The Credit Crunch and Socialism

I came across an article on a blog recently that exemplifies how far removed from reality the socialists’ ideology is. This person declares that “Capitalism is Bankrupt”.

The blog-owner begins: “Their system creates recession, hunger and climate chaos, but they want you to pay.”

Evidence for this please?

Let’s compare the freer countries in this world to the less-free. Let’s compare America of the 19^th century to Soviet Russia of the 20^th. Let’s compare quality of living for even the poorest member of society in pre-industrial society to the poorest person now. Let’s compare the freedom, happiness, healthcare, and wealth, of countries with fewer government restrictions to those with more. Further examples are irrelevant; anyone with even a passing knowledge of world history can tell you the difference; between what happens when men are free to create and trade and invent, and when they are stifled, regulated, and restricted.

The facts of history in every region where it has been systematically practised show that socialism fails.

“Until A few weeks ago, supporters of free market capitalism were confident enough to proclaim that their system was the only way that the world could be organised. Now their certainties have vanished.”

So a few weeks of economic crisis are enough to make the supporters of capitalism uncertain and unsure of their ideology? Who are these supporters and where? Are they are the mixed-economy type (a contradiction in terms), or are they the capitalists who believe morality is still self-sacrifice and dutiful service to those who have earned nothing?

True capitalists are not so easily daunted; if fact, we cannot be daunted, because we know that capitalism is the only MORAL political system, and nothing can violate this principle, ever.

In fact, this attack is capitalism is very foolish for one very important reason: capitalism has NEVER fully been given a chance! Whereas every variety of socialism has tried and failed, capitalism has never been fully practised. 19^th century America came the closest anyone has to it, and witness what happened: the freest, happiest, wealthiest, most powerful nation in human history.

“The economic crisis that started in banking and finance has spread quickly to the wider economy. Now it threatens to engulf whole countries, bringing untold misery to millions.”

But did the economic crisis merely start in banking in finance? Let’s quickly look at inflation. In Ayn Rand’s words:

“The expansion of a country’s currency (which, incidentally, cannot be perpetrated by private citizens, only by the government) consists in palming off, as values, a stream of paper backed by nothing but promises (or hot air) and getting actual values, the citizens’ goods or services, in return—until the country’s wealth is drained. A similar activity, in private performance, is the passing of checks on a non-existent bank account. But, in private performance, this is regarded as a crime—and most people understand why such an activity cannot last for long.

Today, people are beginning to understand that the government’s account is overdrawn, that a piece of paper is not the equivalent of a gold coin, or an automobile, or a loaf of bread—and that if you attempt to falsify monetary values, you do not achieve abundance, you merely debase the currency and go bankrupt.” – Moral Inflation.

The source of wealth is production. And money represents produced goods non-yet-consumed. The government is never a source of production and therefore never a source of wealth. The source of production is private individuals (and companies) who transform the world into objects of value and trade these values with people for other values. A free trader trades value for value – he cannot trade value for fresh air, because his counterpart will not accept fresh air as payment, nor will the trader except it from his counterpart. The only agent in the world that can trade fresh air for value, that can convolute “money” out of thin air to trade, is the government. This is the cause of inflation. Whilst actual produced goods are linked to the free market (what people are freely capable of producing and what anyone is freely capable to buy), money by contrast is printed in bulk by the government. This devalues it.

In a free market, the price of any product is the lowest a seller can make a profit on it and simultaneously the highest a buyer is prepared. There is no way to contradict this law of supply and demand except by force, and the only institution with the power to exert this force is: government.

Did banks and building societies force anyone to accept their loans? Did free citizens force banks to trade with them? No, and no. Now consider that the government has persistently put pressure on banks to offer people loans that they cannot afford, and consistently bailed out banks and private citizens that continue to be reckless with their money – at the expense of the taxpayer. Where does this money come from? How is this money linked to the market, to supply and demand? It isn’t. When two people lose out on a trade, the only people that lose out are them. Now, when other people are forced to pay to cover their loss, a transaction they have had NO involvement with, the repercussions are felt by everyone, and the additional money required to cover this loss is not generated by wealth or production, is it taken by sabotaging wealth and limiting production. To illustrate this, imagine if, all other things being equal, you had to pay £1000 a month from your wages to cover another person’s foolishness or bad luck in business. But, how are you going to live? How will you make up this loss? You cannot pull money out of thin air. So you cut down on your spending (which means sellers now lose business and end up in the same boat as you), or maybe you demand to be paid more by your employer, who himself cannot make money out of thin air. So he rejects your demand, or makes other people unemployed, or pays you more money at a loss to himself. And of course if he does this for everyone, he makes even more loss. Bear in mind that he himself is already losing out because fewer people are buying his products because they are cutting their spending because their cost of living has gone up.

