Francisco Ferrer

I wasn't aware that laughter is a sign of panic.

That's ridiculous. You've just got a hard-on for having art-panic attacks. You don't like something so you completely blow it out of proportion and act like the fucking world is going to end. You wrote in the same frantic, overblown terms on that silly thread about architecture: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14488 Get a grip. J I agree that the egregious quality of AS 1,2 & 3 is not equivalent to the end of the world. That you found such apocalyptic warnings in my criticisms of the films (and of most contemporary architecture), shows that you have a rather vivid imagination. Judging by your choice of language, it seems that there's more panic gushing from your side of the gray line than mine.

I have hardly ignored what independence is. I provided the example of the pioneer whose self-sufficiency makes him 100% independent of the thought and labor of others. Nor have I ignored what independence is not. I said that what I had in mind is not the man who waits upon the decisions of another before taking action. I do not extoll the predator. I regard him as a pox on society. The issue at hand is not the goodness or evil of the predator but whether such a man can be rational. As I wrote in my first post on this thread, "A man could be both rationally self-interested and a violator of others' rights." I realize that this goes against the Romantic Idealism, er, I mean Realism, pictured in Rand's philoso-fiction. But then so does the possibility that predators could be tall and lean, with faces of angular planes. Does the prudent predator lack conviction? No, not the conviction that looking out for Number One is Job One. Does he lack principle? No, not the principle that by his life and his love of it, he will never put another man's interests above his own. Rational morality? Where is the proof that thinking "based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings" (Merriam-Webster) requires one to place the rights of others ahead of one's own goals? Lack of character? What is pure, unadulterated egoism if not "moral excellence and firmness" (Merriam-Webster)? Lack of pride and resolve? Where is the evidence that prudent predators cannot take pride in their work and resolve to perform their next task with the same level of competence? The "metaphysical nature of man"? Where is the evidence that man is non-aggressive and rights-respecting by nature? If consciousness is indeed volitional, demonstrate that the choice to respect the rights of others is always in one's self-interest.

I cannot cite sales numbers, but a terrible movie can affect a book's reputation. For example, Myra Breckenridge is a funny and critically acclaimed satirical novel by Gore Vidal and a terrible movie with Raquel Welch. The stench from the movie queered sales of the book, which, sadly, is no longer in print. I have yet to see a film based on a Michener novel that distorted its source material as grotesquely as the AS series. The general incompetence on display in the cinematic works of Kaslow-Aglialoro is so monumental that they may well be contenders for cult bad movies, products so shamefully rotten that they are sought out by fans who enjoy ridiculing them. Thus we may soon see the Atlas movies on a "best worst" list that includes Reefer Madness and Plan 9 from Outer Space. In addition to getting Peikoff's name right on the checks, Kaslow-Aglialoro may well send thousands of bad movie cultists to the bookstore in the false hope that Atlas the Book is a laugh riot.

I've known a number of attractive women who have traded sex for expensive cars, clothes, and a house. They usually call themselves "wives."

The worst offense is not simply making a bad movie. It happens frequently in Hollywood--if not to the extreme degree of AS3. What the producers cannot be forgiven is making something so shabby, inaccurate and laughable that it will stand for a generation as a misdirecting signpost to those who might have been drawn to Rand's ideas.

Somehow "life, liberty and property" is the wrong, narrow kind of selfish, while "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is the right kind of selfish. We know this because . . because . . . well, perhaps because concerning oneself with happiness feels right and being concerned with property feels wrong.

So when it comes to defining just what is a "wrong, narrow type of selfish," we'll have to turn to some other great intellect.

Take this take: Life, liberty and the pursuit of property. Just sounds too close to the wrong, narrow type of selfish. "Happiness" grabs the whole person, individual and social. The sexual divide seems to be the guy go gets the property and the wife makes it possible for him to achieve happiness--hers and his--and everybody eats. The woman, of course, is the more complete being. If she has to she can hunt and fight, but the man cannot bear children. --Brant it all revolves around Mommy--just ask a psycho-therapist (it's Mommy this and Mommy that!) I'm not sure what you mean by the "wrong, narrow type of selfish." Is this something Rand, Branden and Peikoff addressed in their works?

