Homing from Work

Paul sent me his "urban word of the day" for April 25th. It's too perfect not to post:

Homing from Work

Using work time and resources for personal tasks.

See reverse telecommuting

Busey: Steve, did you download those episodes of Entourage I told you about?

Myers: I told you Gary, my home Internet connection sucks ass. I am going to download and burn them at the office while I am homing from work.

Ha!

Read more...

Another NetFlix Free Trial

If you're interested in trying out the fabulous NetFlix DVD rental service, you can get a free trial while throwing a bonus rental to Paul and me. The offer expires on June 15th. (Last time I posted this kind of offer from NetFlix, Paul and I enjoyed a few extra movies.)

Read more...

Indian Superheroes

"Look! Up in the Sky! It's a Bird... It's a Plane... It's the Indian version of Superman with the Indian version of Spiderwoman!"



I must complain that I find this depiction of the two superheroes to be grossly unrealistic: everyone knows that Superman comes from the DC Comics world, whereas Spiderwoman comes from the Marvel Comics universe. (Via MeFi.)

Read more...

Self-Defense on Campus

On April 15th, the Colorado Springs Gazette published my letter to the editor in response to its excellent editorial advocating concealed carry at CU in Colorado Springs. Here's my letter:

I want to thank The Gazette for its editorial advocating concealed carry on campus ("UCCS students want their guns," Our View, April 13).

I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.

If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.

CU's anti-gun policy is wrong. It ought to be changed, not just in Colorado Springs, but in Boulder, too.

I applaud the efforts of the UCCS chapter of Concealed Carry on Campus.

Such efforts are just starting at Boulder, too. Students and parents wanting to advocate concealed carry at CU Boulder should contact Jim Manley at james.m.manley@colorado.edu.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia

On April 22nd, I participated in the "Empty Holster Protest" at CU Boulder. It was sponsored by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. As for the importance of concealed carry on campus, John Lott recently published an op-ed on the dangers posed by gun-free zones like college campuses.

Many Objectivists are lukewarm on gun rights, particularly on concealed carry. If you're one of them, you might wish to read these essays:

• Jeff Snyder: A Nation of Cowards
  
  
• Eric Raymond: Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
  
  
• Heartland Institute: Taking Aim at Gun Control

Thanks to political activism by gun rights advocates over past 25 years, 36 states in the US now have laws mandating "shall issue" concealed carry permits -- meaning that any law-abiding citizen with appropriate training can obtain a permit, without any further permission from local law enforcement. (I've had a concealed carry permit since 2001.) Contrary to the frantic cries of anti-gun liberals, the streets have not run with blood -- precisely because concealed carry permit holders are not criminals but rather responsible, law-abiding citizens who use their weapons in emergency situations to defend themselves from criminals.

Read more...

Update on North Korea

StrategyPage has a very interesting update on the ever-declining state of affairs in North Korea. It's definitely worth reading, if you're interested in that horrid corner of the globe.

Read more...

Are Mathematical Truths Discovered or Invented?

This question is one of the topics in the upcoming June 2008 issue of the European Mathematical Society Newsletter. As Science News reports, this subject "has provided fodder for arguments among mathematicians and philosophers" for thousands of years, with no seeming resolution.

On one hand, there are Platonists who believe this:

...[A] mathematician discovers timeless truths independent of human observation and free of the transient nature of physical reality. "The abstract realm in which a mathematician works is by dint of prolonged intimacy more concrete to him than the chair he happens to sit on," says Ulf Persson of Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, a self-described Platonist.

But the Platonists are forced to deal with some tricky implications of their views:

Those who espouse discovery note that mathematical statements are true or false regardless of personal beliefs, suggesting that they have some external reality. But this leads to some odd notions. Where, exactly, do these mathematical truths exist? Can a mathematical truth really exist before anyone has ever imagined it?

In contrast, there are those who believe that such talk of an abstract realm is just mystical hogwash:

Brian Davies, a mathematician at King's College London, writes that Platonism "has more in common with mystical religions than with modern science." And modern science, he believes, provides evidence to show that the Platonic view is just plain wrong. He titled his article "Let Platonism Die."

...Reuben Hersh of the University of New Mexico ...rejects the Platonic view, arguing instead that mathematics is a product of human culture, not fundamentally different from other human creations like music or law or money.

But the latter school is faced with a different set of intractable questions:

On the other hand, if math is invented, then why can't a mathematician legitimately invent that 2 + 2 = 5?

...The challenge, [Hersh] admits, is to explain why it is that mathematical statements can be definitively true or false, not subject to taste or whim.

The solution to this millenia-old argument is to abandon both the intrisicist approach of the Platonists and the subjectivist approach of their opponents. Instead, mathematical concepts (like all concepts) are neither intrinsic nor subjective but objective. It is in debates like this where the Objectivist approach to epistemology and concept formation prove their value -- in being able to cut through the errors made over the centuries by struggling philosophers and mathematicians.

Of course, properly applying Rand's theory of concept formation to the philosophy of mathematics is a non-trivial task. Concepts of number are both seemingly self-evident, but also represent feats of tremendous abstraction. But scholars such as Dr. Pat Corvini have made a good start. Her course at the 2007 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That", was on precisely that topic -- namely how to apply the Objectivist theory of concept formation to concepts of number:

The concept of number as used in science today is one of man's greatest achievements: a grand-scale integration capping centuries of effort and enabling a vastly expanded efficacy in all areas of life. But the growth in complexity of the number system has rendered the meaning of number ever more mysterious; number is seen both as a touchstone of certainty and as an arbitrary human construct whose applicability to the real world is a deep mystery. This is because the nature of number has not been properly identified; and as Ayn Rand pointed out, that imprecision is dangerous.

This course clarifies the meaning of "number" by examining it in the light of Miss Rand's theory of concepts. Recognizing the objectivity of number provides a new framework for resolving both historical and modern debates, and yields a heightened appreciation for the science of mathematics as a whole—further reinforcing the value of Objectivist epistemology.

She is also offering a follow-up course at this year's 2008 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel":

Science shelves of bookstores are today awash in accounts of modern extensions of the idea of number, including infinity and the continuum, set theory, transfinite numbers, and the like. Many of these ideas, and the "mysteries" that proceed from them, figure prominently in modern philosophy and in popular discussion of the nature and limits of reason.

In this course, Dr. Corvini explains and evaluates some of the most influential of these ideas, using as a frame of reference both their historical context and the view of number as objective developed in her earlier courses. By identifying the fundamental nature of the ideas and of the errors involved, we see again the importance of a proper theory of concepts, and clarify the differences between an objective approach to mathematics and the more traditional views.

I have long had an interest in those topics such as foundations of set theory, the nature of the concept "infinity", etc. Hence, if her 2008 course is as good as her 2007 course, then it promises to be a real treat. Diana and I have already signed up for it.

Although I have a degree in mathematics (B.S., MIT, 1984), her courses do not require any advanced math background. Dr. Corvini is a very clear and engaging lecturer, and she is excellent at explaining the relevant mathematical concepts to a general audience. If you can count to 10 and you are a normal intelligent adult, then you can follow her lectures.

