Francisco Ferrer

With power over the wealth and labor of their people, rulers such as Khufu, Qin Shi Huang, and Nixon could accomplish truly amazing spectacles.

In case you haven't noticed, "modern" architecture since the days of Frank Lloyd Wright and his fictional counterpart Howard Roark, has entered a long decline of sterile, fabricated sameness. There was far more innovation and diffentiation in the traditionalism that Roark was rebelling against than there is in the average city skyline today. Even when it comes to energy efficiency, the giants of the early 20th century do better than postwar towers. In energy ratings, the "Chrysler Building scored 84 out of 100 points; the Empire State Building, 80; but the modernist 7 World Trade Center scored 74 (below the cutoff of 75 for “high efficiency”); the Pan Am Building, 39; Lever House, 20; the Seagram Building, 3." While corporate buildings are widely afflicted with the blight of rectilinearism, the disease is most noticeable in the public sector. If it's a government building, you can count on its being both modern and ugly. That is why I welcome Benny Johnson's recent tour of the citadels, fortresses and strongholds of statism in the nation's capital. Johnson biked around D.C., photographing some of the worst examples. If the image of the White House or the Jefferson Memorial is what first comes to mind when you think of Washington, take a look at where the average federal tax-feeder works. The most heartening fact revealed by the photo-essay is that most of these eyesores, like Ozymandias's statue, are crumbling. Full article here. (Apparently, cops in the heart of the the "greatest, noblest, freest country on earth" don't like mere citizens taking pictures of of the monuments they paid for. Twice on his tour, Johnson was harassed by police.)

Taking steroids is one of the unhealthiest things you can do. But two of the most famous bodybuilders in the days before steroids, Charles Atlas and Jack Lalane, lived long lives.

Thanks for the link to your very interesting essay. Here's a point worth discussing: Despite Ayn Rand’s many polemics against altruism as a moral ideal, it is not the case that she totally rejected altruism in the practical, concrete sense. For example, the following is from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged. “Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle” (AS975). The problem with the ethics of either altruism or egoism is trying to make it fit the real world. The altruist has to contend with such questions as "Why don't you quit college now and give all of your tuition money to the hungry?" If the altruist is clever, he can finesse his answer in a manner such as, "I can do more good for a needy world with a college degree." Or: "An altruist like me needs certain creature comforts such as a nice home in order to recharge the body and thus be better able to solve the problem of inequality." A by-the-numbers egoist would say "yes" to the question, "Is it immoral to give your very last morsel of food to another human being?" But the more thoughtful egoist realizes that the family, which is indispensable to the survival of our species, requires innumerable exceptions to strict egoism. Thus sophisticated egoists like Rand argue along the lines that it is not altruistic to make yourself less well off if it gives you "selfish pleasure" to help others. Yet by that logic, everyone can be called "selfish." Even Mother Teresa, who has frequently been a target of Ayn Rand's followers, can be said to be "selfish," if we define "selfish" as pursuing things which make one happy. Those who argue Teresa was not truly selfish because she valued the life of another above her own, run up against Rand's ideal man, John Galt, who declares with regard to Dagny Taggart, "If my life is the price, I’ll give it." Nathaniel Branden made an attempt to grapple with the "we are all selfish" argument and produced a muddle: The basic fallacy in the "everyone is selfish" argument consists of an extraordinarily crude equivocation. It is a psychological truism -- a tautology -- that all purposeful behavior is motivated. But to equate "motivated behavior" with "selfish behavior" is to blank out the distinction between an elementary fact of human psychology and the phenomenon of ethical choice. It is to evade the central problem of ethics, namely: by what is man to be motivated? By what is man to be motivated, asks Branden. By our "own selfish pleasure," of course. How does the Objectivist respond? It is selfish to love an attractive young railroad executive but not an unwashed child in Calcutta?

