Francisco Ferrer

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve. To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out. Greg When I was about 10, a friend entered a movie theatre and held the exit door open so that three of us could enter without paying. I owed the theatre owner a dollar. The theatre was demolished decades ago. I have no idea where the owner is today or even if he is alive. Do I now feel guilty for this crime of a half century ago? Yes. Do I think Stalin and Mao felt guilty for their genocides? Hell, no. By their philosophy, they were key actors in societal development. There is a term our language has for people who harm others without remorse. Compared to the population as a whole, they are small in number. But they exist and do leave their mark. Thinking that all evil-doers are dealt some form of comeuppance in this life is just a secular form of the Christian's belief in Divine Judgment.

FF, This is where we disagree. I'm really big on context. If on Monday Smith says, falsely, that hydrogen is the second element on the periodic table, it would not make his claim on Tuesday that liquid nitrogen boils at 77 kelvin (−196 °C, −321 °F) false. Nor would Smith's denial of a prior false statement or inability to remember making a false statement mean that now nitrogen boils at a temperature different from 77 kelvin. You said in Post #111 that we should remember both pictures in Post #110. I have done so. I continue to do so. Keep in mind that I am the person who, unbidden, posted both photos. Nothing in Post #116 is a denial of Saddam's crimes or his capture by U.S. forces. Nor is anything I have written previously on this forum. So what evidence do you wish to submit that I have blanked anything out? Or is context really not that important to you? If it is not true, refute it. If it is true and not relevant to the topic of this thread, explain why.

True. Many years ago I took a vow to honor the non-aggression principle and not treat mass murder as something heroic. So far I've kept my word. The photo of Saddam is 11 years old, the photo of the dead child seven years old. I had no trouble remembering both photos from the day they were released. The fact that I posted both photos without prompting, without pressure, is proof that I have remembered the propagandized side of the war and the uglier, non-propagandized side. In any case, nothing that I said or did before this day has any bearing on the point I made in Post #110. To repeat: the media-embedded-in-government has done its best to make the collective memory of Iraq about punishing the bully Saddam. (All the pre-war Rice-Rumsfeld-Powell panic about WMD's has been filed away as if it never happened.) The human cost (i.e. the U.S. military as invader-occupier-bully) is not part of the approved, mainstream discussion. Even still, the public which once overwhelmingly embraced the war is now fed up: "72 percent of Americans thought going to war in Iraq was the right decision. By early 2013, support for that decision had declined to 41 percent." http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/08/344402/wars-will-americans-ever-learn/

Really??? Franco of Spain died quietly in his own bed Not to mention the far more evil and long living Stalin and Mao. I've heard similar claims on other Objectivist forums about reality always paying back the villain. I suspect this wishful thinking originates in "The Objectivist Ethics" with Rand's assertion that "Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

Remembering both is a terrific idea if you wish the public to be well informed, but a terrible idea if you are promoting a World Police State and want widespread acquiescence in regime change, creative destruction, and mass murder. That is why coverage of returning American bodies was forbidden. That is why the practice of embedding journalists in war zones was begun. That is why a compliant media repeated the first picture ad nauseum and reserved the second for Page 22 or the editing room floor.

Continued support for the World Police State requires us to remember this: and not this:

Rand's intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff writes in a work approved by Rand, "Determinism is the theory that everything that happens in the universe—including every thought, feeling, and action of man—is necessitated by previous factors, so that nothing could ever have happened differently from the way it did . . . Every aspect of man’s life and character, on this view, is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control. Objectivism rejects this theory." I take "control" to mean choice, for choice, i.e. human action, is the result of prior conditions and events. Thus, if you agree with me, then "every aspect of man’s life and character . . . is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control." But that is not free will, which according to Rand means "that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have done otherwise." Thoughts may come to one instantaneously, but that does not mean that they arrive there by the "will" of the thinker. Thoughts from one moment to the next are the products of the combined environmental factors of prior experience (stored in memory) and present external stimuli. .

All events, including human action, have a cause. The hiker selected a rock, say, two yards from where he was standing. Why not a rock 15 yards away? Perhaps the hiker's stomach was growling, and it was time to cook dinner. Perhaps there was the fear of being bitten by a black mamba. Perhaps the shape and dimpled exterior of the chosen rock reminded the hiker of his second favorite past-time, golf. That the hiker is unaware of the particular factors that prompt his decision does not mean that his choice, even his decision to pick up a rock at all, is without cause, i.e. that his will, his choice has no other cause prior to it.