So if you want to see how the power of the Objectivist theory of concepts can resolve questions that have stumped some of history's greatest minds for thousands of years, check out her courses!

(I don't believe that her 2007 course is available yet through the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I expect that it will be eventually. It was available for purchase by 2007 conference attendees as part of the usual post-conference package, and hence I think it will eventually make it to the main bookstore listing.)

Read more...

Tore Boeckmann on Ayn Rand

Tore Boeckmann was recently interviewed for EdNews on the creativity of Ayn Rand. The interview is short, but worth a read.

I should also mention that Tore Boeckmann's essay "Anthem as a Psychological Fantasy" in Robert Mayhew's anthology Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem was one of the very bright highlights of that book. The essays in that volume are of consistently high quality, but the essays by Tore Boeckmann, Onkar Ghate ("Breaking the Metaphysical Chains of Dictatorship: Free Will and Determinism in Anthem"), and Greg Salmieri ("Prometheus' Discovery: Individualism and the Meaning of the Concept 'I' in Anthem") were way beyond stellar. I highly recommend reading them, if you haven't already.

Read more...

Synchonized Kittens

And now for something completely and delightfully different:

Read more...

For the Record: Phoenix Objectivists

This post is simply "for the record," in light of the distortions of the facts posted elsewhere.

Last Sunday, I was perusing that Branden-worshipping cesspool of a discussion forum known as "Objectivist Living." I noticed the following announcement in a thread entitled Phoenix Objectivists start new lecture series:

Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 19 2008, 01:47 PM:

When: Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.

Where: Black Bear Diner
2410 West Bell Road
Phoenix, AZ

Admission: Attendees must buy something to eat.

Event Description: For our first meeting at our new location and the last of the month, we will listen to the first in a six-part pre-recorded lecture series done by Diana Mertz-Hsieh titled: Objectivism 101 which was a lecture Mrs. Hsieh gave at The Atlas Society's Summer Seminar in 2003.

Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged offer a unique and inspiring moral vision, but translating those ideals into daily life can be challenging. Through a mixture of lecture and discussion, Diana Mertz Hsieh will survey the basic principles of Objectivism, from metaphysics to aesthetics.

She will focus on both the theory and practice of the philosophy, contrasting it with common religious and cultural views. Ideas discussed in these six sessions will include reason as the only means to knowledge, free will as the choice to think or not, the integration of mind and body, emotions as automatic value judgments, life as the standard of value, the major virtues, the trader principle, capitalism as the only moral social system, and much more.

Mrs. Hsieh is a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

I was more than a bit surprised to learn that I was to be the lecture series! I'd not been contacted by anyone about playing my lectures at this meeting.

By way of background, the six-lecture series was given at the last Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center I attended. While I'm still reasonably proud of those lectures, precisely because I worked hard to clearly and accurately present Ayn Rand's Objectivism, I'm sure that I'd find all kinds of problems with them if I listened to them now. So as a general matter, I'm not too keen on the idea of anyone playing them before a group, particularly not without some strong warning that I do not vouch for the content and that I've disassociated myself from The Objectivist Center (today, The Atlas Society).

After some inquiries to Arizona friends, I was pointed to the web site for the Phoenix Objectivists. (That's not the same group as the Arizona Objectivists, a group that I've had nothing but good dealings with in the past.) Any possible willingness to allow my lectures to be played at the Phoenix Objectivists disappeared when I saw its page of links: it's a "Who's Who" list of dishonest pseudo-Objectivists, without a single link to anything associated with or supportive of the Ayn Rand Institute. It even lists "ARI Watch" (!!). Basically, I don't wish to provide any kind of value to the very people so invested in attacking me and mine. (I also saw from other web surfing that the group's leader Mike Renzulli is actively involved with the Libertarian Party.)

So I wrote the following letter to the e-mail address for the group listed on the web site.

From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:49:56 -0600
To:
Subject: My Objectivism 101 Lectures

Mike --

I recently saw your announcement to Objectivist Living about your forthcoming event(s) featuring my Objectivism 101 lectures. You should know that those lectures are copyrighted -- and that the copyright is held by me. (TOC's copyright expired after two years.) So you cannot play them before an audience without my permission.

Given what I've seen on the Phoenix Objectivists web site, I am not willing to grant you permission. You might be a decent fellow, but I do not wish to be associated the promotion of destructive and dishonest critics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism -- as found on your web site. (If you wish to know my reasons for those judgments, you are welcome to peruse the many essays I've written at http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/toc.html.)

If you choose to go ahead with your plans, I won't stop you. However, you should know that you would be violating my property rights. The moral wrong of that should be obvious.

You are welcome to forward this letter to anyone you please.

-- DMH

In response, he asked for documentation of my claims. Meanwhile, he began a thread on Objectivist Living entitled Diana Mertz-Hsieh nasty gram (!!) with the following:

Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 21 2008, 05:48 PM

Well Folks,

Diana Mertz-Hsieh has struck again. As it turns out, she just sent me an e-mail stating that she doesn't give me permission to play her Objectivism 101 lectures for my group's meeting coming up this Thursday.

Hsieh says that she holds the copyright for it, that TAS's copyright for her lectures has expired and, while she will not stop me, she states that my doing so would be stealing her intellectual property.

I already have a call into Ed Hudgins at TAS to see if what she is saying is accurate. I may have to bag using the lectures until the legalities of doing so are cleared up unless someone on these boards knows otherwise.

Regardless if she is right or not, its one more feather in her cap of making an ass out of herself.

As you might imagine from that "OL" crowd, the replies were even worse. (Note that Mike didn't actually see fit to post my actual e-mail, as I expressly gave him permission to do.) So, feeling less than generous at that point, I replied to his request for documentation as follows:

From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:40:31 -0600
To: M Renzulli
Subject: Re: My Objectivism 101 Lectures

You should have done your homework before you scheduled the event, e.g. by e-mailing me to inquire about any required permission. The fact that you failed to do so doesn't oblige me to rush to get you the documentation at the last minute. I'm certainly not going to do so while you and your friends on Objectivist Living are attacking me left and right for the mere assertion of my rights and other imaginary moral evils.

So here's what I'll say:

(1) My TOC contract was standard: the rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live.". TOC didn't do that, so the copyright is now held by me. You can inquire with TOC about that.

(2) The difference between listening rights and performance rights is well-established in copyright law. You're playing my lecture at a public event in a public venue, advertised on the web to anyone and everyone, not at a private party for friends. You can inquire with a lawyer about that.

-- DMH

Since then, Mike has begun a new OL thread solely devoted to wild speculations about my psychology, without the slightest bit of concern for my actual and stated reasons for rejecting The Objectivist Center, condemning people like Nathaniel Branden and Chris Sciabarra, and now endorsing the Ayn Rand Institute. He likens me to a religious dogmatist and a communist enforcer. He claims that I've sold my soul for the cause. He claims that I'm seeking to appease the ARI hierarchy for the sake of publication venues and job opportunities. Um, okay.

Mike also sent me two further e-mails. He told me that he expects an apology from me if I'm wrong in my legal claims. He said he'll do the same if he's wrong, but given his absolutely libelous personal attacks on me on OL, that's of no value whatsoever. He's also suggested that I just ask him nicely not to play the lectures. Fat chance of that: I shouldn't have to ask nicely for him to respect my rights, particularly not while he spits in my face. (Do I need to ask a car thief to please not take my car?!?)

