lastly, Amadeus is a movie that takes place in the story telling of the movies main character – the court composer Antonio Salieri. When Salieri discovers the musical brilliance he has always admired is wasted on a childish jokester like Mozart; he begins to plot for Mozart’s demise. Through a series of failures and successes Salieri is finally triumphant in defeating Mozart, but it has cost them both a great deal.

These three movies depict music in three distinctive manners. Immortal uses carefully selected images to convey the mood Beethoven was trying to impose. In Copying, they merely use the reactions of audience members to show the mood. Amadeus shows only what the two main characters feel as a result of their music. Amadeus is different than the other two because it is naturalistic to a much higher degree; the movies main goal is to enumerate the steps and consequences of a sadistic man’s jealous nature about his own inferiority. What makes the movie to be a mere surface level naturalist movie is the fact that it takes humans as readymade, and it presupposes people as being jealous without showing where it comes from or what causes a person to become so jealous.

Movies have an uncanny ability to express concepts to us using one of our most important perceptual senses; sight: it also can use our sense of hearing as a clear awareness of the mood the movie is giving us. To combine the two – sight and sound – is of profound importance that has not been properly accomplished. This is due to the fact that as far as our precepts go in music we have not discovered an objective manner in deciphering and understanding the meaning of sounds in regards to our subconscious mind.

Most movies, especially today, show a very crude understanding of music and what it is able to achieve. An example is a recent movie: The Soloist by Joe Wright. During an important scene wherein one of the main characters – Nathaniel Ayers played by Jamie Foxx – is taken to a private rehearsal of a local orchestra and is overcome by the music he loves so much. Mr. Wright has assumed the very worst in regards to music and our subconscious. The way in which music is ‘shown’ in this movie is by random colors thrown on screen in a Stan Brakhage manner. This displays the director’s vision of music; which is mystical, other-worldly and unknowable.

Art is a selective re-creation based on an artist’s view. In The Soloist the director has chosen to elucidate his ideals as to the epistemology behind music using random shapes and colors; in essence, he claims that music can only give the emotional equivalent of an annoying pin prick, but he doesn’t understand that music is capable of much more.

The most unfulfilled potential in art lies with movies. Since movies are a visual art, but don’t merely give one image but thousands of images over a certain span of time, they have the ability of communicating what an artist painting a series of paintings could never dream of doing. The movie has only one master and term-setter which is its literary aspect; this means literature is what provides the metaphysical element that enables the pictures on screen to become a concretization of an abstract view of human beings. When the literary aspect is removed from film it is simply a vaudeville or circus. Music has always been an incidental accompaniment to movies.

The most unique of the arts is music. This particular art form works backwards in regard to a human’s interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious. All other arts create a physical object such as a book or a painting, which then carries the person’s perceptual grasp upon the object to a conceptual grasp.[1] As Rand put it, the pattern is:

From perception – to conceptual understanding – to appraisal – to emotion… In
music it is perception – to emotion – to appraisal – to conceptual
understanding. (emphasis mine)

When listening to a piece of music it can seem very similar to dreaming. Ostensibly random images pop in the listeners mind, but these images are not exactly random since the abstract emotion is carefully selected by the composer. The power of music is to use the vibrations from sonorous bodies to bring about a particular feeling of a certain abstraction. For example, a musical composition cannot show you what piousness looks like – as in the Bellini painting St. Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy – but it can give you the feeling; it can’t show you what it is like to stand in front of your beloved after returning from war, but it can give you the feeling. With music’s ability to reach straight into your subconscious emotions and then allow your mind to perform the concretization process the possibilities for music is as of yet almost completely unknown.

In particular scenes throughout the three movies – Immortal Beloved, Copying Beethoven, and Amadeus- each director gives specific examples of what they believe music’s capabilities are, and of the three only Immortal comes close to any particular truth in this manner.