Yes, let's broaden it a bit to include, say, prostitution--which, by luck, happens to be the topic of this thread. I will admit that in some sex-for-hire exchanges, the buyer may temporarily forget that he is with a prostitute and imagine that he is with his high school sweetheart. For those few minutes, he would in fact be faking reality. However, my guess is that in a significant number of transactions the buyer and seller "know what they are doing," as you adroitly expressed it. Thus, to answer the original post, we can conclude that there need not be "'faking reality' on part of both the prostitute and the john."

If we define "animal" as a "non-tool-user," and then discover that there are in fact animals that use tools, then honesty (one of Rand's virtues) requires us to admit tool-users to the category of animals. Similarly, if we define "man's nature" as non-predatory, and then discover that there are in fact a great number of human predators, then we have to revise our definition. Regarding "thinking independently": I suppose there are predators who are quick to surrender their minds and become the unthinking servants of powerful masters. But what I had in mind was the predator who is thoughtful and skilled enough to make a success of taking from others without having to answer to a higher authority. Developing a complete independence from others is admirable and part of the pioneer spirit that made America great. However, there is no compelling reason why today an individual has to churn his own milk, weave his own clothes, and fill his own cavities. In the modern world we can go to others for specialized labor without being ridiculed for being "dependent on and determined by others' minds and energy." If the predator relies on others for his livelihood, so does the teacher, the chiropractor, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. Finally, while I admit that there may be many predators who lack in self-esteem, I am aware of no study that shows that all predators are lacking in self-esteem.

In Two Treatises of Government Locke wrote that law existed to protect "property," which he took to mean an individual's "life, liberty, and estate." It is only a short step from there to Founder Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Yes, of course, there are predators who are incapable of thinking for themselves. They rely on a mob boss, crime lord, Don or kingpin to do the mental heavy lifting. ("I swear on my mudder's grave, boss, I di-int do it!") However, the predator I have in mind is his own boss. Like a salesman who scouts a territory before beginning his campaign, the prudent predator is careful, forward-thinking, and trusts himself above all others. And, while I am sure that there are many predators who depend on their victim's approval ("How did I do in the hold-up yesterday? Did you like the way I eased the gun barrel out of my sleeve?"), the predator I had in mind doesn't value the opinion of his victim. After the job is done, he stops thinking about his victim altogether. And rather than thinking of his career as evil, he regards it as good. Successfully taking from others enhances his standard of living and reinforces his self-esteem. No doubt there are many predators who evade their own identity. ("I'm not a thief. I'm a security expert.") But the predator I have in mind knows exactly who he is and loses not a wink of sleep over it.

In "The Objectivist Ethics" Ayn Rand wrote, "one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)." How literally should we take this? Place a check next to each one who is faking reality: ___ An eight-year old pretending to be an astronaut. ___ A teenager playing Dungeons and Dragons. ___ An actress playing Karen Andre, a woman on trial for murder. ___ A wife playing a disobedient student and her husband the strict teacher. ___ A prostitute playing a disobedient student and her client the strict teacher.

One Canadian reads another.

Like Locke, I start with the premise that every human is entitled to whatever goods in nature which he puts to use--that are not already rightfully claimed by another. First, there is the body, for that is the primary naturally given thing which each human occupies and puts to use and has a right to by original if implicit claim. Then there is land, for that is naturally the next resource which a human will occupy and transform for his own use. Then come the products of the land, free trade of such products with other humans, and the rights that logically follow, such as gifts, wills, and delegation of rights. There is certainly no greater focus on property than human beings, for the very nature of property requires a human actor.

I don't know why you would say that, since I used myself as an example in the post directly above yours. I can assure you that among human beings I very much fall into the particular category. I cannot, however, admit to qualifying for "qua man" status. All of my actions in this humble life so far have been in my capacity as Francisco Ferrer and not "Man." And if I fail to deliver the goods in exactly the same way that an Adam Smith or an Isabel Paterson would, I will simply say, I'm sorry. I will not, however, hold you responsible for failing to write like Mark Twain or Anthony Burgess.