In any case, yesterday afternoon, I finally dug up my old "Speaker's Agreements" with The Objectivist Center. The following e-mail to the relevant folks at The Atlas Society explains the exact terms of the contract:

From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:44:43 -0600
To: Gene Holloway , Ed Hudgins
Conversation: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings
Subject: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings

Ed and Gene --

Due to the plans of Mike Renzulli to play one of my past TOC lectures at a public event this week despite my protests, I recently reviewed my speaker's agreements with TOC for lectures given in 2001, 2002, and 2003. (I could not find my contract for my 2000 lecture.)

Before I reviewed the contracts, my recollection was that all rights to the recording automatically reverted to me after two years, provided that TOC didn't publish an official recording (as opposed to a "TOC Live" tape). However, that's not quite accurate, as you can see from the following quoted clause:

"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."

(The same basic clause is found in my 2001 and 2002 contracts. I presume that it is also in my 2000 contract.)

So: I hereby terminate all of TOC's (or The Atlas Society's) rights to recordings of my past lectures, except the right to maintain a copy for archival purposes.

Obviously, I can't imagine that you'd ever want to do anything with my past lectures for TOC, but I did wish to officially terminate your rights to them, in case such a strange situation ever arises again.

Also, I should mention that as far as I understand the contract, TOC has never had any right to license the work to be played in public. (As far as I know, you've not done that with Mike Renzulli.)

I have attached a scan of the relevant page of the 2003 contract.

Finally, please confirm your receipt of this e-mail and acknowledge the termination of rights.

Thank you,

Diana Mertz Hsieh

As for the question of rights to public performance, Paul found this handy summary of the relevant law (and this one and this one and this one and this one) for me. It's very clear that an event open to the public, held in a public venue, and advertised on public message boards and web sites does not qualify as a private performance on par with inviting friends over to watch a movie.

Also, I should mention that I've spoken repeatedly with two lawyers about this matters over the past few days. Both of them used to speak at TOC, and so they are familiar with TOC's "Speaker's Agreements." On both legal and moral grounds, they wholly support my right to refuse permission to play these lectures.

I don't expect any further troubles on this issue -- except more of the usual crap from OL -- but I did wish to set the record straight. To put it bluntly, Mike Renzulli hasn't a legal or moral leg to stand on. He doesn't have the right to play my lectures before an audience just because he bought the tapes. I don't have any obligation to assist a man who actively subverts my values. He's also behaved in a less than gentleman-like fashion, without any provocation. Still, I won't hold my breath waiting for that apology.

Update: On October 10, 2011, Mike posted a public apology. Thanks, Mike, that's appreciated.

Read more...

Too Big to Bail

I really enjoyed Alex Epstein's "video op-ed" explaining "how the government's 'too big to bail' policy encouraged financial institutions to make billions of dollars in bad subprime investments."



The text version of the op-ed is available on the Ayn Rand Institute web site, but it's just soooo much better to hear Mr. Epstein speak that fabulous line about "government bailout crack"!

Read more...

Upcoming Events

Here are some upcoming events of interest:

Three panel discussions on totalitarian Islam:

• "The Threat of Totalitarian Islam," a panel discussion at UC Berkeley with Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Victor Davis Hanson on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. More info...
  
  
• "The Threat of Totalitarian Islam," a panel discussion at NYU with Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Flemming Rose on Monday, May 5, 2008. More info...
  
  
• "The Threat of Totalitarian Islam," a panel discussion at Harvard with Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. More info...

Yaron Brook will speak at Ford Hall Forum on "Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right" at Ford Hall Forum in Boston on May 8th. More info...

Excellent news: Leonard Peikoff will host a special Q&A session at OCON this summer!

Read more...

Leonard Peikoff’s Podcasts

Back in January, I finally listened to Leonard Peikoff's first six podcasts. He has posted a bunch more since then, but I've not yet heard those. While I knew I'd find them interesting, I didn't listen to them sooner because I'm on mostly break from studying Objectivism while writing my dissertation. They are definitely worth a listen or two, as the questions are almost always well-chosen and well-answered.

In the sixth podcast, Dr. Peikoff discusses the pitfalls of discussing Objectivism in online discussion forums. I won't repeat his comments here, but I largely agree with his concerns that such online debates risk divorcing a person's ideas from his values and promote disintegrated examination of ideas in isolation. It's also true that many self-described Objectivists arguing with confidence online are completely clueless, rationalistic, or even outright dishonest.

I would add a few points, based on extensive experience reading and posting to such discussion forums over the course of about 15 years. (For the record, the only public discussion forum that I regard as remotely Objectivist is ObjectivismOnline. The contributors can be far better than found elsewhere, but I still think the forum suffers from the standard problems of that medium.)

First, thoughtful and productive discussion is a rarity on most discussion boards, whether supposedly Objectivist or not. Mostly, the threads consist of discombobulated streams of unjustified assertions, ill-considered opinions, nasty remarks, ignorant assumptions, and outright dishonesty. To participate in those discussions is, at best, a huge waste of time. The fact that someone has said something particularly stupid in some online debate is not a good reason to spend hours arguing with that person and his fellows.

Second, the capacity to beat the pants off some random opponent in online debate doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about, that you're thinking clearly, or that you're right. Unfortunately, people often suppose that argumentative might makes right. And so they seek the thrill of victory in online debate with all the fervor of a crack addict. In fact:



If you wish to seriously test your ideas in debate, the proper approach is to carefully study and think about some issue of personal interest to you, then discuss it in private with someone whose knowledge and judgment you trust, whether in person or e-mail.

Third, if Objectivists want to change the culture for the better, they ought not waste their time and energy by arguing with other Objectivists -- even on the better forums. To actually change the culture, Objectivists need to present their ideas to people unfamiliar with them. That's often harder -- but far more rewarding in the long run. (That's precisely why I created my OActivists mailing list.)

However, even with people unfamiliar with Objectivist ideas, lengthy online debates will likely be a waste of time. (If the person is someone known to you in real life, then the situation is somewhat different. Then long-running debates can have some value.) With strangers, the goal should be to clearly and briefly make a point or two that might intrigue an reasonable reader and perhaps point him in a new direction. That's often all that the better people require.

In general, with any protracted online debate, I recommend asking oneself: Could I be spending my time in a more productive or enjoyable way? If so, then do go that other thing! If not, then get a life! And yes, that includes protracted arguments in the NoodleFood comments.

Read more...

The Morality of Pornography

An interesting question for NoodleFood, again on sex:

I was intrigued by your posting on the psychology of prostitution. I haven't followed the Spitzer case all that closely, but I read Paul's posting and Ari Armstrong's essay with much agreement.

In the past you've suggested that we might ask questions related to Objectivism, and Ari's writing brought to mind the question of pornography. Especially when he writes:

"Prostitution is a vice for the same reason that indiscriminate sex is a vice: sex properly involves a connection of consciousness as well as bodies between two people who genuinely admire one another. Purely physical sex undermines the distinctly human dimension of it."