In Amadeus music is shown mainly through its effects upon the two main characters, which incidentally somewhat coincides with the plot-theme: The jealous Salieri’s destructive attempts to destroy Mozart. Also, the movies theme is the inspiration of genius, and what effects this has on inferiors. The movie fails artistically to convey where that inspiration comes from; and it also fails to properly use music to express the abstraction of jealousy. This is due to the naturalistic approach of the story. When we see a scene which has Mozart or Salieri conducting, the movie concentrates upon what it is doing to the composer, and sometimes a few audience members. This is presupposing the antecedent event; in other words, the movie’s director expects the viewer to simply enjoy the same emotions as the composer, which almost negates the effect the music might have.

Copying Beethoven is guilty of the same laziness as Amadeus. The director expects the viewer to garner a sense of what he wishes to convey as the concrete, but he does not want to do the work himself, he is like a child beating on pots and pans in his parent’s kitchen expecting beautiful meanings to emerge. Both directors are succeeding in producing very rudimentary concepts in regards to the abstract feeling or idea they want to allow the audience to understand. Immortal goes a little further in both the explanation of music and its subsequent portrayal of it throughout the movie.

In one of the scenes that sets Immortal apart in regards to understanding music, and being a bit more of a romantic story, is the scene when Herr Schindler – the character going on the journey to discover who Beethoven’s immortal beloved is – tells the story of how he met Beethoven: Schindler is listening to two virtuoso’s rehearse the new Beethoven Sonata, Beethoven enters and loudly starts talking to Schindler – Beethoven is mostly deaf by this point – and he explains his understanding of music

Music is a dreadful thing. What is it? What does it do..? If you hear a marching
band; you march. If you hear a mass you take communion. It is the power of music
to carry one directly into the mental state of the composer. The listener has no
choice, it is like hypnotism… So now, what was in my mind when I wrote this? A
man is trying to reach his lover, his carriage has broken down in the rain;
wheels are stuck in the mud, she will only wait so long. This is the sound of
his agitation.

What sets this movie apart in regard to understanding music is the image shown during this sequence. As Schindler listens to Beethoven’s Sonata an image comes to the screen of an incident that has happened in Beethoven’s mind that inspired the Sonata, and the image is of Beethoven struggling in a dark, muddy, insolent forest; rain dousing him, his muscles strained to the extreme trying to push this carriage back onto the road so he may reach his beloved. It is important to note when listening to this Sonata that nobody else will be imposed by this particular image of Beethoven pushing a carriage in the rain – the listener will only get the feeling the composer had at that time.

As an attest to Beethoven’s greatness many movies have used his 9th symphony in their musical score. However, the two movies, Immortal and Copying both sought to demonstrate what the cause and effect of this piece has on our subconscious emotions. In Copying the director illuminates his surface level approach with regards to musical capabilities. As Beethoven is conducting the concert the camera holds on the intense emotions of Beethoven, his copyist and Karl (his nephew); among a few other audience members. By holding the camera on those three individuals it is left unsaid how and why they are feeling such emotions. Immortal does a much more succinct job with this same concert. As the concert begins we are shown an image of a young Beethoven after just having been abused by his father; he is running away to the sound of The Ode to Joy. As the boy reaches a pond the music is approaching its climax. The boy takes his shirt off and lays half naked in the dark black pond reflecting the starry night sky above. The camera has a bird’s eye view of the boy; then it begins to pull back with the increasing intensity of the music, and as it pulls back the boy looks as if he is laying among the stars, which concretizes in one image the feeling of heroics and the feeling of being among the gods that Beethoven was trying to demonstrate.

This image is a great example of what a proper marriage of sight and sound in motion can be capable of in art. These two mediums, together, have the ability to more succinctly concretize certain philosophical abstractions in our minds. It is not enough to merely juxtapose music to an image and randomly hope people will grasp the full meaning of the idea being attempted. It is unfortunate that psychologically we have not intoned the meaning of sounds epistemologically. And, there is still room for much improvement in this art. If one were able to fully integrate abstract ideas in both sight and sound, through a story, an artist could reach a level of the human psyche rarely ever touched. Understanding the basic principles of a human’s ability to form concepts could inevitably bring about new forms of meaning in images and sounds on screen. It would take a genius psychologist, magnificent composer and brilliant philosopher all in one to formulate a brand new way of integrating sounds to images. This would bring about new possibilities in all of the arts, and would make possible grand achievement in other areas of human endeavors. This form of integration could bring about an entirely new artistic era and usher humans back to the knowledge of their own benevolent greatness.



