NoodleFood

NoodleCast #22: Explore Atlas Shrugged, Session 5

2009-11-12T01:00:00.001-07:00

These discussion questions and podcast were prepared by Diana Hsieh for ExploreAtlasShrugged.com for people interested in creating their own Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, as well as for anyone wishing to study the novel in more depth. They may be freely used for the study and discussion of Atlas Shrugged, provided that this paragraph remains intact in any reproduction.

Readings

Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Chapters 9 - 10 (Part A)

Part 1: Chapter 9: The Sacred and the Profane
Chapter 10: Wyatt's Torch (Sections 1-4)

Or:

Pages 185-252 in the larger Hardcover or Softcover
Pages 178-241 in the smaller Mass Market Paperback

Podcast

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (25.4 MB)
Standard MP3 File (24.7 MB)

Learn More

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, also available in hardcover
Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, edited by Robert Mayhew
Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups of Front Range Objectivism
AtlasShrugged.com, produced by by the Ayn Rand Institute

Discussion Questions

(Note: The listed page numbers are for the larger edition, softcover or hardback.)

Chapter 9: The Sacred and the Profane

Section 1: 253-56

Why does Hank say what he says to Dagny the morning after their first night together? Why does Dagny's reaction change as she listens to him? Why does she says what she says in response? (254-6)

Section 2: 256-67

What kind of person is Cherryl Brooks? How and why does Cherryl misunderstand Jim Taggart's character? What does she think of what he says? Why doesn't she see the truth about him? (257-67)

Section 3: 267-9

Why is Hank Rearden so tortured by the fact of Dagny's past lover? What does that tell her (and us) about him? Why won't she tell Rearden the identity of her prior lover? (268-9)

Section 4: 269-73

What does Mr. Mowen reveal about his character in conversation with the worker (Owen Kellogg)? Are Mr. Mowen's views coherent or contradictory? How so? (270-3)

Section 5: 273-9

Why does Hank presume that his invitation to speak at the National Council of Metal Industries is a peace offering? (275) How is he wrong? Why does Dagny think him (too) generous? (274-6)
How and why is Hank optimistic about the future? Why does he think the Equalization of Opportunity Bill will not exist in three years? Is he right (at that time) to be so optimistic? (277)
Why does Hank want Dagny to go on a vacation with him? Why does he want her to wear the bracelet of Rearden Metal? How has his attitude changed since their first night together? Why would anyone guessing their affair be worse for him than for her? (278-9)

Section 6: 279-91

How is Starnesville in worse shape than other towns Hank and Dagny have seen? Why is it so alarming? (281, 283-6)
Why is Dagny so excited to discover the motor? What disturbs Hank about the discovery? What is the importance of the creation of the motor and the significance of it being abandoned? (287-90)

Whole Chapter

What is the significance of the title of this chapter?

Chapter 10: Wyatt's Torch

Section 1: 292-4

How and why did the 20th Century Motors die such an ignoble death? (292-3)

Section 2: 294-8

How and why does Dagny respond as she does to the claim by Mayor Bascom that she is not Hank's wife? How and why does Hank respond as he does? What is it about Mayor Bascom's explanation that resembles Hank's own views? (296-7)

Section 3: 298-301

How has Dagny protected Jim from the consequences of his Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule? Did she see that so clearly at the time? Why does she feel a chill on thinking that self-interest is not Jim's motive? What is the alternative? (300)

Section 4: 301-9

What kinds of shady actions must Rearden take to save his mills? Are those actions moral, even though illegal? How and why do government controls make criminals of honest men? (302)
What does Lillian reveal about herself and her values in her conversation with Rearden? How does Rearden give Lillian more credit than she deserves? What does she deserve? What are her motives? (304-9)
Why does Lillian think that Rearden has an obligation to make her happy? Is that a reasonable expectation? Is it a common expectation? Should Hank oblige her? (307)

Wednesday Open Thread #111

2009-11-11T12:00:00.002-07:00

Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Forced Quarantine Versus Forced Vaccination

2009-11-11T05:00:00.000-07:00

In late September, some folks on OActivists raised questions about the New York state government mandating the swine flu vaccine for its health care workers. One person wrote:

But what of the authority of the state to do this? I do think it's a valid question. ... I think there can only be justification for such coercive action by the state if it's proven that the flu will be more dangerous than usual and if this vaccine has been proven effective against this virus in an objective scientific manner. Is that the correct Objectivist response?

I replied:

No, I don't think that's right.

First, any government action for an epidemic must concern a seriously dangerous disease -- meaning one that risks mass death -- not merely a "more dangerous than usual" flu. That danger must be demonstrated objectively by lots of actual deaths. Moreover, people must be unable to take measures to protect themselves from the disease such as wearing masks, not shaking hands, etc.