Now, I'm no prude and I have no desire to see adult pornography censored by the government. On the other hand, I've often been disgusted by the squalid nature of what passes for erotica.

And so... where is the proper place of pornography in the Objectivist ethics?

A couple years ago I listened to Peikoff's recording on love and sex, and don't recall his directly addressing the subject. Of course I know Rand did address the subject (In "Censorship: Local and Express"), but always felt her comments to be a reflection of personal taste and context and not necessarily part of her ethics.

What do you think?

On the one hand, the visual and auditory depiction of consensual sexual activity in itself certainly doesn't seem to violate Rand's fundamental virtues. On the other hand, as Ari writes above, I can't see a follower of Rand sanctioning the quick intercourse (for pay) of two actors who hardly know each other.

I'd be interested in your thoughts or any advice on Objectivist writings that address the issue.

In fact, Leonard Peikoff does discuss pornography in his "Love, Sex, and Romance" lecture. So that's a good place to start.

I would like to distinguish two related moral questions about pornography:

• When is it moral to watch pornography, if ever? Can it serve a legitimate purpose in a healthy person's sex life or in a healthy couple's sex life?
  
  
• When is it moral to create pornography, if ever? Is the production of pornography (e.g. as actor, director, distributor) a proper career?

I have my own thoughts on these matters, but since time is tight for me right now, I think I'll just open the floor for comments.

Read more...

Honoring an Author’s Last Wishes?

The controversy of whether Vladimir Nabokov's last novel should be published against his wishes has apparently been resolved. Nabokov's son Dmitri has reportedly decided to disregard his father's explicit last wish that his final novel The Original of Laura be destroyed. The literary community is deeply divided on this issue, with some saying that the novel should be published for posterity's sake, and others arguing that the author's last wishes should respected.

I haven't read any Nabokov, so I can't comment on the merits of his work. But if he made his wishes clear in a legally binding document (such as a will), then they should be obeyed. On the other hand, if he expressed it as a nonbinding preference to his son (but didn't formally put it in his will), then it's the son's decision.

Even in the latter case, I would still be inclined to honor the author's preference even if I thought the world might be losing an incalculable piece of literary genius. The only exception would be if I had good reason to believe that the author's expressed preferences didn't actually reflect his genuine preferences (i.e., he was joking or suffering from dementia). But my default would be to go with the author's wishes, unless there was a compelling reason to act otherwise.

(If the case of Nabokov isn't sufficiently compelling, suppose that it was 1982 and you were the executor of Ayn Rand's estate, and she had left similar instructions to burn the pages of her last unpublished novel. Although I can understand the temptation to publish it, I would hope that I would have enough integrity to respect her wishes.)

Read more...

Nick and Abe

Yesterday, Paul and I had the pleasure of lunching with Nick Provenzo of Rule of Reason, then walking and talking around DC with him for a few hours. The company was delightful and the weather was lovely, but the sights were a mixed bag.

I particularly wanted to visit the Lincoln Memorial, as I've grown to admire Lincoln intensely, despite some significant disagreements with his policies, in my study of the Civil War over the past few months. That was excellent, despite the throng of people. It's an absolutely fantastic statue of Lincoln.

We also visited the new World War Two Memorial. That was worse than I expected in its utter lack of meaning. Blech.

Happily, we also stopped by the statue of William Tecumseh Sherman near Lafayette Square. I'd also like to see the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial, so that I can pay my respects to him. I should be able to do that tomorrow before I head home.

Read more...

Animal Minds

The March 2008 issue of National Geographic recently published an interesting article on research into animal minds. If the reported facts are reliable, then animals may have some ability to isolate similarities and differences between percepts. Here is an excerpt from the article on scientist Irene Pepperberg and her parrot Alex:

...[B]ecause Alex was able to produce a close approximation of the sounds of some English words, Pepperberg could ask him questions about a bird's basic understanding of the world. She couldn't ask him what he was thinking about, but she could ask him about his knowledge of numbers, shapes, and colors. To demonstrate, Pepperberg carried Alex on her arm to a tall wooden perch in the middle of the room. She then retrieved a green key and a small green cup from a basket on a shelf. She held up the two items to Alex's eye.

"What's same?" she asked.

Without hesitation, Alex's beak opened: "Co-lor."

"What's different?" Pepperberg asked.

"Shape," Alex said. His voice had the digitized sound of a cartoon character. Since parrots lack lips (another reason it was difficult for Alex to pronounce some sounds, such as ba), the words seemed to come from the air around him, as if a ventriloquist were speaking. But the words—and what can only be called the thoughts—were entirely his.

For the next 20 minutes, Alex ran through his tests, distinguishing colors, shapes, sizes, and materials (wool versus wood versus metal). He did some simple arithmetic, such as counting the yellow toy blocks among a pile of mixed hues.

Of course, researchers have to be extremely careful not to anthropomorphize when interpreting such results. And even if animals are able to perform this sort of mental integration and differentiation of their percepts, this is not the same as being able to reason in the human sense. Hence, this post should not be construed as endorsing any form of "animal rights".

But it is plausible from an evolutionary perspective that the human mental abilities that allow us engage in concept formation and reasoning would have primitive precursors in some of the higher animals, and that human cognition has a foundation based on those pre-existing building blocks. Hence, the exact abilities of various animal minds is a fascinating scientific subject worthy of study, even if it may not have any primary philosophical import.

(I've been told that some Objectivists believe that animals are essentially automatons without any feeling or consciousness, like rocks or plants. In my opinion, this is untrue, and data such as this is further evidence against that erroneous position.)

Read more...

Faith Versus Reason #8

The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the eighth and final video:



If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.

Read more...

Elevators

You'll learn more about elevators than you ever wanted to know in this New Yorker article: Up and Then Down. The article includes the story of Nicholas White, who was trapped for 41 hours without any food or water in an elevator. It's pretty horrific, if you concretely imagine what that would be like. You can even help your imagination by watching this time-lapse video of him stuck in the elevator.

I ride the elevators at CU Boulder pretty frequently. Kate accompanies me teach my classes at CU Boulder every Tuesday and Thursday. (She's perfectly well-behaved, she needs the exercise, and she loves to come with me.) She's too old and creaky to go up and down the stairs, so we take the elevators. After reading that article, though, I'll never ride an elevator again without a working cell phone!

Read more...

Trader Joe’s, Behind the Scenes

I love Trader Joe's -- so much so that the lack of TJ's in Colorado is my only serious regret about leaving California. I'm still enjoying the care package of Trader Joe's goodies that Paul and I mailed ourselves while in Maryland visiting my parents. Consequently, I could enjoy this BusinessWeek article on the business model of the chain: Trader Joe's Recipe for Success. The tagline reads, "By limiting its stock to specialty products at low prices, Trader Joe's sells twice as much per square foot than other supermarkets." I'm not surprised. Supermarkets are a mixed bag of good stuff and crud, but Trader Joe's is chock full of delights!

(Yes, Paul and I do mail ourselves a care package from Trader Joe's whenever we visit a place blessed with the store. That's just how much we miss it.)

Read more...

Business Regulation, Consumer Protection?