[1] Rand, Ayn. Art and Cognition. The Romantic Manifesto. New York : New American Library, 1971

Music is Reason

I was given a discussion topic in school about the Middle Ages and The Renaissance. Specifically in regards to music. My professor made the comment that people believe The Renaissance or 'rebirth' is the period that followed the Middle Ages or 'Dark Ages,' and that these terms can be misleading, because history tends to move continuously rather than by leaps and bounds. The disusion was to talk about the gradual improvement of music through these periods.

First it is necessary to disprove the statement “these descriptions can be misleading as history tends to move continuously rather than by leaps and bounds.” This is false. After the fall of the Roman Empire western world did not see many of the necessities Romans took for granted for almost one thousand years. It wasn’t until St. Thomas Aquinas rediscovered Aristotle in the 13th century that we began seeing the emergence of the Renaissance. When I say rediscover, I mean rediscover in the true context of Aristotle’s writings. The Greek language, culture and more was all but lost for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. The barbarians who destroyed Rome found they had nothing of significance to replace it’s splendor with. St. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian, and fortunately, he brought back reason to our world. After the rebirth i.e. renaissance began, man was able to begin considering himself an individual. It would take hundreds of years for this to fully take effect, but eventually rebirth would give way to enlightenment. In enlightenment we see the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791 and much more. For once men shrugged off the shackles of God and King, and realized his own greatness.

Next we must define what art is and what music is to our cognition. Art is a selective re-creation of an artist’s metaphysical value judgments, and, as such it is an indispensible medium for the communication of a moral ideal. Looking at a piece of art injects several abstractions; life, death, hope, love, hate, fear etc, and it is how we react to these things which indicates what our sense of life is. A sense of life can be defined as something that happens before our concepts, on a more emotional level, the way we react to art helps us to indicate what our sense of life is, but it does not define it. Our sense of life can be developed in two ways; by a conscious effort or be chance. We either choose what values we hold by deciding basic philosophical premises such as; where we are, how we know it, and what to do, or we evade such actions and come to these conclusions based off of our friends, family, or teachers. This latter method is very dangerous.

Looking at a painting can invoke certain emotions. The painting uses certain abstract and concrete concepts in order to fill the viewer with certain emotions. Music on the other hand does not have the ability to show anything, music uses different sounds produced by periodic vibrations of a sonorous body. Music works in reverse of a painting. It does not invoke images directly, but indirectly through your subconscious. While listening to a piece of music you may feel yourself seeing random images as if from a dream, but this is actually your subconscious at work and is not random but carefully selected. Let me give some examples: A piece of music can’t show you what it looks like to be about to kill someone, but it can give you the feeling. It cannot show you what it is like to be in love, but it can give you the feeling. It cannot show you a beautiful garden, but it can give you the feeling. Another great example of this is in the move “Immortal Beloved” where Beethoven tells a future servant of his that the music he is hearing is his frustration at not being able to get to his lover. As an aside, for great examples of music and the emotions they convey see the aforementioned movie. What is important to follow here, is that the emotion is conveyed by the composer whether that is happiness or anger, and how the person reacts to it are dependent upon their sense of life.

Now, looking into the middle ages, it is important to remember that the church pretty much had a monopoly on the arts for almost 700 years. During this time the main form of music was ‘Gregorian Chant’ a rather ominous and morose kind of monophonic sound. The art of the time was meant to convey a sense of uselessness. It was meant to keep the average person from realizing his or her own potential and condemn them to a life in fear of mystical leering gargoyles and an eternal hell. Going to church was not the celebration as it is to some today; it was as if going to mourning. They were mourning life. In “Music an Appreciation” by Roger Kamien he illustrates that many of the secular songs were about love. Note however, that the majority of these songs and illustrations weren’t predominant until the 13th century. This is not to say that there were no secular songs before then, just very seldom. Secular music and secularism in general began appearing more and more after reason was re-introduced.

For more on this read Ayn Rand’s The Romantic Manifesto

Why are students becoming philosophy majors?