Because capitalism is the free voluntary trade of people with value for value, NO ONE ELSE benefits from this trade. Similarly, NO ONE ELSE is punished either. However, anyone can freely choose to ‘get in on the act’ and do business with other successful people, but no one is forced to, and no one is forced to pay the price for failure. Conversely, the only system where people can be forced to pay for others is under socialism.

“Belarus, Hungary, Iceland, Pakistan and Ukraine all stand on the brink of bankruptcy. Beyond them are even bigger countries – including Poland, Russia, Argentina and Turkey – whose economies are in danger of collapse.”

And why are they in danger of collapse? Is it due to producers over-charging? Is it due to buyers defrauding sellers? Or is it due to paper money spending for non-existent resources? And if so, whose fault is this?

“As their currencies slide and exports falter, all of these countries have been forced to borrow heavily just to ensure that they can pay their bills.

Some have so little in their foreign exchange reserves that they will only last a matter of weeks without an injection of cash. They have been forced to beg the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for emergency loans.

But the IMF – an organisation dominated by the rich countries of the West – will only extend its help at a price.”

Well, yes. What does the socialist suggest? That rich countries sustain other countries and business for no benefit and even loss? Actually, yes. That is the irrational anti-human ideology of the socialist: sacrifice.

“During past crises, it has demanded swingeing cuts in government budgets, privatisation of industries and the liberalisation of markets. Struggling nations are now preparing themselves for the worst.

In Pakistan, where already millions cannot afford food or the fuel to cook it with, the government has announced the ending of fuel subsidies and the removal of a cap on gas and electricity prices. This is to be accompanied by big cuts in government spending.

In Hungary, the government has suggested a massive assault on its state pension and the slashing of pay as part of the bailout of the economy.”

Well, if the government’s solution to economic crisis in these countries was to remove its controls and liberate the market, then what was the problem in the first place that made the situation so bad and forced the government to address its interventionist policies??

Why did the government decide to take action (by reducing its involvement) unless there was already a problem? And since the solution was a move towards a freer market, the free market couldn’t have been the problem in the first place!

“If the past is anything to go by, the IMF will endorse these measures but demand much more for its money.”

Perhaps the IMF should stop bailing other countries out then?

“The economic shockwave that is spreading across the world is not confining itself to poorer economies. Already the Bank of England estimates the cost of the financial crash at $2.8 trillion – a sum so big that it defies comprehention.

And despite the billions spent on bank bailouts, scores of British firms announced major redundancies this week.”

Obviously! Pouring water into a bucket with holes only tops it up for a short time. Money represents produced goods. Tipping trillions of dollars into a hole does not produce goods, create wealth, or solve the problem. It actually exacerbates the problem by spending already limited government money (read: money expropriated from taxpayers) on a cause it should have no involvement with, to solve a problem it created. It also punishes the innocent traders for the bad lending and bad borrowing of other people. Remember this the next time a socialist says that capitalists “want you to pay!”

“We are told that these shutdowns are inevitable and that it is pointless to resist. There is simply a lack of a demand for the goods that are produced, it is said.

But while goods pile up unsold and workers are laid off, millions of people go without the things they need because they can’t afford to buy them.”

The socialist wonders why. Alan Greenspan explains:

“The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.” – “Gold and Economic Freedom”, Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal.

The socialist continues:

“And the skills and machinery in each closing factory could offer solutions to some of the greatest problems facing humanity. For example, engineers who once made cars could be employed to make generators for alternative sources of energy.”

And who would employ them? And who would use their product?