In my recent letter to various public officials opposing proposed legislation on mandatory insurance, I wrote:

If your goal is to fix the genuine problems in our health care system, then you MUST advocate FREE MARKET reforms. Eliminate the tax incentive for employer-provided health care. Eliminate all mandates and other regulations on health insurance. Eliminate regulations on medical providers. Gradually eliminate welfare programs.

A few days ago, I received the following e-mail inquiry about the implications of that paragraph in particular. It said:

Do you advocate eliminating most or all business and financial regulations in addition to the medical regulations mentioned above? If objectivism and the business/economic beliefs of Ayn Rand were to be law of the land, for lack of a better phrase, how would such a government prevent abuses by businesses and protect the consumer's rights from being trampled on?

Those are excellent questions. I'll answer them briefly here, and I hope that others will chime in with more in-depth analysis in the comments.

Yes, I do advocate the repeal of all business and financial regulations. However, that does not imply that the law has no proper function to serve in markets. In the purely capitalist economy that I advocate, the legal system serves an indispensable role: it protects the rights of all people, particularly the rights of property and contract. If a business engages in false advertising, fails to deliver the contracted-for goods, or knowingly sells dangerously defective products, then individuals should be able to resort to the courts to remedy the violation of their rights.

In contrast, when the government establishes regulations "prevent abuses by business" and "protect consumer's rights," then it is actually violating the rights of both producers and consumers, not protecting them. Regulations violate everyone's rights to acquire, use, and dispose of their property as they see fit. Regulations violate everyone's rights to contract for mutually agreeable terms. In essence, regulations use government force to prevent people from acting according to their own best judgment. That's morally wrong and practically disastrous.

If I'm dying of cancer with three months to live, the FDA forbids me from taking a promising experimental drug because it's not yet been proven "safe" and "effective." As if that matters: I'm dying! Supposedly, FDA regulations exist to protect me, the consumer.

If I lack work experience, minimum wage laws forbid a business from hiring me except for more than I'm actually worth. So I'm forced into unemployment, even though I'd be happy to gain experience and reputation as a good worker by working for less than minimum wage for a time. Supposedly, minimum wage laws exist to protect me, the worker.

If I'm a good cook looking to start a small catering business, I would be stopped dead in my tracks by the myriad regulations required to serve food and liquor. So my potential consumers have to pay more for their catering because the cost of entering the market is so high, even if they'd rather hire me. Supposedly, those health regulations exist to protect my consumers.

Government regulations of business preemptively punish all producers as would-be criminals. They treat all consumers as helpless dolts unable to choose wisely. They grant government bureaucrats unlimited power over our lives. That's not good, to say the least.

The proper approach is to (1) punish only actual instances of force and fraud in the market, (2) treat adults like the rational creatures they are, (3) limit government power to only protecting individual rights. To do that would require eliminating all government regulation of business -- and that's why I advocate doing so.

Read more...

Bad News for Philosophy Majors

This graph is why parents aren't always thrilled when their children tell them that they've decided to major in philosophy.

(Yes, philosophy can be a fine major. No, I don't think that this graph says much about long-term earning potential. Many philosophy majors go to law school, and that has a good effect on long-term earnings. It's philosophy graduate school that kills a person's earning potential!)

Read more...

Manassas Restaurant Recommendation?

Paul and I will be visiting the Manassas Battlefield Park in Virginia this Sunday with my parents. Can anyone recommend a good and hearty but reasonably-priced restaurant -- say $15-25 per entree -- on Route 66 back to the Capitol Beltway? Somewhere along the Beltway north to the western end of the Metro Red Line (i.e. to Medical Center or Grosvenor-Strathmore stations) would also be fine, as my parents will be dropping us off at one of those stations. I wouldn't wish to travel more than a few miles from our main route.

So... any recommendations?

Read more...

An Engineer’s Guide to Cats

Cute:



Although I already engage in some "corporal cuddling," I've not yet tried "cat yodeling."

Read more...

Death Spiral

Here is an interesting way of displaying mortality statistics.

As the Wall Street Journal notes:

It's tough to resist a graphic that begins, "Total odds of dying, any cause: 1 in 1."

Read more...

Which Gang for Baby?

Here's another bit of stranger-than-fiction news story: Dad arrested after dispute over which gang right for baby.

When Mom wears one set of gang colors and Dad wears another, conflict over how to raise the baby can cause irreconcilable differences. At least that's what happened for one Commerce City couple.

Commerce City police were called to a disturbance Saturday at a Hollywood Video on East 64th Street, where a man reportedly was harassing his ex-girlfriend, who was working there. The man knocked over a computer and a magazine stand and yelled obscenities at her, witnesses said. He left the store before police arrived.

When officers questioned the woman, they learned that the two had been together for four years and were the parents of a child. When police asked the woman why the two had separated, she said they have "different ideas about how the baby should be raised," according to a police report. When officer Daniel Swift asked the woman what she meant by that, she said that the two belong to different street gangs. "They could not agree on which gang the baby would claim," Swift said.

Joseph Manzanares, 19, was arrested later at his home. He was taken to the Commerce City Police Department for processing and then transferred to the Adams County Jail, police said. Manzanares pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, and a harassment charge against him was dismissed. He owes Adams County Courts $810 in court, processing and probation-supervision fees. Manzanares wasn't available for comment.

Um, shouldn't this incident be grounds to remove the child from the custody of these obviously unfit parents? (Via Ari Armstrong.)

Read more...

More to the Story

Last week, the Chicago Tribune published the following story: Man found chained in basement of burning Crystal Lake house

Crystal Lake firefighters rescued a man from the basement of a burning house Tuesday morning, locked to a post with a chain around his neck, officials said. The 55-year-old man later told police he was chained voluntarily and not the victim of a crime, fire officials said in a statement.

Police and fire officials responded to the 1300 block of Dolo Rosa Vista about 7:50 a.m. and found three people outside the building who said there was a man in the basement, according to the release. Rescuers cut the chain, and the man was treated for smoke inhalation at a hospital and released.

Gee, don't you think that there might be more to that story?!? Where's Jerry Springer when you need him? Or sheesh, shouldn't the man have been a prime candidate for psychiatric care? The questions are endless... (Via John Enright's Rhyme of the Day.)

Read more...

MacBook Pro Sleep Problems

Hooray! I've finally fixed my MacBook Pro's problems with waking up from sleep!

Basically, about one time in ten, my Mac would only partly wake up from a state of sleep. Nothing would revive it, so I'd have to reboot. That was very annoying, and multiple web searches over the past few months offered no help whatsoever until I discovered this page on how to change the sleep mode. So now my Mac is set to sleep mode 0 (i.e. the "old style sleep mode, with RAM powered on while sleeping, safe sleep disabled, and super-fast wake") instead of the currently standard sleep mode 3 (i.e. the new sleep mode where "RAM is powered on while sleeping, but RAM contents are also written to disk before sleeping" so that the machine hibernates if power if totally drained).

The lack of ability to slip into hibernation as a backup isn't a problem for me, since I never fully run down my battery while in sleep mode. Plus, I like that the computer sleeps and wakes faster than before. Most importantly, however, my computer has woken up perfectly from sleep for a few weeks now, with just one funky exception. Until it began working properly, I didn't realize how much the constant nagging worry that my computer might not wake properly wore on me! Now I feel liberated!