Moreover, while quarantine of infected people (or perhaps, in severe cases, suspected infected people) might be justified, a proper state could never mandate vaccination. Why not? Vaccination primarily protects the person vaccinated. It's not a violation of the rights of others to fail to be vaccinated. You have every right to get sick and die! The tort lies in knowingly or willingly spreading the disease to others.

So... when a person contracts a dangerous communicable disease and then exposes other people to it by ordinary social interactions, he violates their rights. It's akin to driving a car while drunk. That person is exposing other people to major threats to their life and limb without their consent. That's what justifies government action to protect the healthy -- but only in the form of forced isolation of the sick.

I was reminded of this discussion while catching up on some of Leonard Peikoff's podcasts a few days ago. In Episode #82, Dr. Peikoff addressed this issue, briefly answering the questions: (1) "Is it justified to force sick patients into quarantine if the disease is serious enough?" and (2) "What about a vaccine to force citizens to take it?" Like me, he said that quarantine would be justified in certain cases, but that vaccinations could never be required by the state. Good!

Jesus in Venn

2009-11-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

I wish I knew the original source of this darn funny venn diagram, but alas, I saw the link on Twitter:

Response to Intellectual Smears

2009-11-10T05:00:00.000-07:00

Back in September, I received the following e-mail from some random guy "alan" in response to some promotion I was doing for the Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups:

Date: 11 September 2009 9:18:54 AM MDT
From: alan
To: Diana Hsieh
Subject: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

Hello Diana,

I have read that the fittest survive, that the best get the most, that those who deserve more get more (sports players, CEO, etc.), but is there not a place for compassion in her teaching? Noblese Oblige (sp.?) Take of the least of you? You are your brother's keeper? Moral obligation? And the like? Is there not a sense of greater responsibility in the Rand teaching? If not then is anyone responsible for the pressing (planetary, national, social) needs of the moment, or is it merely me, me, me? I get that some have been given the ability to develop their intelligence ( & have a "big" brain), but how about a "big" heart. Would that not be crucial in these day especially? And if we are not "balanced" like that, ie. wise & prudent, then is there any chance of human or planetary survival? Maybe humans have a death wish individually AND collectively. And who would want to live in a world of no love anyway? No compassion? No openness to the sweetness of the connectedness/oneness of life? That WOULD be delusional, & most sad. You'd think there'd be a lesson there.

Ya thank?
Sincerely, A.

Here's my reply:

Date: 11 September 2009 9:44:18 AM MDT
From: Diana Hsieh
To: alan
Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

[quoted text omitted]

Ayn Rand does not advocate the "survival of the fittest." She advocates each person pursuing his own life and happiness by reason, with the voluntary, non-sacrificial cooperation of other rational people.

Compassion and kindness are part of AR's values, albeit not primary virtues. You see them in her heros in Atlas Shrugged, and she practiced them in her own life. In contrast -- and just as in real life -- the people who claim to be motivated by such feelings are often indifferent to the sufferings of innocent people. Plus, kindness towards others is a very different matter than sacrificing yourself to them -- or thinking yourself obligated to "keep" them.

If you want to discuss these issues more, I'd definitely recommend that you join one of the Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, if you can. I think you'd find much of interest in AR's views -- as opposed to these common misconceptions about them.

-- DMH

Then the conversation went downhill:

Date: 14 September 2009 12:06:28 AM MDT
From: alan
To: Diana Hsieh
Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

Who are these people you mention that claim to be motivated by compassion & kindness & are indifferent to the suffering of innocent people. Would they be religious fundamentalist conservative politicians who are all so keen to kill people all around the world & let them be killed & suffer in Africa? Possibly like Hitler & the like who are elitists, which reminds me of libertarians. The only reasonable thing to know is that very intelligent people are all so rational just like the Nazis in their zeal for a better more pure world free of racial "impurity". And so it would be more rational to realize the folly of anything other than to follow the heart, or as I say mind your heart. A common saying is that the mind is a terrible master, but an wonderful servant (of the heart). The longest distance is between the head (mind) & the heart. I ask questions to hear your response - that's all. Many/some would follow their bliss, & advise to be in one's heart, in one's body, in the (holy) moment or present. A common misconception is that we as people are our mind, & it is essentially worshiped.

AKG

My reply wasn't so friendly. (I decided to ignore the difference between libertarianism and Objectivism in this context, as I just didn't think it relevant.)