There is only ONE problem facing man: the problem of survival. The only solution is for man to create the values he needs in order to live. Just as a man cannot think for another, he cannot live for another. Each person must transform the world into something to sustain his life, and where possible and necessary, trade his values for those others have. The fact that a tiny minority are unable to do so does not create a mortgage on the lives of others. Without a free mind and body, man cannot create and produce. Without the use of his produce, he cannot realise his Right to Life. A Right to Life without a Right to Property is a contradiction in terms; one flows from the other.

I make the above point to clarify the false implication in the socialists’ last paragraph: that there are problems for “humanity” which are NOT problems for individuals. There are ONLY individuals. Humanity is a collection of individuals, and the problem for each of us is the same: survival. And the ONLY ethical solution is: think, act, produce, consume, trade. This is the ONLY recourse left to free rational beings. The ONLY alternative is expropriation. When one man does this to another, he is a criminal and we arrest him. When a large group of men do this by force (or by vote, which amounts to the same thing), in order to “serve” those who can’t/won’t produce, we call it a welfare state. When one man takes money from another in order to fill the hole created by his failure or misfortunate, we lock him up and demand he repay what he has stolen. When a bureaucrat does this, we call it a “government bailout”.

And if a man needs to cut down a tree to survive, he must. If a man needs to build a car, or drill for oil, or kill animals for food, he must. If a man needs to compete in another market by inventing new fuel and energy sources, in order to survive, he must. And his fellow traders, the people who will want his product in exchange for their own, will decide if he is to be successful. What a man cannot morally (and therefore politically) do is FORCE his values or product on others. Nor can he force their value or product on himself. The only institution that can legally do this is: government. So is government the protector of our Rights, or the violator?

The socialist sees the need for alternative energy sources like the needs of those who have less: as a mortgage on those who CAN already produce energy and those who DO already have. But this is to be expected: socialism is the sacrifice of the CANs and DOs for the CAN’Ts and DON’Ts; of the HAVEs for the HAVE NOTs. Capitalism on the other hand means no sacrifice of anybody for anybody.

In fact, the glaringly obvious and appalling mistake all socialists make, like this one quoted here, is to forget that the only reason the Western countries became so rich and affluent whilst the rest of the world sits in a mire of poverty, superstitious, ignorance, and crime, is because WE allowed man to freely create wealth in the first place. Once again, witness the explosion of wealth and prosperity in 19^th century America to the fully-state-controlled socialist’s (and worker’s) paradise of Soviet Russia, where millions were systematically starved to death by the government because there was nothing to feed them with.

“We have the resources to build a better world. So far, the stranglehold of capitalism has been a barrier. Now it is up to us all to ensure that its hold is broken.”

The socialist wants the “stranglehold” of capitalism, that is: a political system where every human being is recognised as a sovereign individual with his own life as an end in itself, where he is free to trade or not to trade whatever he wants for whatever he can, at no harm to anyone – the socialist wants that replaced, with another stranglehold – a government that can legally violate your Rights by physical force to whatever end a mass of people or politicians deems “necessary” for whatever “greater good” they settle upon; where the sources and means of production are stifled, restricted, and regulated, and where the creative and productive and intelligent and efficient are a resource to be tapped for the uncreative, unproductive, unintelligent, and lazy.

The altruist sees each man as a means to another end: other people; society. The rational person sees each man as an end in himself; as a being in his own right. The altruist therefore wants a political system geared to sacrifice and cannibalism: socialism and communism. The rational man chooses life, he chooses capitalism.

Minimum Price on Alcohol

I heard this on the radio this morning and had to share it.  Original articles are quoted below (please read first).

So, once again, our brilliant police’s and government’s solution to a problem is: to punish EVERYONE for the actions of a criminal minority.

Forget the rights of supermarkets to charge whatever they want; forget the rights of innocent civilians to purchase whatever price they deem acceptable.

I love this line: “The immediate effect of below-cost alcohol is to tempt people to buy a lot more alcohol than would otherwise be the case.”  Classic!  So, the only thing stopping 99.9% of the population getting smashed and getting into a fight is a few quid here or there for a crate down the supermarket.