Marx and Engels said economic intervention would necessitate further, more radical intervention later. The same is true for military globalism. You might say that Reagan's arming one side in the Afghan civil war set off a chain of events that would lead to further, more radical interventionism later. All in the name of "liberation," of course! Reagan with the "liberating" Mujahideen

Just as there are countless genetic and environmental forces that determine whether one will get diabetes, bladder cancer or bronchitis, so there are innumerable outside forces that affect the brain and personality. Saying that it was pure free will that made the hiker in remote Africa choose one rock out of 100,000 is to ignore the millions of external factors that put him in that spot in the first place, instead of in the Gobi, the Sahara, the Mojave--or, for that matter, in Harrah's Casino, Las Vegas--or on a beach in Maui--or in a crack den in L.A.

How did the hiker get to the North Namid Desert? Well, perhaps he's a stockbroker and saved up for the plane ticket and Land Rover rental. How did he get to be a stockbroker? Well, he studied hard, made good grades and attended the Wharton School. Why was he motivated to work hard? His parents instilled in him the values of productivity and worldly success. But wait, what if he had been the son of lifelong welfare recipients whose highest value is to get through life with the least effort possible? Well, of course, a child does not have to follow the example of his parents. He can be a rebel against a culture of laziness and parasitism. But what if what the child has to escape is not simply an attitude but a slave state? What if barbwire fences and guard towers with machine guns make his citizenship a life sentence? In short, the ability to pick up a particular small rock among thousands in the North Namib Desert is made possible by a boundless series of events that are not subject to one individual's choice. As Mises writes in Human Action, "When [a man] is born, he does not enter the world in general as such, but a definite environment. The innate and inherited biological qualities and all that life has worked upon him make a man what he is at any instant of his pilgrimage. They are his fate and destiny. His will is not 'free' in the metaphysical sense of this term. It is determined by his background and all the influences to which he himself and his ancestors were exposed."

Today Roderick Long posts an interesting piece about Rand's debt to architect Louis Sullivan. Passages in The Fountainhead closely parallel passages in Sullivan's autobiography. Even a well known line in Atlas Shrugged about thinking and existence is traced to Sullivan. This is not to suggest plagiarism or a failure to acknowledge sources (Rand saluted Sullivan in print and NBI used to sell his book). It is only to call attention to how another author's ideas were uniquely reworked in Rand's distinctive prose.

Alas, the notion that the population of a country is responsible collectively for the evils of its government can be traced straight back to Rand herself. In two separate appearances at Ford Hall forum in the 1970's, Rand famously declared: If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government--as all of us are paying for the sins of ours. . . If some people put up with dictatorship--as some do in Soviet Russia and as they did in Germany--they deserve whatever their government deserves. and But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it--because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.

One more reason to lament the passing of the Articles of Confederation, which provided for no executive branch of government.

We should cheer any viable alternative to federal control of money and federal control of electronic communications. Now hear this: Bitcloud developers plan to decentralise internet

We'll miss you. It is bullshit because it is an evasion. Everything you've posted reeks of contempt for the United States, the people in it and the people that serve in law enforcement and the military. What is your opinion about N. Korea? What is your solution? If it's do nothing... My posts 91, 93, and 95 remain unanswered by you. Oh, back again so soon? Is your thinking so simplistic as to be unable to recognize that values in the average adult person exist on a hierarchy? If Smith dislikes broccoli, does that mean that he regards it as equivalent to poison? You have made your own contempt for the current regime in Washington quite clear. It is reverting, you say, "to the dark ages." Thus, with the same indifference to the rules of logic that you've demonstrated, I could assert that you think the government in Washington is no better than the one in Pyongyang. Post #91: If the U.S. had a libertarian foreign policy, no American citizen would forced to contribute to it. (See your own Post #8.) Fact: the U.S. armed forces abroad are financed with billions in stolen incomes. Ergo, no libertarian foreign policy. Post #93: "The inability or unwillingness to see the difference between even the worst decade of US history and Kim Jong Un makes Kim Jong Un possible." You have made that claim. All I have to do is point out that you've submitted not one fact to back it up. Post #95: We are still waiting for you to undertake the mental toil that would be required to find a single quotation to support the claim that anyone on this thread has equated the U.S. and North Korean governments. As to what should be done about N. Korea: there are no quick fixes, especially not one involving military force. See Gaede's Post #97.

In fact, large excerpts of the book appeared in the February-May 1969, October-November 1969 and April-May 1970 issues of The Objectivist. I have the fading copies in the back of a file drawer.

In Post #94 I wrote, "No one on this thread has asserted that there is no difference between the governments of the the U.S. and North Korea." In Post #95 you wrote of that sentence, "Your first statement is bullshit." Now all you have to do to prove that you are right is quote someone here who made such an assertion. That should be an easy matter if, as you say, it is obvious. You can call me a liar. You can call me self-serving. You can call me cowardly. But name-calling is not going to make a statement that was never uttered magically appear.