Date: 14 September 2009 7:49:09 AM MDT
From: Diana Hsieh
To: alan
Subject: Re: I know some about A.R., but have a question or 2

[quoted text omitted]

Wow, you just likened me to Hilter. I suppose that's where "following your heart rather than your head" takes you. Who cares about the lack of any actual connection? Who cares about the fact that I'm explicitly opposed to every philosophical principle and action of the Third Reich? Why bother with pesky things like facts? You just feel that I'm mean -- and Hitler was mean too, right?

That's not just absurd; it's crazy-talk. One cannot have a sensible conversation on that basis. That's where your distain for reason takes you: you cannot muster the semblance of rational exchange.

In fact, Hitler was an ardent proponent of following the heart rather than the head. Reason would never sanction his racism, nor his brutality, nor his totalitarian state, nor killing a single innocent person. He did that by that preaching exactly what you preach: ignore facts, reason, and logic; indulge the emotions; the heart is superior to the head. The result -- the inevitable result of that -- is killing fields.

I'm sure you won't worry about that very real connection between Hitler's views and your own. After all, you're full of warm and fuzzy emotions -- not mean ones like Hitler! That's why you likened me to a mass murderer in your second e-mail. Yeah, that was very nice, very warm and fuzzy. Not.

Civilization requires people to deal with each other as rational persons. Since you reject that -- not just in the abstract but in your very method of spewing words without thought -- this conversation is over.

-- DMH

Looking back on it now, I'm not happy with that response. Sure, the guy deserved all that. He deserved plenty more. Yet I cannot imagine that my words did any good whatsoever. So I ask: Should I have responded differently? Or not responded at all? And why?

I try to avoid such exchanges as much as possible. Yet when I find myself in them, I often feel like I ought to say something. I hate to leave such awful and wrong claims about Ayn Rand's views unchallenged. Yet everything that I might say either seems too soft to be just -- or too harsh to be of any use.

What do you think?

The Emotionalist Republic

2009-11-09T14:00:00.000-07:00

The Objectivism Seminar is working through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's all-too-topical book, The Ominous Parallels. In it, he explores what gave rise to to the fascist, totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany -- and analyzes whether and how a fascist, totalitarian regime could emerge here in America.

Our focus this week was Chapter 8, "The Emotionalist Republic" -- a reference to how there was one fundamental principle "everywhere in the ascendancy -- among artists and educators, radicals and traditionalists, young and old alike": the wholesale rejection of rationality for emotionalism. Topics we discussed included:

Why Peikoff characterized art as "the barometer that lays bare a period's view of reality, of life, of man."
The rise of the Expressionism movement in art with its open break with the intellect, with material reality, with all 'middle class' values such as work and personal success, industrial civilization, money, business, section standards, law and order, etc. The spread of these values into everything from cartoons in the newspapers, architecture, films, poetry, music.
The Conservative reaction to this, which they regarded as a product of "reason": turning to their traditional values of intuition and feeling with artists who portrayed an irrational, heroic, mystic world "beset by treachery, overwhelmed by violence, drowned in blood, and culminating in … an orgy of self-willed annihilation".
How the "same epistemological cause leads ultimately to the same social effect (whatever the form). The left culturati called their political ideal "socialism." the right culturati called theirs "Prussianism." But, as Spengler pointed out in an influential work entitled Prussianism and Socialism, there is no essential difference between these two concepts. Under both approaches, he noted, "Power belongs to the whole. The individual serves it. The whole is sovereign… Everyone is given his place. There are commands and obedience."
The spread of these values via the efforts of both the left and the right into the youth movements and the educational institutions.
The effects of such emotionalism in economics: the failure in hyperinflation they would suffer as their mixed, Bismarckian-style economy drove individuals to join into pressure-group warfare.
How this all combines into a miserable, volatile circumstance ripe for someone to deliver change and hope...

If this sounds interesting, you can listen in on the podcast -- just download the session's MP3 directly, or listen to it with the little player on the right, or subscribe to the podcast series over on the Seminar's TalkShoe page. And if you have something to ask or add, please do pick up the book and join the discussion! We meet at 8:00pm Mountain on Mondays, for about an hour.

Krening OpEd: Dissent and Nationalized Health Care

2009-11-09T05:00:00.002-07:00

The November 8, 2009 Denver Post has just published Hannah Krening's OpEd, "Dissent and Nationalization of Health Care".

Here's the opening:

I am a law-abiding citizen and breast cancer survivor, and I completely disagree with the current move to nationalize health care. Dissent is not new to me. As a teenager I worked to abolish the draft. Now, as then, my dissent is as a thinking American, not a member of an "un-American mob."

If government owns and pays for my health care, they own my body just as a farmer owns his cow. If government is paying, it will decide what kind of care I get and when I will get it. Under "free health care for all," access will diminish as lines lengthen, and my care may not be there when I really need it.