I was given an old article from the New York Times that reffered to a large growth in the number of philosophy majors and minors in America. I was then asked the question why young 'practical' minded people (as the teacher called them) are becoming more interested in philosophy?

It is possible that young college students are becoming more enamored with philosophy simply because they are not satisfied with the abhorrent answers they normally get in the 'real world.' Some of these answers come from parents, teachers, bosses and even friends. The idea that everything is nothing may not bode well with some younger people who understand - on some level at least - that their life is something. They hear things like they are just a mass of protoplasm with no meaning. Young people are very impressionable, however, and I believe they do realize that their life is important to them: their future means something, and they wish to understand what is going on around them.

They see the giants of their world crumbling around them. They see the power of the presidency taken over by a man they helped put in to office, and do nothing but more of the same. They see pirates (yes PIRATES) hindering our trade as if we have returned to more primitive times. They understand that the majority of the country is against a war that is killing their friends, brothers, sisters, cousins; and yet their government heeds not their words. They remember hearing in history class and social studies that the government was set up as a system 'of the people by the people and for the people,' that there was supposed to be some semblance of morality, of reason, logic and so on. They see the rule of law being deteriorated around them, by such acts as imposing 'empathy' upon the judgements of judges. They see the erosion of property rights and wonder what is the 'principle' that backs property rights. They see the businessmen around them being punished, and wonder why. They don't understand why capitalism could have failed, they question, and hope philosophy will lead them towards the road of discovery. They wish to seek the best within themselves, they do not wish to allow the people of the world to condemn them for attempting greatness.

They possibly question things like socialized medicine. Why, they may ask, is it my duty to help others?

Some young men and women wish to bring back what they remember reading in their history books. 'Where are the great men who built this country?' They ask. There are some who wish to have something to look forward to. They do not wish to be infringed upon, they have a sinking guilt in the bottom of their stomachs at seeing neanderthals gyrating their bodies to the beat of a primitive drum claiming that 'we must leave nature alone!' spitting their fury at anyone who attempts the evil of living their life to the best of their ability.

Then there are those who wish to use philosophy to destroy the men and women I just described. They wish to use their greatest weapon against them, reason. They will twist reason to suit whatever needs they wish. And these young impressionable people can seek one defense; philosophy. If they do not understand the basics that philosophy teaches, such as, where we are, how we know it and what we should do once we know it, they will inevitably succumb to the gross ideology that is overtaking their world.

It is unfortunate that most of the people who are joining philosophy en masse are individuals who wish to destroy the best within others. They do not wish to be held to the responsibility of their own greatness, and seek to destroy what others wish to achieve. They use filthy language to impose guilt upon the aforementioned young people of the mind by saying 'they are greedy, they are selfish, they have no empathy.'

These young people who wish to understand why they see people condemning the great men and women of industrial power and still they don't go to their defense because they feel guilty; they are the ones who need to be taught; not Plato, or Nietzsche, or Kant but Aristotle. They are the ones who should understand that values are something achievable, that we live in a world of concretes and they can either abide and prosper, or evade and perish.

It is also unfortunate that these young people may never have the courage to question; they may not have the ability to admire, nor to take pride in their own actions. They can, if they discover the proper philosophy. If they learn not that reason can be some 'sublime' fantasy, but it is their reality. They all have the ability to change, as long as we are human we have volition.

It is volition which eventually led mankind to throw off the shackles of, God, King, and now we must throw off the shackles of 'society.'

I can only hope that it will be the people of the mind who will give sanction to the best within themselves. We already seem to be going down a road quite opposite to this idea, and it is each of us who are paying the price.

Review of "Crito" by Plato

This is a brief review of Socrates' reasoning as is shown in Plato's Dialogue entitled "Crito"


On Socrates’ reasoning

First of all, I must commend Socrates for his effective use of logic. Socrates has succinctly used and or created logical discussion. He first defends himself from Crito by using Argumentum ad Numerum or even Argumentum ad Populum. The first 'Numerum' is the fallacy perpetrated by an individual who claims something is more right the more people hold it as true. As Crito seems to be doing when he says, “but do you see Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.” This is also similar to 'Populum' which is appealing to the people; this fallacy is usually characterized by emotive language which Crito obviously uses. These defenses by Socrates demonstrate his ability to be steadfast to reason under any incoming fire. Based upon the antiquated reasoning of the time Socrates does seem to be holding true to his integrity. So, if we define integrity as an unfaltering holding to ones values, whether there are other's watching or not, then Socrates is most assuredly a man of integrity.