Check out another example of betraying your principles in one sentence: “As a rule, I don’t believe governments should set prices”, great news, oh, hang on, what’s that: “but when retailers are deliberately distorting the market we need to take action.”  What kind of a rule is it that can be violated whenever you feel like it?  I’ll try that in court: “As I rule I don’t believe in violence, but I was waiting in that queue for ages and had to take action!”  This is typical of society’s morality today: principles that can be dispensed of when the going gets tough.  But a moral principle can NEVER be dispensed with, by definition!

What Nick Clegg forgets is that NO free market price can distort the market, because if a shop sells at a loss, it eventually goes under, just as if a shop sells too high it gets undercut by its competitors.  The consumer chooses the best price he can, and it’s down to the expertise of ASDA, Tesco, etc to win over customers by offering deals on product it buys in bulk.

“Alcohol related violence, disorder and illness is now one of the biggest problems we face”

Well DEAL with the criminals who break the law then, and let the people who drink themselves into an early grave continue to do so: why should the rest of us pay?

“If supermarkets are not prepared to act responsibly it is time they are forced to do so.”

I’m sorry!  Do supermarkets have a responsibility to ensure people don’t misbehave?!  Since when were the actions of criminals the moral responsibility of anyone else, let alone supermarkets?  (Never, since moral responsibility for another person is a contradiction in terms.)

To illustrate just how stupid this statement is, imagine the government calling for a minimum price on kitchen knives!  “If people can buy kitchen knives for much cheaper than they normally could, they would be buying far more and be tempted to stab people!”  Or, “There must be a minimum price of fast food, because if people could buy fast food for even cheaper than normal, everyone would go and eat MacDonalds all day and have heart attacks and die!”

Oh actually, that last one isn’t made up: in America fast food chains are fined if they’re deemed “too unhealthy” and told what they can and can’t sell.  Apparently the US government sees a population of mindless Augustus Gloops that will get stuck in Willy Wonka’s chocolate pipe (please no jokes).

Anyone remember when people were responsible for THEIR own actions, and we were allowed to think for ourselves?

 

Articles below:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/home/nick-clegg-calls-for-a-minimum-price-on-alcohol-10825199;show

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today called for the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol, to stop shops selling alcohol at a loss.

Many supermarkets are selling alcohol such as spirits at such low prices – as ‘loss leaders’ – that the retail price does not even cover the cost of Duty and VAT (see attached document).

Nick Clegg revealed the proposal today in a speech at the Sheffield Alcohol Conference. It forms part of a paper on alcohol and licensing that the party’s Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Don Foster, will publish in October.

Nick Clegg said:

“It is unacceptable for retailers, especially big supermarkets, to run a coach and horses through alcohol duties in order to sell alcohol well below its cost.

“The immediate effect of below-cost alcohol is to tempt people to buy a lot more alcohol than would otherwise be the case.

“As a rule, I don’t believe governments should set prices, but when retailers are deliberately distorting the market we need to take action.

“That is why we should now look to the example of Ontario in Canada, where a socially responsible minimum price for alcohol has been successfully implemented.

“Alcohol related violence, disorder and illness is now one of the biggest problems we face. If supermarkets are not prepared to act responsibly it is time they are forced to do so.”

 

AND AGAIN:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7718950.stm

Pub happy hours should be banned and supermarkets stopped from selling alcohol at a loss in order to combat drink-fuelled disorder, MPs have said.

The Home Affairs select committee said reckless drinking was placing a heavy burden on police resources.

One possible solution for England and Wales, MPs said, would be legislation setting a minimum price on alcohol.

Their call comes in a report on challenges facing police forces in the 21st Century.

Scotland’s new licensing laws include powers to fix alcohol prices to stop cut-price promotions and happy hours, and ministers in Edinburgh say they might seek to set minimum prices for drink.

Ministers said they would “look carefully” at the report’s recommendations.

Police challenges

The report also said police faced a host of pressures, including public expectations over minor crime, rapid population change, and the number of murder suspects released on bail.

But it added that evidence showed the biggest problem faced by police forces was violence and disorder caused by excessive drinking of cheap alcohol.

It said one force had reported that its shift patterns were dictated by the need to have enough officers available to deal with the fall-out of weekend bouts of drunken disorder.

Drink-fuelled crime meant that many forces could not meet the public’s expectations of high-profile visible policing at other times, despite currently having record numbers in uniform, the report said.