(Read the full text of "Dissent and Nationalization of Health Care".)

Although supporters of free-market health care reform lost a battle last night in the House vote, the war is not over -- it has merely shifted to the Senate.

Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com notes in "Is this the high-water mark for ObamaCare?":

The Democrats wheedled, cajoled, begged, and finally abandoned its defense of abortion -- truly a watershed moment -- in order to get their version of ObamaCare passed ...in the House of Representatives, where they enjoy a 75-seat majority. In the end, they could only muster a five-vote win on Nancy Pelosi's bill out of that strong majority. Until this week, most had assumed that any ObamaCare bill would pass the House easily, but that the fight would be in the Senate.

So what does this 220-215 vote tell us? Capitol Hill Democrats know that this bill is an albatross. It's true that Pelosi was able at the end to negotiate votes to allow a few at-risk Democrats that supported the bill to oppose it in the final vote, but even that tells a tale of fear and consciousness of unpopularity. The razor-thin vote, as well as a number of earlier, more sincere defections, show that this bill was a radical and expensive approach to fix a 13% problem -- and even most of the Democrats know it.

...We always thought the fight was in the Senate, so the only real surprise yesterday was how weak Pelosi actually was on ObamaCare.

Morrissey also discusses some of the other procedural hurdles before ObamaCare can become law.

The fight is far from over.

So thank you, Hannah, for speaking out and for mentioning FIRM and Front Range Objectivism in your OpEd byline!

Recap #66

2009-11-08T20:00:00.001-07:00

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

Monday, November 2, 2009: Challenging the Ban on Compensating Bone Marrow Donors by Paul Hsieh, MD
Monday, November 2, 2009: Hsieh PJM OpEd -- "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare" by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, November 3, 2009: Hsieh LTE in WSJ on Bad Incentives in Massachusetts by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, November 3, 2009: Schroeder: Too Little Thought Given to Doctors by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, November 4, 2009: PJTV: Healthcare Debate Goes Behind Closed Doors by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, November 5, 2009: Beware the Health Insurance Police by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, November 5, 2009: High Noon For Health Care by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, November 6, 2009: Schwartz PJM OpEd: "Expect Less, Pay More" by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, November 6, 2009: The Best Option For The Public by Paul Hsieh, MD
Saturday, November 7, 2009: Health Care By Coercive Government by Paul Hsieh, MD
Sunday, November 8, 2009: Krening OpEd: Dissent and Nationalized Health Care by Paul Hsieh, MD

Sunday Open Thread #110

2009-11-08T00:00:00.002-07:00

Vegan Channels the Pope

2009-11-07T14:00:00.000-07:00

Here's an unexpected demonstration of the power of philosophy, even amongst those completely oblivious to it. In this video, a rather ditzy vegan girl addresses the charge that vegans and vegetarians are guilty of killing tons of wild animals in the process of planting and harvesting crops. (It's true!)

As I observed in a comment on Free the Animal, she doesn't know it, but she's actually appealing to the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or "double effect") of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally.

How does that apply here? According to ditzy-vegan-girl, it's morally okay to do something wrong (like killing animals) as an unintended side effect of pursuing a good end (like eating veggies) but not okay to do that same wrong thing (killing animals) as a direct means to your ends (like eating meat).

Of course, the doctrine of double effect doesn't actually help her answer the moral charge here. The doctrine is a handy tool of rationalization for people with ethics so disconnected from reality that they simply must violate them to live. It's not a real ethical principle.

Ditzy-vegan-girl surely hasn't ever heard of the doctrine of double effect, yet she's using it all the same. That's the power of philosophy.

Health Link-O-Rama

2009-11-07T08:00:00.001-07:00

Three runners die during Detroit marathon. I used to admire marathon runners, thinking them to be at the peak of fitness. No more: such deaths are pretty common -- not because people haven't trained well enough, but apparently because they're doing so much damage to their bodies.

Twin study reveals secrets to looking younger. The article is interesting, but the slideshow is fascinating.

Calorie Postings Don't Change Habits, Study Finds. I'm sure that won't dissuade our government nannies though.

Wonder Sauna Hot Pants were supposed to make you "look better, feel better, wake up your body." In fact, they only made you look completely absurd.

Paleolithic diet adopts primal, evolutionary health approach by Robert O'Callahan argues that the standard views on diet in America today reflect belief in original sin and the evil of the body more than they do science.

Statinators spill the beans: Dr. Michael Eades reads between the lines of a new study on niacin. The results? Statins might reduce LDL, but they don't do squat about plaque on the carotid arteries.