I've not made it clear, any type of predator (and I see no distinction for this "prudent" one) is not independent, by definition - so is at total odds with rational egoism, therefore is irrational and selfless. He depends on the existence of others' minds and output which he lives through and by -- without honest trade in return, it must be empasised. Altruism has, as a main consequence, the dutiful service to others, but this is not its only invidious aspect. Losing one's independent consciousness to any- and all- comers has to precede and facilitate that result. "The lone wolf who answers to no higher authority" - but who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own. (Despite superficial impressions). By the same logic, we could say that a teacher, a chiropractor, a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker are not independent by definition. Their livelihoods would come to a swift end if their customers disappeared. They literally "depend on the existence of others' minds and output." But we could hardly call them irrational or selfless. Is there a member of this forum of independent minds who does not get at least one product from other human beings? It is the same with the prudent predator. It is no more irrational or selfless for him to expect that within a community there will be marks for easy picking, than it is for the barber to expect that in a town there will always be hair to clip. And why does rationality require honest trade in return? Merriam-Webster defines "rational" as "adjective \ˈrash-nəl, ˈra-shə-nəl\ : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings : having the ability to reason or think about things clearly." Why couldn't an intelligent con artist, burglar, or identity thief practice his profession, thinking clearly and acting on facts and reason (not on emotions or feelings)? As for altruism, I realize there are predators who practice an "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" (Merriam-Webster). I've no doubt that Gallup polls of predators would show that they donate generously to United Way at the office. However, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends. You say, the person "who easily discards or abuses others' rights/liberties - has in fact become obedient and answerable to everybody's authority and has lost his own." If that is true, why hasn't the burglar who stole my television, audio system and CD/DVD collection returned them? Where is the evidence that he bowed to his victim's authority? Where is the evidence of his obedience to me?

This is false (in fact, I think it borders on nonsense), for a lot of very complicated reasons. Anyway, your quote said: I don't see why this would be any less true of any kind of change in prices that doesn't result from inflation. I don't think you understand inflation. It is the result of an increase in the money supply relative to the goods and services in the economy regardless of whether that increase is caused by government or the result of a trade surplus.When I say "inflation" I specifically mean an increase in the money supply which has a tendency to raise prices in general. Henry Hazlitt wrote: When the supply of money is increased, people have more money to offer for goods. If the supply of goods does not increase — or does not increase as much as the supply of money — then the prices of goods will go up. Each individual dollar becomes less valuable because there are more dollars. Therefore more of them will be offered against, say, a pair of shoes or a hundred bushels of wheat than before. A "price" is an exchange ratio between a dollar and a unit of goods. When people have more dollars, they value each dollar less. Goods then rise in price, not because goods are scarcer than before, but because dollars are more abundant. I have not used "inflation" in any other sense.

If scarcity is a better argument against ownership than for it, then why don't you make that argument? Show, through logic and evidence, that the limited amount of petroleum, coal, gold, diamonds, and fresh water on this planet should make those commodities not ownable by anyone. Of course, if petroleum is not ownable, then I have no business stopping at a gas station and filling up my tank. Taking possession of 17 gallons of petrol and burning it up in my car engine is clearly an act of ownership. So is drinking a tumbler of fresh water. Thus, under the non-ownership ethic, the people of the world would have to abandon their cars, planes and ships. We also would have to refrain from the consumption of water. Human life would soon be extinct. But perhaps you didn't mean that scarcity forbids all ownership, just individual ownership. But what exactly would collective ownership of all finite resources mean? Would every man, woman, child and terminal cancer patient be allotted exactly 1/7,000,000,000 of the world's petroleum? Would the billions of people in the world who don't own cars (and perhaps have never ridden in one) be given the exact same number of gallons (or perhaps only pints) of gas as a New York City cab driver? Or would it mean that each of us, before we used even a thimbleful or gas or water, would first have to obtain the permission of every other human on the globe? Regarding "the belief is that you shouldn't be allowed to [enjoy something] without paying for it": I grow roses for a hobby. I have several dozen bushes in my front yard. Strangers passing by my house compliment me on the beauty and fragrance of the flowers and tell me how much they enjoy them. Now if "you shouldn't be allowed to [enjoy something] without paying for it," then it follows that I am entitled to assess a fee from everyone who walks by my house on the grounds that they are taking pleasure from a product without rewarding the creator of that product. Regarding "using 'finite'/'infinite' in funny ways": From Merriam-Webster: "in·fi·nite adjective \ˈin-fə-nət\ : 1: extending indefinitely" It is true that Vera can through employment or receiving gifts add to her grand total of $40. But the number of dollars in the world, though constantly growing as a result of Fed inflation, does not extend indefinitely. Whether it is now 10 trillion or 20 trillion, the world's supply of dollars is finite. How about this proposal? Repeal the laws against (private) counterfeiting and allow everyone to print as many dollars as they wish on a standard copy machine. If the Fed can do it, why shouldn't individuals? Wouldn't this be true equality?