Go ahead and cite one example of my equating the U.S. and North Korean governments. You cannot because I never said such a thing--on this thread or anywhere else. Not only are you dishonest, but you appear incapable of constructing a logical argument. In a single sentence you say both that U.S. foreign policy is "libertarian," and that it is reverting "to the dark ages." Explain how it can be both. You fault me for not celebrating the "relative peace and freedom" of this country while you carry on about how Obama is making Kim's mass murders possible. What are you doing criticizing when you should be celebrating? Why are you, in your own words, "standing at the side of the road crying"? In answer to my question, "Where is the evidence that the world (specifically where U.S. foreign policy is concerned) is more "libertarian" under Obama?" you write, "What? You have a reading comprehension problem." No, the problem is in comprehending how A can be non-A. In Post #8 of this thread you wrote, "I envision the minimal government of a pure capitalist and free country being paid for services rendered and by voluntary contribution." This is my goal as well--and I call it "libertarian." Now, once again, where is the evidence that we are approaching some "libertarian" state of foreign affairs under Obama? I pay not one cent less in war tax under Obama. Interventions in Libya and Syria and increased drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen show there is nothing minimal about Obama's foreign policy. I asked, "If we have reverted to the 'dark ages' in our supposedly 'none of my business' treatment of other nations, when exactly were the 'light ages'? When were dictators like Kim routinely removed from power?" You answered, "When did I ever rave about 'light ages'..?" No one said you "raved." But the claim that we are reverting to the "dark ages" logically implies the existence of a period when things were not dark. If allowing a killer-dictator like Kim to remain in power is evidence of darkness or the beginnings thereof, name one decade of U.S. history that may be described as "light" by comparison. If you cannot, then your claim is meaningless. You write, "Where are your ideas to get from here to where you would like to be? What actions?" Why make this demand of me and not of yourself? In the several posts you've contributed to this thread, you have not once included a detailed plan for reaching the "minimal government of a pure capitalist and free country." What's stopping you?

The frightening truth about the left is that it will pursue equality no matter what the costs. Not that lowering the GDP is considered a cost. To put it in their terms, everyone living "simply," "modestly," "sustainably" is something we should all embrace.

No one on this thread has asserted that there is no difference between the governments of the the U.S. and North Korea. To imply as much is to evade defending your claim by throwing up a strawman argument. So let's get back to your Post #91. 1. Where is the evidence that the world (specifically where U.S. foreign policy is concerned) is more "libertarian" under Obama? 2. If we have reverted to the "dark ages" in our supposedly "none of my business" treatment of other nations, when exactly were the "light ages"? When were dictators like Kim routinely removed from power?

Let's see if I follow you. Kim Jong Un is able to execute presumably innocent people because this is a "libertarian 'it's none of my business' and 'I could care less' and 'I got rights, fuck you' world." This libertarian world is news to me. Are U.S. citizens permitted to opt out of paying the bill for intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan? For drone strikes in Pakistan? For the covert action in Libya? For the U.S. training of Syrian rebels? For the 68,000 U.S. troops stationed in Europe? For the 51,000 in East Asia and the Pacific? And if a killer dictator like Kim exists because of our supposedly current "it's none of my business" policy, when was the Golden Age when foreign dictator-murders were always put out of commission? Just name a decade in U.S. history.

I'm glad that the lectures are now, finally in print. I attended one session of the taped Nathaniel Branden Basic Principles of Objectivism around 1967-68. Branden's voice was resonant, dramatic, easy to listen to. Still, I wondered at the time and wonder today, why didn't Branden publish the lectures in book form as soon as he had written them in the late 1950's? Taped lectures could never reach more than a small part of the population, whereas a book could potentially reach anyone who could read. Furthermore, philosophy is a subject that especially requires contemplation and review. Seeing the chain of an argument in print allows one not only to learn it better but to evaluate it more thoroughly. Perhaps distributing the message through approved representatives who were in a position to regulate whatever discussion followed, gave Rand and Branden a tighter grip on their growing movement. It also, unfortunately, may have contributed to the perception of the movement as a cult.

Yes. Take, for example, Rand's endorsement of "romanticism." The Romantic Movement was dominated by mystics, emotionalists, nature-worshippers, and avowed enemies of science and capitalism. (See Meyer Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp.) Rand actually has more common ground philosophically with the Enlightenment Augustans or even the late 19th century Realists and Naturalists. She rejected "conservatism" and even "libertarianism" for all their unwanted baggage. She would have been well advised to do the same with "romanticism."

Glenn Frankel. The Searchers: The Making of An American Legend. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.