Gay in India

2009-11-06T16:00:00.002-07:00

Wow, I was just so thrilled to watch Jerry Johnson -- an Objectivist I've corresponded with periodically over the years -- speak on CNN IBN (a national Indian news channel) -- about being gay in India:

(Update: I'm now linking to the YouTube version. It includes extra footage.)

I particularly liked his point about moving out of the parental house, so that the gay person wouldn't wouldn't be beholden to anti-gay parents. From what Jerry has told me, it's very difficult to be gay in India: the culture is not accepting, and many are well-hidden in the closet. So that freedom from parental interference would be crucial for living an authentic life as a gay person in India.

Great job, Jerry!

Taking It Easy

2009-11-06T14:00:00.002-07:00

I've decided to take it somewhat easy for the rest of the week, so I won't post another podcast until Monday.

I'd hoped to post my next episode of Rationally Selfish Radio yesterday. However, the topic -- of the proper response to offers of government welfare -- is somewhat tricky, so I want to work out my views carefully. Plus, I have other pressing work. Tomorrow, I'm giving a short talk to Front Range Objectivism on Luck and Liberty, so I need to finish preparing for that. Also, I really want to finish up all the web updates that I started last week. Oh, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of some health problems too -- hypothyroidism, I think. That's taking some time, and I'm just not feeling as zesty for life as usual. So a break seems in order!

From what I hear, some of you could use some time to catch up. So get to it!

In the meantime, enjoy this picture of Conrad playing with a Boxer at the dog park this morning. They were doing more vertical jumping than I've ever seen Conrad do; the Boxer has all four paws off the ground in the picture. (Click for the full-sized version.)

Trusting Your Technology

2009-11-06T05:00:00.000-07:00

This cool video shows the SawStop safety device at work:

The SawStop system uses electrical conductivity to tell the difference between wood and human flesh, allowing it to cut the first, but not the second. The technology is impressive, but the most jaw-dropping section of the video is the super slow-motion demonstration where the inventor places his own finger into the path of the saw to show how well it works.

I personally think that it was unnecessary risk for the inventor to take. But there is a similarity to the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart had sufficient confidence in their judgment to ride the first train on rails made of Rearden Metal.

More information on the technology can be found at the SawStop website.

(Via Maximizing Progress.)

A Funny Thing

2009-11-05T16:00:00.000-07:00

Here's why I read Amy Mossoff's The Little Things, every day, without fail:

[Amy:] Does the horse have a tail?
[Three-year-old Samantha:] YES.
Does Toby have a tail?
YES.
Does Jinx have a tail?
YES.
Do you have a tail?
NO, I HAVE A VAGINA.

I always thought it would be cool to have a tail. However, now that I think about it, I'd rather have a vagina.

(Wow, I can't believe that I just wrote that. Ah well, in the interests of mortifying the Objectivist prudes yet again, I'll let it remain as is.)

Amy also writes thought-provoking posts, such as A Different Audience. The comments on that post are well-worth reading. I think that Kelly got the point about hierarchy of values exactly right.

Objectivist Roundup

2009-11-05T04:00:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the November 5th, 2009 edition of the Objectivist Roundup. This post presents insight and analyses written by Objectivist bloggers over the past week. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and Atlas Shrugged. As she explained:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. ("About the Author," Atlas Shrugged)

Without further ado, here is the roundup:

Noah Stahl presents From Guilt to Good posted at The Undercurrent, saying, "Guilt is often portrayed as a healthy emotion--is it?"

Rational Jenn presents More from Ayn Rand about Childhood posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "Still believe that Ayn Rand viewed children negatively? This post includes two examples to the contrary from Atlas Shrugged."

Grant Jones presents Again With This Degenerate and Herbert Hoover: The Progressive Interventionist posted at The Dougout.

John Cox presents Attacking Capitalism? posted at John and Ansley, saying, "Jeb Bush recently stated that Obama is using the presidency to attack capitalism. While that statement is undoubtedly true, Republicans have been attacking capitalism with their deeds, if not their words, for years. Sadly, they have conned the rest of the country into believing they are defenders of the free market. That is simply not the case."

Ari Armstrong presents Rosen 0, Longo 0 posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "The problems with pragmatic and dogmatic strains of libertarianism."

Paul Hsieh presents PJM OpEd -- "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare" posted at We Stand FIRM, saying, "My latest PajamasMedia OpEd discusses three things Americans should know about Congress' plan to impose a Massachusetts-style health care system on all of America."

Daniel presents Red Bull for Your Soul, Cont'd posted at The Nearby Pen, saying, "Here's a great poem that poetically states the importance of being true to yourself and of living in such a way that you can judge what you have done as unquestionably good--by the standards you yourself have set."