Read more...

Blogroll Update

One of my tasks for tomorrow is to update NoodleFood's blogroll. So if you'd like your blog to be added to it, please let me know, preferably by posting the URL in the comments.

Read more...

Chinese Spy Awakes

Wow: Chinese Spy 'Slept' In U.S. for 2 Decades:

Prosecutors called Chi Mak the "perfect sleeper agent," though he hardly looked the part. For two decades, the bespectacled Chinese-born engineer lived quietly with his wife in a Los Angeles suburb, buying a house and holding a steady job with a U.S. defense contractor, which rewarded him with promotions and a security clearance. Colleagues remembered him as a hard worker who often took paperwork home at night.

Eventually, Mak's job gave him access to sensitive plans for Navy ships, submarines and weapons. These he secretly copied and sent via courier to China -- fulfilling a mission that U.S. officials say he had been planning since the 1970s.

Mak was sentenced last week to 24 1/2 years in prison by a federal judge who described the lengthy term as a warning to China not to "send agents here to steal America's military secrets." But it may already be too late: According to U.S. intelligence and Justice Department officials, the Mak case represents only a small facet of an intelligence-gathering operation that has long been in place and is growing in size and sophistication...

Having read many of Viktor Suvorov's fascinating books on Soviet spying on the US during the Cold War, I find the prospect of Chinese spying quite worrisome.

Read more...

Faith Versus Reason #7

The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the seventh:



If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.

Read more...

Against Mandatory Insurance

This morning, Ari Armstrong and other FIRM Activists strongly encouraged writing in opposition to Massachusetts-type legislation requiring all Colorado residents to purchase individual insurance. For the reasons that Paul recently detailed in this Denver Post op-ed and on the FIRM blog, such legislation would be a disaster for Colorado health care. So, I just wrote and sent the following letter (or a slight variant thereof, depending on the recipient) to the sponsors of the bill, the members of the Colorado Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, my Colorado representative and senator, and to the Colorado governor.

It's particularly important to vocally oppose mandatory insurance, as it's widely supported by Republicans and Democrats. To the Democrats, it's just a more trendy form of universal health care than "single payer" plans. To the Republicans, it's a way to force people to "be responsible." Happily, FIRM has changed the minds of some Republicans in Colorado -- but given that three of the five sponsors of this bill are Republicans, obviously we have more work to do!

Dear So-and-So,

I am writing to ask you to oppose Senate Bill 217, which would impose mandatory health insurance in Colorado.

The government of Colorado ought to respect and uphold our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That requires allowing people to make their own decisions in life -- whether right or wrong.

Mandatory health insurance would violate those basic American rights. It would force people to spend THEIR money as THE GOVERNMENT sees fit, regardless of the circumstances of their lives. This legislation would force people to spend money on health insurance -- at prices inflated by other mandates requiring coverage for services they don't want and won't use and by massive government welfare programs and regulations. As a result, many people will not be able to afford goods of greater value to them -- like an apartment in a better neighborhood or tutoring for their child.

No one should have to sacrifice even a trivial pleasure like a night at the movies because the government forces them to spend their money to pay for services they won't ever need -- like alcohol rehab, the HPV vaccine, autism treatment, prostate cancer screening -- as this legislation would do. (Those are already-existing Colorado mandates. This legislation would encourage even more, as special interest groups lobbied for their "indispensable" service to be covered.)

That's not the end of the wrongs of mandatory insurance -- by any stretch of the imagination. As shown by the less-than-shining example of Massachusetts, this law would drive health care costs upward, encourage doctors to retire or move to another state, decrease access to quality care, create a massive new bureaucracy, and imperil the state's finances.

This legislation is MORALLY WRONG. Please DO NOT support it.

If your goal is to fix the genuine problems in our health care system, then you MUST advocate FREE MARKET reforms. Eliminate the tax incentive for employer-provided health care. Eliminate all mandates and other regulations on health insurance. Eliminate regulations on medical providers. Gradually eliminate welfare programs.

Then, health insurance might become what it should have been all along: a person's own safety net for major injury or illness, with all ordinary medical expenses paid for out-of-pocket. That's how other forms of insurance work -- and they work well as a result.

I support Freedom and Individual Rights in Health Care -- see http://www.westandfirm.org -- and I hope that you'll do the same.

-- DMH

Diana Hsieh
Sedalia, Colorado
Ph.D Candidate, Philosophy
University of Colorado, Boulder

I'm sure my letter could have been more eloquent and polished, but sometimes activism is just about what's possible in the time that you have available.

Read more...

The Inside Scoop

Phoebe Damrosch used to hold a very unusual position as a woman: she was a head waiter at an insanely high-end New York restaurant. She's writing a book about that life -- and this fascinating essay by her gives a bit of a taste. It's like Waiter Rant, but rather less bitter.

Read more...

Early Retirement Is Selfish and Unpatriotic

The March 26, 2008 Baltimore Sun has printed a disturbing OpEd by Andrew Yarrow, in which he makes the claim that Americans who retire early are "selfish and unpatriotic". Here are a few excerpts:

Early retirement selfish, unpatriotic

...But there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.

Dropping out of the work force while still in one's prime means ending one's contributions to America's strength, mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future and leeching trillions of taxpayer dollars from the economy.

...Thus, working longer would increase national output and personal wealth. And given our nation's crying need for teachers, social service workers and public servants, millions of "seasoned citizens" could serve our communities while giving meaning and money to people with decades of life and activity left in them.

...For everyone's good, Americans should at least be able to work as long as their shorter-lived, poorer grandparents did. By doing so, they would be unselfishly helping preserve and strengthen our nation's future by alleviating - rather than worsening - our national debt and making hands-on contributions to our children and communities.

There are a few noteworthy unstated premises in his argument.

(1) Your life is not your own; instead service to others is the highest good.

(2) Selfishness is opposed to patriotism; in other words looking out for your own interests is harmful to the USA.

(3) When you stop working, you are "leeching" off of others.

Of course, the current system of Social Security taxes are just a giant Ponzi scheme. The government attempts to promote the fiction that you are paying your own money into the system when you work and you are "getting it back" when you retire. At least Yarrow is correct in stating that retirees are collecting other people's money.

As the Social Security crisis deepens over the next decade or so, I expect we'll here more such collectivist arguments, in an attempt to forestall intergenerational resentment amongst American.

But the solution is not to force people to work longer for a mythical "common good". Instead, it is to phase out and eventually eliminate the collectivist system of Social Security altogether and let people truly fund their own retirement with their own money. Yes, there will be some painful transition costs. But if we do nothing, we'll pay in the form of vastly more economic pain in 15-20 years, with interest.

Read more...

OAC Early Application Deadline

An announcement from the Ayn Rand Institute:

The Early Admissions deadline for the Objectivist Academic Center (OAC) is April 16, 2008 -- just a few weeks away!

The OAC is a distance-learning program of the Ayn Rand Institute offering classes on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, as well as on the methods of objective thinking and communication. If you are interested in Ayn Rand’s ideas and would like to study them in greater detail under the guidance of ARI staff intellectuals, then the OAC is the program for you.