Yes, if scarcity is to be used as a reason for anything related to the topic of property, it makes much more sense to use it to argue against private property than it does to argue for it (not that I agree with this conclusion). If scarcity is a reason for anything, then it's that scarce resources should be jointly managed (not that I agree with this ocnclusion). If the existence of scarcity leads us logically to oppose private property, then all money would have to be owned by the world in common. If Vera gets paid $40 a day for making shirts, she would have to turn that money over to the "public." After all, money is scarce, i.e. finite in quantity. Accordingly, all 7.1 billion people on the planet should have a say in how Vera's 40 bucks are spent. Vera would have a say, too. Her voice would be 1/7,000,000,000 of the final tally.

George Orwell on the meaning of the word "fascism": "Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.". Hoppe's a fascist because his views are very illiberal. I recall him saying that people without "rational argumentation" could be enslaved. So, yeah, he's an asshole. Orwell, God bless him, is not a standard dictionary. "Illiberal" is another word that does not mean "fascist." Hoppe, in fact, is very much in the classical liberal tradition. Where is the evidence that Hoppe called for enslaving anyone? And once again, where is the evidence that Hoppe bullied anyone? He's called for enslaving debtors, I think, something Rothbard too argued for. He may be a "classical liberal", but he is very much illiberal, much like theocrat Gary North. Where is it written that Hoppe supports a form of slavery? Where is it written that he favors an illiberal theocracy? And, once more, where is the evidence that Hoppe has bullied people in such a way that he may be called a "fascist"?

No, because price changes in the free market are the product of the interplay of supply and demand. Inflation, on the other hand, is an artificial, government-engineered increase in money supply to finance deficit spending and other government objectives.

"An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good..." etc. Right, but you stopped before the best bit. Which organism? (man) what standards? what are its (his) nature and faculties? "Rationality" means to live in accord with his nature and that of all existence, as reasoning, volitional, autonomous man - and no, no "redefining" needed. That type of egoist who must exist at the expense of others - by their minds and actions culminating in their property - is living by others' standards and values -- not by his own and by those standards of man's nature. For this he's called egoistical? But he's as ego-less as it gets. He has surrendered his mind, by Rand's reckoning, a quintessential altruist. I think that's the self-destruction she meant, but it goes far past the simply material, FF. I realize that there are some predators who live by others' standards and values. For example, a few years ago my house was burglarized, and my DVD collection cleaned out. It is certainly possible that the burglar watched my copy of The Fountainhead and, as a result, started living for himself and letting his own judgment be the highest authority. However, the prudent predator I had in mind is not particularly interested in the standards and values of his victims. For example, he might loot a devout Christian's bank account, and, instead of following the Third, Fourth and Fifth Commandments, he might go to a gambling den on Sunday, then come home and swear at his mother. Or consider the predator who forges a check belonging to a vegetarian and then uses the proceeds to buy a steak dinner. And, while I'm sure there are more than a few predators who are egoless, care far more about the well being of others than themselves, and devote their energies primarily to improving the condition of the less fortunate, the predator I had in mind doesn't give a second thought about anyone but himself and perhaps a few people in his circle of friends. Yes, I suppose there are predators who are quick to surrender their minds and become the unthinking servants of powerful masters. But what I had in mind was the lone wolf who answers to no higher authority. That is what I meant by the prudent predator.

George Orwell on the meaning of the word "fascism": "Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.". Hoppe's a fascist because his views are very illiberal. I recall him saying that people without "rational argumentation" could be enslaved. So, yeah, he's an asshole. Orwell, God bless him, is not a standard dictionary. "Illiberal" is another word that does not mean "fascist." Hoppe, in fact, is very much in the classical liberal tradition. Where is the evidence that Hoppe called for enslaving anyone? And once again, where is the evidence that Hoppe bullied anyone?