Amy Mossoff presents A Different Audience posted at The Little Things, saying, "An experience with the difficulties of blogging for both a general audience and Objectivists at the same time, and what I learned about fiction writing from it."

Rational Jenn presents On Children, Parents, and the Use of Force posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "This post describes the principles I use for setting rational limits for children and how (and when) to enforce them, without using parental-imposed punishments and reward systems."

Diana Hsieh presents NoodleCast #21: Design Arguments, Part 3 posted at NoodleFood, saying, "In this podcast, I present William Paley's classic design argument for the existence of God."

Stella presents Praying won't make it so posted at ReasonPharm, saying, "If Congress has its way, we'll soon be paying for prayer."

C. August presents The Essence of the Thing posted at Titanic Deck Chairs, saying, "Under the guise of attacking the "sin" of homosexuality, an archbishop clearly states the essential conflict of altruism vs. egoism. And in the process he cheers Islamist fundamentalists, saying, "any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers... is a culture that at least knows how to value self-sacrifice.""

Greg Perkins presents Libertarian vs. Objectivist Thinking posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Libertarians seem mystified by Rand's flat refusal to be classified as libertarian in her politics, even though she obviously fits their definition. Here is an explanation that goes to the epistemological roots of the issue and underscores the dangers of the libertarian way of thinking about politics."

Stephen Bourque presents Too Big to Fail - Addendum posted at One Reality, saying, "When a company accepts money from the government, is it henceforth beholden to that government?"

Adam Reed presents Life on the Edge of Implosion of Democracy posted at Born to Identify, saying, "I'm posting this because the sudden silence from my end of the wire may have made some readers of this blog uncomfortable, and I don't want anyone to think that I have a problem beyond serious overwork. I'm typing this as an otherwise-I-would-go-insane break from grading 100 midterm exams."

Doug Reich presents The Thyratron posted at The Rational Capitalist, saying, "Sometimes it takes a thyratron to remind us of a simple and wonderful truth."

Submit your blog article to the next edition of Objectivist Roundup
using the carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Libertarian vs. Objectivist Thinking

2009-11-04T14:00:00.005-07:00

The Cato Institute recently hosted a book forum with the authors of the two new Rand biographies, Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller, and Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. Cato's David Boaz ran the forum, setting the context, introducing the authors, and running the Q&A.

I am interested in the two books, so I wanted to hear the authors as they presented some of their thoughts and showed their mettle in the back-and-forth. The bottom line? Burns seems honest in her scholarship and sincere in her engagement. She said a lot of interesting things, and I want to hear more from her despite some weaknesses due to a lack of grounding in Rand's system of thought. Heller didn't come across nearly as well, which left me much less interested in her work. And then there's Boaz.

Boaz began by speaking of the enduring influence of Rand, especially on libertarians and conservatives, and about the recent surge in interest in her and her work. He agreed with a Liberty magazine review of Heller's book, saying that "There can be no question about the fact that Rand remains America’s most influential libertarian, with the possible exception of Milton Friedman, and America’s most influential novelist of ideas." Extending this, Boaz characterized Atlas Shrugged as a libertarian book, and Rand as a libertarian who has done more than anybody in our time to introduce people to libertarian ideas.

What got my attention was Boaz's treatment of the elephant in the room: he chuckled that many listening may wince at his talking that way, that indeed Rand would have disagreed with being classified as a libertarian (this would be an understatement) and that "many of her fans maintain that point even now." He dismissed all of this, saying in effect that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. You see, "anybody who believes in individual rights, free enterprise, and strictly limited government is a libertarian. And Ayn Rand certainly did." QED. Yet, he informs us, somehow this impeccable logic is lost on the "high priests" of Rand's estate, who refused to let any of her material appear in his book, The Libertarian Reader.

As an Objectivist, I see a different puzzle here: Many people, libertarians in particular, clearly admire and profit from Rand's ability to analyze and integrate, to identify widespread and longstanding false alternatives and package deals time and again, and to then offer something better. So I find it odd that when they see Rand apparently ignoring the incredibly straightforward point that she fits their definition, that they don't pause to consider whether there might be some more basic reason for her balking so.

And of course there is. Here's a hint: it's an epistemology thing.