However, I believe Socrates makes a few fundamental and costly mistakes in his assessments of the state. For one, to assume the state owns him simply because of some arbitrary 'social contract' is ludicrous. It is true that Socrates agreed to live under Athenian law, but when these laws are set in place for the mere ability of allowing the polis to create criminals at its discretion, the polis and not Socrates has betrayed any 'social contract.' Socrates fails to understand what the state is. As Murray Rothbard explicates in Anatomy of the State:

“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly
of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it
is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary
contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."

Furthermore, Socrates makes the preeminent mistake most individuals make, which is equating each individual person as 'a part' of the state. In other words saying 'we’ are the state.' In essence, 'we,' as the individuals who make up the state, are made equivalent to some unknown controller of violence. We are made to believe that as citizens of such and such society 'we' are all one, and 'we' must obey the laws and dictums handed down from on high. The fundamental error here is that we are individuals. Rothbard shows that if we are the state, than anything the state forces upon us is done voluntarily.

"Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not
murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the
government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the
government did to them was voluntary on their part."

Also, simply because we are all participating in our societies does not implicate us to their every action. As Williamson M. Evers from the department of political science at Stanford elucidates, "Mere participation is not enough for obligation. If a burglar lets you argue with him while he is relieving you of your valuables, it does not place you under an obligation to him."

Socrates also uses the argument that he has accepted the ‘gifts’ from society i.e. schooling. This is once again a fundamental error in reasoning. He uses the analogy of parents giving a gift to their child as equivalent to the ‘gifts’ from society. The problem lies in the conditions in which the gifts are given in the two scenarios. When a parent gives something to their child, such as room and board, there is only an obligation to the parents for as long as the child accepts the gifts. When the child moves away from home and stops accepting gifts from their parents, they subsequently disallow all ‘rules’ or edicts handed down from their parents. The difference with the state is that one can not merely ‘shrug’ off their allotted ‘gifts.’ These so-called gifts are imposed rather than something that is attached as a condition to a gift.

Socrates, while defending his position, accepts many irrelevant and counter-intuitive ideals that unfortunately lead to his early demise. While it is admirable that Socrates had the integrity to stand up for what he believed was right, his failure to come to more correct and logical conclusions deprived him of years of life.

Ayn Rands Playboy Interview (1964)

Ayn Rands Playboy Interview.

The 20th century Philosopher and Writer Ayn Rand, author of Mega-best sellers such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, was interviewed by playboy in 1964. This particular interview – one of hundreds- is famous for it’s breadth. In it she discusses guild, original sin, emotions, motherhood, religion, morality, Romantic love, sex, hedonism, promiscuity, charity, compassion, literature, government, free will, foreign policy, nuclear treaties, politicians and others.

She also succinctly describes the practical application of her philosophy; objectivism.
It is now online HERE. Enjoy and send feedback!

April 22nd is Exploit the Earth Day

April 22nd should be exploit the Earth Day

Instead of the fanaticism associated with earth day, American’s especially should understand the fundamental need to transform the raw materials of the earth into life supporting/enhancing tools for our future. Environmentalism VS capitalism. These are the two choices open to western civilization, and we may be coming to the inevitable crossroads where only one can continue along its designated path. Unfortunately for human beings, only capitalism is meant for life on earth. The philosophy behind environmentalism is that nature has intrinsic value. In reality this equates to a man-hating ideology where human beings must not infringe on the supposed ‘rights’ of tree shrubs and caribou.