Israel is not an aircraft carrier or air base for the United States. If American planes are stationed on Israeli soil under American control then that'd be true. That was the case for Great Britain in WWII, in spades. --Brant For sure. No need at all. The US has fighter jets stationed in Jordan on Jordanian soil under US control, much less, Israel, and has for years. The number waxes and wanes based on current tensions. Since at least the 90s for sure, and probably since the 80s.. I've talked with warrant officers stationed at those bases, grumbling to me about spare parts for US F16s. The US F16s based in Jordan are among the world's worst kept secrets. By design. They do no good if nobody knows they are there. It is only domestically that they are some kind of half-assed national secret. Most of America thinks we were just in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is an expensive 8 lane logistic paved highway from Ike's MIC straight into the ME and has been for years. The US has bases in some number like 15 M.E. countries. The US wouldn't need a base in Isreal; they have their own crowded bases. How many Israelis in uniform in Israel? They don't need a US base in Israel; their bases are crowded already. They got an area the size of NJ covered quite well, as allies. Hey , I am just quoting what the former director of the CIA stated . Your fight is with him , not me Richard Helms and Jesse Helms: not the same.

If a key goal is to prevent a terror attack on a U.S. city, how does having what Marc and Jesse Helms call an "aircraft carrier in the ME" help? It is not a key goal . The key goal of the United States having a presence in the ME , is not an actual aircraft carrier but the entire state of Israel as the only true friend in the region with shared values . 1 State out of 23 that votes . Jesse Helms was addressing the United States foreign policy in the ME being that of a level playing field . Israel ensures this . No Israel , what do you think is going to happen ? THE PLAYING FIELD WOULD BE UNLEVEL?

If a key goal is to prevent a terror attack on a U.S. city, how does having what Marc and Jesse Helms call an "aircraft carrier in the ME" help?

It's no more altruistic than the federal school lunch program. Government robs taxpayer to pay farmer to feed hungry child. Taxpayer is told it's in his rational self-interest to support America's farmers and school children. Everybody's a winner.

Derek, Glad you saw the film. Enjoyed reading your thoughts about it.

Let me first emphasize that the moderator is fully within his rights to bar certain individuals from his forum. I've certainly had my own disagreements with SoAMadDeathWish. I know she could be prickly at times. However, I regret the decision. Naomi made points that, if not always correct, deserved to be debated. It seems to me that during those debates more ad hominems flew at her than from her. I warned her in a private message that the Israeli-Palestinian topic is a very touchy one and that I had given up trying to argue on this forum that there have been wrongs done by both sides. She said she was prepared for the "sh__storm." I'm sorry she's gone. I wish her well.

Mises's "Few men . . ." statement is part of the idea that, to a great extent, our preferences are products of a wider cultural setting. If you prefer "universalist -even perfectionist" to objective, or if you insist that the personal is not the subjective, it's all the same to me. I still have not seen Rand or anyone else present a logical argument that shows Symphony (or Painting or Novel) X is "better," more "valid," more in touch with the "human spirit," or more "ideal" than Symphony Y. But life for people in certain situations is unending pain. That's why tragedy has a distinguished status in literature: it shows how men might (even ought) to behave in conditions that are a far remove from the ideal.