Concepts are important. They are how we organize our knowledge of the world so we can act in service to our lives. Good concepts are immensely helpful (see the basic ideas that ushered in the fruits of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution), and bad ones can really hurt us. What if, for example, your moral system left you seeing the bully and the victim who fights back as morally indistinguishable? As we've seen with pacifism, the result of such thinking is unjust and destructive to all concerned, both personally and socially: victims are morally if not legally discouraged from defending themselves, predators are only emboldened, and this view naturally translates to unjust and destructive cultural sentiments, laws, and policies like those against simply "violence". So it makes all the difference to distinguish sharply between aggressive and defensive use of force because these are in fact morally opposite things with existentially opposite effects on human lives. Examples abound, but the general point to appreciate is that Objectivists are methodologically careful about this sort of thing because they grasp that accepting any concept which treats essentially identical things as opposites, or opposite things as essentially identical, ultimately means inviting difficulty if not disaster in our efforts to successfully navigate reality.

Now consider the libertarian way of thinking about political classification. Rejecting the generally useless left-right spectrum, they offer a two-dimensional approach based on degrees of personal and economic freedom which is often shared via their educational and recruiting tool, the Nolan Chart. In this view, libertarianism is neither left nor right, and it stands fundamentally opposed to totalitarianism. This sets up the natural axis of size or extent of government as their key normative criterion, which is pretty easy to pick out in their policies and rhetoric and reactions to world events. This is also why libertarians have always had influential anarchists in their ranks: even those who might be wary of the "extreme" of anarchism have no principled objection to it because, in their own basic way of thinking, anarchism is the natural full opposite of the evil of totalitarianism -- indeed, they have framed it as the pinnacle of libertarianism.

We can now appreciate what Rand was signaling with her outrage at being grouped or associated in any way with anarchists in particular and libertarians in general: she was refusing the mental, personal, and social chaos that flows from a fundamentally flawed way of seeing things. Rand understood that the essential concept in politics is individual rights, and so she identified totalitarianism and anarchism as indistinguishable in what's important: their complete lack of an objective recognition and systematic protection of man's rights. In contrast, as noted above, the libertarian way of thinking mis-classifies totalitarianism and anarchism as moral opposites by focusing on the inessential characteristic of size. If the purpose of politics is to sort out and enact the conditions required for people to successfully live among one another, this kind of confusion is about as disastrous as it gets -- even while self-consciously seeking the good, the conceptual lens of libertarianism will drive you to its opposite.

And conversely, the libertarian framework fails to capture crucial differences. Consider a powerful government that performs all and only its proper functions in the defense of man's rights, and one that happens to have all the same laws and institutions but also has, say, conscription on the books just in case war breaks out. These two governments are all but indistinguishable (and neither is smiled on) in the libertarians' basic classification scheme based on size. But Objectivists see these two as moral opposites because one is committed to the essential task of the defense of man's rights and the other is not. Even though not currently violating any rights, the government with conscription laws clearly rejects the key principle of the field. It has no principled defense against the slippery slope to serfdom we've seen play out in history all too many times.

The politics of liberty that Objectivism advocates really does depend on a particular philosophical foundation. The Libertarian movement might be in a better position to understand this if they weren't so eager to set aside the fact that fundamental ideas are critically important.

While scholarly leaders like Boaz should surely know better, there are plenty of people who innocently adopt the libertarian way of thinking about government because it seems to line up reasonably well with fundamental American values like strictly limited government, respect for rights, and capitalism. (Indeed, I was just such a person.) But even innocent use doesn't mitigate the very real problems and dangers discussed above. So Objectivists will continue to pointedly reject the libertarian label and its conceptual basis in the interests of moving our culture toward one that genuinely values liberty.

Wednesday Open Thread #109

2009-11-04T12:00:00.002-07:00

Atoms Are Really Small

2009-11-04T05:00:00.000-07:00

This slick interactive image allows us to conceptualize how small atoms are relative to other objects.

Just drag the slider underneath the image from left to right.

(Link via Radley Balko.)

Here's the related classic "Powers of Ten" video:

A Rule

2009-11-03T16:00:00.001-07:00

Okay, so it's not the most fundamental rule of life, but it's a useful guideline:

"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."

(I didn't invent it; it was the gem in a bunch of one-liners forwarded to me.)

Paul Hsieh OpEd in Pajamas Media

2009-11-03T10:00:00.001-07:00

PajamasMedia has just published my latest OpEd, "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare".

Here is the opening:

The details of Congress' health care "reform" legislation are finally coming into focus, and it's not a pretty picture. Congress is essentially proposing a national version of the failing Massachusetts system.

In 2006, Massachusetts adopted a health care plan which included an individual mandate requiring residents to purchase state-approved health insurance, new regulations on insurance companies specifying who they must cover and what benefits they must provide, and a government-subsidized "public option" for low-income residents. Supporters promised a utopia of "universal coverage" which would save money while improving quality of care. However, the exact opposite has occurred -- health costs in Massachusetts have skyrocketed, while patient care has suffered.

Before we adopt a similar plan at the national level, Americans should know three things about the Massachusetts plan...