The mentality is anything done in nature is good, and anything done by man is bad. If beavers ravage trees its good because it is done in nature. If solar and sunspot activity effect the temperature of the earth it is good because it occurs in nature. If a virus comes along and wipes out a billion human beings it is lauded as the right thing. Yet, if human beings build oil refineries, dams, coal factories and more, it is condemned as immoral by environmentalism. Many readers may come to the conclusion that this writer is exaggerating and say that ‘they don’t really mean it.’ Don’t be so sure about that. Those who truly listen to the consistent advocates of environmentalism in the public light will come to realize the full determination these communal thinkers have. Philosopher Paul Taylor mentions “the ending of the human epoch on earth,” in his book Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. In David M. Graber’s review of Bill McKibben’s book The End of Nature Mr. Graber explicates the environmentalist view in all its grandiosity “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet… Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” The vernacular used by environmentalists leaves no room for doubt; they advocate an all out condemnation of humankind.

For those wishing to live their lives to the fullest of their capabilities will see themselves hindered in every respect by these so-called lovers of the earth. If a person chooses to ‘respect’ the environment and build a more eco-friendly and efficient form of energy producer, they would most assuredly choose nuclear. However, they would meet every obstacle imaginable by the green movement. Moreover, these greenites choose to ignore all relevant facts and come to their own conclusions when it comes to the environment. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just ruled that C02 is a pollutant, and this ‘pollutant,’ which we are all made of and plants need to live, is condemned and shall be regulated as a pollutant. Sea levels will raise to catastrophic levels is their reasoning. Yet, if one were to do even the most modest amount of investigation it would become very clear this is not the case.

For one there is only a modest net loss in Greenland. Second, 90% of earth’s ice is in Antarctica. This is also where 80% of our fresh water comes from. The assertation that western Antarctica has suffered a loss of ice is very true, but eastern Antarctica is four times as large and getting colder. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic research has issued a report explicating the “significant cooling in recent decades.”

Many such facts can be easily unveiled if one were to be actually interested in the facts. There may be many environmentalist who believe in the green cause because it sounds like a good idea, and “who wouldn’t want to help mother earth?” Unfortunately, they may be unaware of the dire impacts these rulings and regulations may have on our world economy. It will mean many of the things we need to survive will increase in price and scarcity such as: gas, electricity, food, medical treatment, and more. Some may believe that an increase won’t be so bad. The problem is the ripple effects will be much more grandiose than anyone will be able to imagine. When oil reached 150 dollars a gallon this last summer many people were speaking of the dire consequences to the world economy, if we were to reach 200 dollars it could mean total devastation. Our world may not be able to survive the ‘help’ of these environmentalists.

Today, earth day, celebrate not the environmental movement, but celebrate the men and women of the mind. Celebrate those who wish to convert the raw materials around us into our houses, cars, groceries, oil, energy, computers, latte’s, fine dining and more. We should not condemn such people but applaud them for their commendable work in saving and enhancing all of our lives.

The Moral Defense of Capitalism

There are many in the political and intellectual world now discussing the failure of capitalism. Once one of capitalisms staunchest allies, former head of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan has openly admitted to what he claims are the faults inherent in capitalism. This one time defender of capitalism claimed “capitalism is dead” in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article. Contemporary intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky claim that we must not put people in charge of their own assets, for this eliminates the need to look after each other. President Barack Obama has outwardly claimed a war on energy producers, and thusly free trade, when he has said “We’ve got to go after the energy producers.” As if the men and women who provide American’s with heat, electricity and more should be punished -rather than rewarded- for their hard work.

The criticism touted towards capitalism, and conversely property rights, is the fact that it enables men to act in a selfish manner. Karl Marx has said that “the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of the same arbitrarily, without regard for other men, independently from society, the right of selfishness.” The men and women who call themselves the defenders of capitalism usually do more harm than good by their method of ‘defense’, which is to espouse the immorality of selfishness but condone the practicality of capitalism and the benefit it brings to all people.

These defenders are normally half hearted and scared witless that they will be called out on their ‘evil morality.’ Republicans and Libertarians alike have often repeated the mantra that capitalism will save us all. But, when it comes down to the actual implementation of any real capitalist ideals, they back out, like a man afraid of heights attempting to bungee jump for the first time. These “defenders” of capitalism claim that their ideals are in the best interest of everyone; that capitalism really starts with charity

In a recent article in The Objective Standard, Craig Biddle quotes an advocate of capitalism George Gilder who claims that selfishness is simply not the essence of what makes capitalism, and that “capitalism begins with giving.”