Mises wrote, All judgments of value are personal and subjective. There are no judgments of value other than those asserting I prefer, I like better, I wish. It cannot be denied by anybody that various individuals disagree widely with regard to their feelings, tastes, and preferences and that even the same individuals at various instants of their lives value the same things in a different way. In view of this fact it is useless to talk about absolute and eternal values. This does not mean that every individual draws his valuations from his own mind. The immense majority of people take their valuations from the social environment into which they were born, in which they grew up, that moulded their personality and educated them. Few men have the power to deviate from the traditional set of values and to establish their own scale of what appears to be better and what appears to be worse. What the theorem of the subjectivity of valuation means is that there is no standard available which would enable us to reject any ultirnate judgment of value as wrong, false, or erroneous in the way we can reject an existential proposition as manifestly false. It is vain to argue about ultimate judgments of value as we argue about the truth or falsity of an existential proposition. Theory and History With that in mind, art, literary and music theory can discuss color, line, shape, structure, rhythm, harmony, influences, etc., but the value of a particular work is not derived from any logical demonstration. How can one prove that green is better than purple, that round is better than square? I share some of Rand's enthusiasms: the Classical and Renaissance periods, Michelangelo and Vermeer, Hugo and Rostand. But I would never presume to declare that the works of the Romantics Géricault and Delacroix are intrinsically superior to those of Rothko or Pollack, even though the latter leave me cold. Moreover, I am distrustful of any theorist who can't find a kind word for Rembrandt, Shakespeare, or Beethoven. Then when I see her followers adoringly link to sentimental paintings that offer what Walter Benjamin called "instantaneous emotional gratification without intellectual effort," I have to wonder if those followers see the same thing that I see in Rand's art.

This explains a great deal about Rand's thinking. If only Man has rights, then we need not concern ourselves much with those who are "no longer human."

Actually, I understood that Scott's documentary is a new project altogether. I only worried (initially) that the director would, in the footsteps of Michael Paxton, have to omit verboten material about ex-Rand associates in order to procure valuable images from the estate of Ayn Rand. I am hopeful now that even without such material Mr. Scott can provide a balance and critical distance that the earlier ARI-approved film did not. There is already a recent film entitled The Most Dangerous Woman in America. It is about Mary Mallon. A book about Mother Jones is also subtitled The Most Dangerous Woman in America.

I look forward to it. Rand's life is more intriguing and thrilling than some of her fiction. I can only hope that, unlike Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, Mr. Scott's film will not omit essential information about Rand's relationship with the Brandens. It is unfortunate that the title is also used by another documentary film. Edit: Now that I've done some digging, I see that Mr. Scott was not at all pleased with A Sense of Life's glossing over of key figures in Rand's life. Regarding Rand's inner circle of the Brandens and some others not mentioned in SOL, he writes: These are the people-- writers, philosophers, economists, artists—who were the first to embrace the core ideas of Ayn Rand’s novels and envision the possibilities for a philosophy that could change the world. Many, if not most of these individuals were deliberately omitted from SOL for the crime of thinking for themselves. (October 19, 2004)

You made your point. Lose the self pity whining. What, you thought I took those remarks seriously? That I gave them any actual weight? Too funny!

Correct. So, what do you suggest a person do now, today? Discuss the past? Or. operate in the present? A... I have already said what I do: "Invest my time and money in educating young people in the virtues of individualism, hard work, and the free market." But if you think impeaching Obama is the ticket, go for it. We each serve in our own way. The proceedings against Clinton certainly made for good entertainment even if they didn't expand the sphere of individual freedom one whit. Whoa skippy! I did not ask you what you do. Your answer to my question is what you stated. Good. I do not believe that you know my position on the House filing charges of impeachment. The Clinton team had a shield...sex. President O'bama can't pick up that shield. A... I'm not in the business of telling other people what to do. If you insist on some sort of answer, then you can only reflect on my own actions on behalf of liberty. I have said Obama will not be removed from office. Clinton had the sex shield. Obama has the race shield. But if he is booted, it will have no practical benefits for the freedom movement. Of course, that should not stop anyone from marching in the anti-Obama parade. I'm sure it will be great fun. Impeached or not, Obama will probably spend his post-White House years like Clinton, making $500,000 a speech. (Having sneered at the ex-President's financial success, I know I'm likely to be accused of "tearing down others instead of learning and growing to become better people themselves.")

Correct. So, what do you suggest a person do now, today? Discuss the past? Or. operate in the present? A... I have already said what I do: "Invest my time and money in educating young people in the virtues of individualism, hard work, and the free market." But if you think impeaching Obama is the ticket, go for it. We each serve in our own way. The proceedings against Clinton certainly made for good entertainment even if they didn't expand the sphere of individual freedom one whit.