By applying early, you greatly increase your chances of acceptance into a limited number of openings. Also, those who are not offered Early Admission are reconsidered during the Regular Admissions process on an equal basis with other applicants, giving them, in effect, two chances to be admitted. The application process is quite competitive, so we urge you to apply today!

Visit www.objectivistacademiccenter.org for more information. If you have any questions about the program, please contact oac@aynrand.org.

As I've said before, the courses offered by the Objectivist Academic Center have exceeded my wildest expectations. I cannot recommend the program highly enough.

Read more...

Opposite Sex Friendships

The just-married Dan Edge -- Congratulations, Dan and Kelly! -- recently posted a very interesting essay on opposite-sex friendships. His general policy is that he refrains from developing intimate friendships with women when he's in a committed relationship.

I agree with his overall analysis, particularly as applied to married or to-be-married persons. (Before that point, with some exception for long-term couples, I wouldn't regard the relationship as "committed," although it might be "exclusive.")

Contrary to our culture's common sappy mysticism, love is not a magic glue that holds people together, come what may. That love can be imperiled fairly quickly -- if a person fails to consistently make his/her spouse (or partner) the most important person in his/her life. One common way of failing in that basic task is to cultivate emotional intimacy with a person who might (absent the primary relationship) be a love interest. That kind of friendship saps time and energy away from the love relationship. Issues discussed in depth with the friend are not likely to be discussed again with the spouse, or at least not discussed so deeply. That weakens the bond between the couple, while strengthening the bond with the friend. Sexual feelings for the intimate friend will have to be suppressed -- but at some point, the requisite self-control might fail. In that case, the affair didn't "just happen," as many people would say. Disaster was deliberately courted, probably over the course of months.

Of course, those considerations apply only to intimate friendships -- not merely friendly friendships. Friendly friends talk about their work, hobbies, politics, mutual interests, and so on. They talk about matters that they'd discuss with pretty much anyone they like. They talk on occasion or when convenient. Intimate friends discuss private thoughts and feelings, depend on each other's discretion, and regularly carve out private time to spend together. Mere friendly friends (of whatever sex) are not a danger to a romantic relationship. Intimate friends of the opposite sex can be, precisely because such intimacy is so central to romantic relationships.

(Oy, that was less coherent than I was hoping, but oh well. More fodder for debate in the comments, I suppose!)

Read more...

Economics Lessons From the First Thanksgiving

Caroline Baum, the Bloomberg financial columnist who has written favorably about Ayn Rand, once wrote an interesting essay about economic incentives and the first Thanksgiving.

Here are some excerpts from Baum's essay. (The material in quotes is from William Bradford, governor of the Plymouth Bay Colony for 30 years between 1621 and 1656):

...The Pilgrims' first winters after they landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and established the Plymouth Bay Colony were harsh. The weather and crop yields were poor.

Half the Pilgrims died or returned to England in the first year. Those who remained went hungry. Despite their deep religious convictions, the Pilgrims took to stealing from one another.

...One of the traditions the Pilgrims had brought with them from England was a practice known as "farming in common." Everything they produced was put into a common pool; the harvest was rationed according to need.

They had thought "that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing," Bradford recounts.

They were wrong. "For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte," Bradford writes. Young, able-bodied men resented working for others without compensation. They thought it an "injuestice" to receive the same allotment of food and clothing as those who didn't pull their weight.

...After the Pilgrims had endured near-starvation for three winters, Bradford decided to experiment when it came time to plant in the spring of 1623. He set aside a plot of land for each family, that "they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves."

The results were nothing short of miraculous.

Bradford writes: "This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content."

The women now went willingly into the field, carrying their young children on their backs. Those who previously claimed they were too old or ill to work embraced the idea of private property and enjoyed the fruits of their labor, eventually producing enough to trade their excess corn for furs and other desired commodities.

...With proper incentives in place, the Pilgrims produced and enjoyed a bountiful harvest in the fall of 1623 and set aside "a day of thanksgiving" to thank God for their good fortune.

"Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day," Bradford writes in an entry from 1647, the last year covered by his history.

We now know the Pilgrims' good fortune had nothing to do with luck. In 1623, they were responding to the same incentives that, almost four centuries later, have come to be regarded as necessary for a free, productive and prosperous society.

I don't know if Ayn Rand was familiar with the Pilgrims' story when she wrote her fictional history of the Twentieth Century Motor Company in Atlas Shrugged. (Of course, her direct personal experience growing up in the USSR undoubtedly provided her with ample evidence of the importance of property rights, without having to study the history of the Pilgrims!)

But the parallels are striking, because the principle is the same. Trying to live by the credo of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" leads only to misery and poverty, and turns decent people into criminals. On the other hand, respecting property rights results in happiness and prosperity.

If only more Americans had remembered the economic and moral lessons of 1623, then we might have avoided some of the painful mistakes of the 20th century.

Read more...

Pat Condell on Fitna Fiasco

Pat Condell is at it again with this commentary on Fitna (all 15 minutes of the film were made available again at LiveLeak.com, now that they've beefed up their security against death threats from adherents of the Religion of Peace™):



Great stuff, except for the line about prosecuting criticism of his culture as a "hate crime". That's not a rights violation. (And thinking something viciously stupid while actually violating someone's rights wouldn't make it a worse crime; that only makes the criminal a worse person.)

[HT: LGF]

Read more...

Update to the Comments

I've just updated the NoodleFood comment script in order to improve its handling of URLs in the following two ways:

(1) You no longer need to put URLs in pointy brackets to have them converted into links. All URLs should now be converted into links automatically.

(2) The displayed text of long URLs will be truncated, so that they don't cause horizontal scrolling.

My programming skills are pretty rusty, so hopefully those changes will work as expected. If not, please send me an e-mail to diana@dianahsieh.com. You'll need to send a brief description of what happened and, if possible, the text of your comment.

Read more...

Sick, Again

I'm sick. Again. For the third time this academic year. It seems like a head cold this time.

I'm not pleased.

Read more...

Nuisance and Pornography

Paula Hall recently sent me the following inquiry:

I was browsing the Ayn Rand Lexicon and came across the following [in the entry on free speech]:

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality.

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as "For Adults Only," may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech.

[The NoodleFood reader continues:] I can readily understand the concept of statutory rape. I am having difficulty with the notion that "[l]egal restraints on certain types of public displays . . . are proper," when the context refers to displays on private property -- no matter what the content. Rights can be violated only through physical force, and words and pictures are not force. Since when has there been a right not be "confronted with sights [a person] regard[s] as loathsome?" By what public standard could anyone determine what was "loathsome" and subject to restriction?

I am inclined to assume that I am missing something, rather than that Rand is inconsistent(!). What am I missing?

Paul and I have discussed this matter at some length, but I don't have time to write up our present view in any detail. Very briefly, our view is that the government can properly forbid nuisances as a kind of tort. However, a nuisance is not just something that someone doesn't like. Rather, it's an unavoidable, perceptual impingement, such that a person cannot go about his ordinary business in its presence. Examples of nuisances would include bright lights, loud music, and nasty smells -- but not a Mexican flag, a mural of a nude woman, or rap music at a normal volume. The particular content of the nuisance is irrelevant. A person has no right to be protected from exposure to disagreeable aspects of the world. That would open the door wide to all kinds of rights-violating restrictions on speech. However, a person does have a right not be "assaulted" by physically painful or unavoidably distracting percepts via some kind of nuisance law.