These pretend defenders not only fail to understand what capitalism is, but fail to acknowledge that capitalism has never been attempted in the history of mankind. There have been a few laudable defenders of capitalism, Adam Smith and Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard to more contemporary men such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Dominick T. Armentano but they solely defend the practical economic side, not the moral. These men have effectively proven both in theory and with voluminous empirical evidence how capitalism can improve all avenues of our lives: the standard of living, health care, the energy crisis, and the infamous socioeconomic disparity. However, they usually fall short in their ethical premises of capitalism, leaving this to some of the lesser minds who fumble and destroy the core of capitalism: rational self-interest.

Capitalism needs to be understood not just as the most practical system, but as the only moral system for man qua man to live by. It has been chortled out many times that although capitalism is selfish; it taps the creative flux of the sinners among us to create more abundantly for the rest of the population. This ignorance is the real destroyer of capitalism. The moment these intellectuals concede the immorality of their own supposed philosophy they condone the opposite side of their argument.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Our current mongrel system is nowhere near what true laissez-faire capitalism should and could be. The reason for our present prosperity in America and the world is simply a result of our traditional, capitalistically leaning ideology.

For life to be sustained all living things must follow a certain course of action required by that creature’s nature. In human terms, survival of the fittest is determined by the quality of the reasoning mind. To disable or stifle the reasoning mind in order to produce freely will inevitably cause moral and physical demise. Production, whether farm or industrial, is the application of reason to the problem of survival.

Production is the fruit of the principle of individual rights. Freedom is essential for survival. Since Laissez-Faire capitalism allows everyone to consistently act selfishly. The problem lies in the dominant philosophy of our time, one of selfless sacrifice to others, altruism. The misconception of altruism is that it means simply to help others. But in actuality, it is the worst case of illogical martyrdom.

Contrary to popular belief Bill Gates and Sam Walton embody the truest morality. They raised the standard of living, employed millions, provided meaningful products at cheap prices etc. Yet these men, are denounced as being evil profiteers. Who then are we to idolize? Juxtaposed with the commonly understood moralist Mother Theresa, Gates and Walton’s selfishness fostered the utilitarian society. Mother Theresa served by sacrificing her time and energy, while Gates and Walton selfishly traded value for value.

Thus, we come to the major problem in our battle for capitalism. The general consensus is that sacrifice is an equal exchange of choices. The reality is that a sacrifice surrenders something of value for a lesser or non-value. For example, it is not a sacrifice for a married couple to forgo movies and restaurants in order to save for a home. It is a sacrifice to give up those things so their neighbor may have a house. This is what happens when you pay your taxes. Life is made happier by forgoing lesser values for higher values. A sacrifice always results personal loss. If a student wants to become an architect because of their passion, and ability to transform raw materials into whatever they envision, but gives this up to ‘do the right thing’ by becoming a mediocre social worker instead, they have then perpetrated a sacrifice. But, by pursuing his or her passion for architecture they are trading a lesser value for a greater value. Capitalism allows each and every individual to pursue autonomy for passion.

In a truly free society government is forbidden from initiating force, except against those who initiate it, i.e. crime. If an automaker develops a new model he or she is not required to go through government channels to do so. This also means that if the model is not wanted or needed by the public, they must suffer the consequences. No bailouts. This company would be allowed to go bankrupt while other more efficient companies, all acting in a selfish manner, will emerge and prosper upon satisfying the needs of consumers. This process allows consumers to choose and freely influence the marketplace.

Altruism is completely incompatible with capitalism. Altruism forbids people to act in a self-interested way. Under an altruistic ideology, a property owner has no right to use and dispose of his own property as he sees fit.

Capitalism depends on its moral consideration beyond that of its economic counterpart. The point must be conceded that every human has a right to live by their own rational judgment. Our seemingly capitalist practices is immoral because it protects people’s rights inconsistently, and violates everyone’s rights perpetually. With our current ideology we are given a choice between food and poison, poison always wins.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To learn more about how to morally defend capitalism click the link above (The Objective Standard) and read, for free, Craig Biddles great article, which inspired mine.