"The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values, selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment." --Ayn Rand Let's look at another area, neighborhood law enforcement. I know very well that "it's always gonna be messy there. Hands get dirty. People get hurt." I also know that if one approaches the subject with the idea that theory, standards, principles, laws, and rules represent "utopian thinking," then one practically guarantees the messiest of results. Setting goals does not result in perfect justice. But it does minimize the likelihood of total government-imposed chaos. For examples of such a state, see this and many other websites. "Back at the ranch, what are we to do about x problem right now?" Well, we can throw our hands up and say we have to have less freedom before we get more freedom. But I'm not content to let Obama and Company determine how much less freedom I need. I would rather make up my own mind about that. And having a discussion among other intelligent people is a part of that process.

In the interest of not having cows, let us stipulate--calmly, very calmly--that it is appropriate for the federal government to determine how many new people we have in this country. Then it is only a question of what criterion--if any--the government will use to decide precisely what kind of new people become residents. If there is to be a cultural or values criterion, is it not reasonable to ask what that would be?

Imagine complaining about the income tax, that most essential of American institutions. What must I have been thinking? Time to be patriotic. Time to be part of the deal.

That would not have stopped the suspending of habeas corpus in the Civil War, adopting the income tax in 1913, nationalizing railroads in World War I, the military draft, Prohibition, federal farm supports, the Federal Reserve, antitrust, Nixon's wage and price controls, or the Patriot Act. As long as the public is supine or indifferent, there is no limit to the level of federal power Congress and the President can order--regardless of legislative or Constitutional "limitations." Just ask yourself how well the Second Amendment is working.

Free?? Free implies that it costs you nothing in return.They owned me 24/7. After humping day & night during training...not easy, I can assure you, I put in in 10 hour days in a foreign country providing support for our troops in Nam. Did you serve? -J I should have used large bold type on the quotation marks around "free." Sorry for the mix-up. Because of a medical condition, I did not qualify to become one of the troops. I was given the lowly task of sending a portion of my paycheck to Washington each week for the purchase of M16 cartridges, Agent Orange and other supplies needed to defeat those who threatened to destroy the freedom we enjoyed in America during LBJ's administration.

Great, but what's the difference between imposing "proper values" on the young (through approved state curricula) and on new residents from across the border? We gotta make sure aliens don't commit crimes, right? Ditto, it would seem, new arrivals via procreation.

Got it. You choose to stand stage right and be a critic with no solutions. Understood. I have rarely met a critic who "built a bridge." A... About a year ago I went into the gym and overheard an interesting exchange between my trainer and a new customer, one of the Yuppies who now appear to be overrunning the neighborhood. Yuppie told the trainer he wanted a Chris Hemsworth physique. Trainer said he might be able to do in in three months with a rigorous daily routine and a strict diet. Yuppie said he needed the look for a vacation he was taking in three weeks and had only one or two evenings each week to work out. Immediate gratification is what sells nowadays. I don't doubt that it's possible to get a Reagan or a Rand Paul elected every so often: someone with a nice smile who hits all the libertarian bullet points in his speeches. But nothing changes fundamentally. Despite the rhetoric, debt, taxes, federal power, and authority of bureaucrats get ever bigger. All the while, the leftist pundits wring their hands and whine about the social costs of shrinking government, and the conservative pundits obtusely declare victory. Nothing fundamental will change until we reach the day when the average American, even if he's hungry, prefers standing fast for the principle of not initiating force over grabbing goodies from the federal trough. Impeaching Obama, even it were likely, would not move us one step closer to a free society. It's completely superficial to the real change that needs to take place. But to point this out, and to invest my time and money in educating young people in the virtues of individualism, hard work, and the free market is to be a critic, not a bridge builder. So be it.