Some of that analysis fits with Ayn Rand's quoted comments, but not all of it. If we disagree with her on this fine point of legal philosophy, so be it. However, since neither Paul nor I are experts on philosophy of law, we're definitely interested in hearing arguments on all sides.

Read more...

Faith Versus Reason #6

The Ayn Rand Institute recently posted eight short Q&As on faith versus reason to its YouTube account. They're an excellent series, and I hope that ARI will post more such videos. Here's the sixth, featuring Leonard Peikoff speaking on the morality of the Old Testament:



If you like it, please give it a good rating! You can find links to all eight videos on the first one.

Read more...

The Essence of Muslim Fundamentalism

Back in April 2006, when I was blogging about the brouhaha over the Ayn Rand Institute's panel on the Danish cartoons at NYU, I received about eleven awful e-mails from "Shamyl" -- a vicious, Jew-hating Muslim -- in response.

The e-mails mostly consisted of bizarre texts and links on Jewish conspiracy, the Israel lobby, the evils of Judaism, and so on. Some were directed at me, e.g. "STOP HARASSING ISLAM AND THE MUSLIMS YOU FACIST ZIONIST SOW!!"

Although some of the e-mails were seriously disturbing, I wasn't too concerned about my safety, as the e-mail address and sending IP were out of the UK. However, I didn't want to receive more, so I stopped them by blocking the e-mail address on my server. In retrospect, I probably should have reported them to the authorities.

I've decided to post two of those e-mails now -- in the wake of the fatwa against Wafa Sultan -- to make crystal clear the thoroughly disgusting nature of threats against critics of Islam. It is quite frightful to have such sentiments personally directed against you -- and I can only admire the bravery people like Wafa Sultan, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Yaron Brook, and John Lewis who've been subject to serious harassment, threats, and worse for daring to criticize Islam. My brief encounter with "Shamyl" was nothing in comparison.

So, without further comment: Vicious E-mail #1 and Vicious E-mail #2. Beware of the second, as it contains some particularly revolting anti-Semitic cartoons.

Read more...

Ten Commandments Weekend

In the comments, Mel McGuire recently posted a link to Senate Resolution 483 for a "Ten Commandments Weekend" in the first weekend of May 2008. Here's the relevant bits of text:

Recognizing the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend'.

March 13, 2008

Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend'.

Whereas the Ten Commandments are precepts foundational to the faith of millions of Americans;

Whereas the Ten Commandments are a declaration of fundamental principles for a fair and just society;

Whereas, from the founding of the United States, the Ten Commandments have been part of America's basic cultural fabric;

[Quotes from past presents omitted]

Whereas, in addition to being understood as an elemental source for American law, the Ten Commandments have become a recognized symbol of law in our Nation's culture;

Whereas a marble relief portrait of Moses, the Hebrew prophet and bearer of the Ten Commandments, is located prominently in the United States Capitol over the gallery doors of the chamber of the House of Representatives in honor of his work in establishing the principles that underlie American law;

Whereas images of the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed in many Federal buildings, including the United States Supreme Court, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress; and

Whereas the first weekends of May in 2006 and 2007 were celebrated by many Americans as 'Ten Commandments Weekend' in recognition of the importance of the Ten Commandments in their faith and the history and culture of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) recognizes the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend';

(2) celebrates the Ten Commandments as a significant aspect of the national life of the United States; and

(3) encourages citizens of the United States to reflect on the integral role that the Ten Commandments have played in the life of the Nation.

UGH.

If you want to know why the basic moral view endorsed in this resolution -- Divine Command Theory -- is so totally, awfully, and completely wrong, regardless of the contents of the actual commands, I'd recommend Onkar Ghate's lecture: Religion and Morality. It's available for free to registered users of the Ayn Rand Institute web site.

Read more...

Fatwa against Wafa Sultan

LGF reports that "Wafa Sultan has been forced into hiding, after her appearance on Al Jazeera prompted a death fatwa from a scholar of the Religion of Peace." From Israel National News:

(IsraelNN.com) Dr. Wafa Sultan has been forced to go into hiding with her family following a fatwa (religious edict) from an Islamic scholar, according to Omedia. Sultan faces the fatwa following a recent debate on Al-Jazeera in which she challenged Egyptian Islamist Talat Rheim over Dutch cartoons of Mohammed, who Muslims revere as a prophet. Sultan argued that Denmark had the right to print the cartoons.

Sultan joins a growing list of public critics of radical Islam facing death threats. Her supporters have asked the American public to join them in writing to the embassy of Qatar, the country which sponsors Al-Jazeera, as well as to United States President George Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking them to defend Sultan's right to free speech and personal safety.

I'm not sure that's the most effective response, so more suggestions for action would be much appreciated. (Via Brian Smith)

Read more...

Moving the Crowd

An interesting tidbit from Paul, originally posted to the "activists" mailing list of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

In the physical realm, a small group of people who know what they want and are willing to act in a concerted fashion to accomplish their goal can shape the direction of the rest of the crowd. Here is some interesting research.

"Recent research shows that as little as 5% of a crowd can influence the direction of the rest of the crowd":

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005005.html

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/press_releases/current/flock.htm

Professor Krause, with PhD student John Dyer, conducted a series of experiments where groups of people were asked to walk randomly around a large hall. Within the group, a select few received more detailed information about where to walk. Participants were not allowed to communicate with one another but had to stay within arms length of another person.

The findings show that in all cases, the "informed individuals" were followed by others in the crowd, forming a self-organising, snake-like structure. "We've all been in situations where we get swept along by the crowd," says Professor Krause. "But what's interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren't allowed to talk or gesture to one another. In most cases the participants didn't realise they were being led by others."

Other experiments in the study used groups of different sizes, with different ratios of "informed individuals." The research findings show that as the number of people in a crowd increases, the number of informed individuals decreases. In large crowds of 200 or more, five per cent of the group is enough to influence the direction in which it travels. The research also looked at different scenarios for the location of the "informed individuals" to determine whether where they were located had a bearing on the time it took for the crowd to follow.

The equivalent from the world of ideas is best expressed in this scene from The Fountainhead:

Kent Lansing: "All I mean is that a board of directors is one or two ambitious men--and a lot of ballast. I mean that groups of men are vacuums. Great big empty nothings. ...Don't worry. They're all against me. But I have one advantage: they don't know what they want. I do."

One could make the case that the same is true at the level of state politics -- a relatively small number of people can have a disproportionately large impact on the direction of political discourse if they know what they want and they are willing to act in a consistent, concerted fashion towards their goal.

Why does Paul mention state (rather than national) politics? Because national politics is flooded with well-funded people attempting to move the crowd, almost always toward greater statism. In local and state politics, it's far easier for a small group of people to shift the wind of public opinion. And if enough people are moving their respective states in a better direction, then that will help move the nation.

Read more...