I then cover the following points:

1) Massachusetts' system of mandatory insurance drives up costs and violates individual rights.
2) "Coverage" is not the same as actual medical care.
3) The Massachusetts plan will end in rationing.

Read the full text of "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare".

The third point is an elaboration of my LTE from the November 2, 2009 Wall Street Journal, "The Incentives Aren't to Help You".

NoodleCast #21: Design Arguments, Part 3

2009-11-02T23:00:00.003-07:00

In this episode of PhiloFiles, I discuss various Design Arguments for the existence of God, focusing on William Paley's Analogical Argument for Design.

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (8.9 MB)
Standard MP3 File (8.6 MB)

Learn More

Episode #21 Optional Readings (PDF)
Design Arguments in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Teleological Arguments in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism: The Case Against God by G.H. Smith
The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie

John Lewis Debate on Government Intervention

2009-11-02T14:00:00.000-07:00

Objectivist historian John Lewis writes:

This coming week I will debate UNC Adjunct Professor of Economics Ralph Byrns on the question: "Is Government Intervention in the Free Market Moral?"

Date: Wednesday, November 4
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Murphey 116
Website: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=178947119387

If you're in the area, go go go!

McArdle On Hyperinflation

2009-11-02T05:00:00.001-07:00

Megan McArdle recently argued that concerns about hyperinflation are overstated, and that we should instead be worried about different economic dangers.

I don't necessarily agree with her assessment, but I thought I'd point folks towards her post, "Seriously, Stop Worrying About Hyperinflation".

One point she makes which may have merit is that governments might be able to use hyperinflation to essentially default on already-issued debt, but that doesn't eliminate the problem of running debt streams (such as Social Security and Medicare), especially when those payments are theoretically indexed to inflation. (McArdle credits GMU economist Tyler Cowen for this argument.)

She also argues that US policy makers are too aware of the problem of hyperinflation, and that they would choose some other "solution" to our fiscal crisis. The alternatives include outright default on the debt (which she also regards as unlikely), or some combination of drastic reduction of entitlement payments and tax hikes (which she argues is the most likely outcome).

I'm not an economist, so I'm not well qualified to assess all her arguments. So here are a few questions that I'd like to throw out to NoodleFood readers:

1) Is it possible that our monetary policies might push us into hyperinflation even if our central bankers don't want it and are trying to avoid it? For instance, the money supply has shot upwards lately, as noted in this chart:

So is some inflation and/or hyperinflation inevitable regardless of our central bankers' desires and plans?

2) Will our politicians really decide that they will slash entitlement payments, when too many of them built their entire political careers around promising more goodies for free -- and they continue to spend like mad today despite the current crisis?

(I suppose that the government could perform some de facto cuts without calling them such. For instance, they could use artificially low inflation estimates to calculate the cost-of-living increases for Social Security. Over time, this basically allows them to indirectly cut benefits without being too obvious.)

3) Is there some big pot of money out there that the politicians will be tempted to loot in order to buy themselves more time?

For instance, one idea is that the US government might decide to "nationalize" citizens' private 401(k) retirement funds and instead tell retirees that they would receive public pensions in lieu of payments from those former privately-owned accounts. Of course, the new payouts won't be as large as the old payouts, thus allowing the government to keep a portion of this formerly-private money.

Or the government might slap a new surtax on 401(k) account balances over $1 million in order to fund the Social Security deficit. After all, that just hurts "millionaires" in order to help those who have the greatest need.

In conclusion, one of the commenters on McArdle's original post made this good observation:

...She didn't say that hyperinflation would be impossible, just that it would be really, really crazy and shortsighted. So I'm not comforted.

Given that the current system of deficit spending for unsustainable entitlement programs will eventually collapse, the only real questions are how and when. I don't think anyone can confidently predict which flavor of bad and/or irrational decisions politicians will make -- not when their core economic premises are fundamentally unsound.

I hate to end on such a gloomy note, so if anyone has more optimistic insights to offer, please do so in the comments section!

(McArdle link via Instapundit.)

Recap #65

2009-11-01T14:00:00.000-07:00

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

Monday, October 26, 2009: Boston Health Reform Tea Party by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, October 27, 2009: Samuelson: Public Plan Mirage by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, October 27, 2009: Peikoff Videos: Health Care Is Not A Right by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, October 28, 2009: Costs Keep Rising in Massachusetts by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, October 29, 2009: Watkins: In Defense of Health Insurance Discrimination by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, October 29, 2009: Coming New Taxes by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, October 30, 2009: The Economic Consequences of BaucusCare by Paul Hsieh, MD
Sunday, November 1, 2009: Government Cable by Paul Hsieh, MD