Violence: 45% of victims say their attacker had been drinking

Increased police powers to tackle drunkenness were not working and powers to review or revoke premises’ alcohol licences were not being fully used, it said.

Almost half of all violent crime victims report that their attacker was under the influence of alcohol, according to official figures.

Other official figures on the cost of goods over time show alcohol has become much more affordable in the last three decades.

‘Unhappy communities’

Keith Vaz, chairman of the committee, said retailers must end a “pile it high, sell it cheap” culture around drink.

He accused supermarkets of flouting the spirit of a voluntary code on alcohol sales.

“We cannot have, on one hand, a world of alcohol promotions for profit that fuels surges of crime and disorder and, on the other, the police diverting all their resources to cope with it,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“At the moment you have a situation where so much of police time is taken up dealing with alcohol related crime.

“Happy hours lead to unhappy communities. Loss leaders in supermarkets cause real misery to city centres on a Saturday night.”

This report is right to highlight how mistaken the government has been to try to run policing through Whitehall targets, which have proved an expensive disaster   Chris Huhne, Lib Dem MP

Richard Dodd, from the British Retail Consortium, told BBC Breakfast that supermarkets were being unfairly demonised.

“Supermarkets believe in responsible drinking, too, and they do an enormous amount to achieve that, in terms of know-your-limits unit labelling and preventing underage purchases of alcohol, but there’s an awful lot of nonsense talked about this idea of below-cost selling.

“Because, if you just stop and think about it for a minute, no business could survive – let alone thrive – if it was routinely selling large amounts of product at less than it was actually paying for it.”

HAVE YOUR SAY

Do not penalise everyone who enjoys a sensible drink just because the sentencing for drunken louts is pathetic and there is no deterrent

Phil, North Wales

Send us your comments

But Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said the sale of cheap alcohol in supermarkets was a real problem.

“By the time [young people have] gone out, they’re completely drunk, they’re much more at risk of having an accident, of being a victim of a crime and that’s causing around £7bn worth of cost to the police.”

The report said MPs remained sceptical about whether recently introduced Alcohol Disorder Zones could work.

These force pubs and clubs to contribute towards the costs of policing drink-related crime.

A Home Office spokesman said: “We know the police and the public remain concerned about alcohol-related disorder.

“We have given the police, licensing authorities and trading standards officers a range of tough powers to tackle alcohol-related disorder, including on-the-spot fines, confiscating alcohol in public places and closing down premises that flout the law.

“Alongside this, the Department of Health has commissioned an independent review on the effects of alcohol price, promotion, consumption and harm which will be published shortly.”

‘Expensive disaster’

Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: “[The report] is a shocking indictment of Labour’s reckless approach to extended licensing and the top-down target-driven approach, which has resulted in perverse outcomes.”

He said the Conservatives would reverse Labour’s approach to 24-hour drinking, replacing it with “appropriate application at local discretion”.

“We would ensure that laws passed to deal with alcohol-fuelled disorder are actually enforced – and take robust action to prevent loss-leader sales targeted at the young.”

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: “This report is right to highlight how mistaken the government has been to try to run policing through Whitehall targets, which have proved an expensive disaster.”

Paul McKeever of the Police Federation of England and Wales said the report recognised many challenges posed for police by “binding red tape and targets”.

He said he hoped the Home Office would use it as a wider base for review and reform than recently attempted in the Policing Green Paper.

What is Objectivism?

It’s October 2008, and that is significant for two reasons.  Firstly, it marks exactly 12 months since this time last year, and secondly, it marks almost one year on from when I first started to study Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

 

Objectivism has many critics.  Why?  I will offer my personal opinions on that later.

 

Firstly, why Objectivism?  How did I come across it and why did I bother to learn more?

 

Many years ago, I used to be a moderator on IIDB, and encountered my first Christian Presuppositionalist.  I am not ashamed to say I was out of my depth arguing with him (Theophilus, I believe his handle was).  The only poster who I saw debate and destroy (in my opinion) his arguments was an Objectivist (I can’t remember their handle but I distinctly remember the words “existence exists” – something only an Objectivist would say).

 

Up until 2007 I wouldn’t come across any memorable mention of Objectivism or even the name Ayn Rand.  Last year I would spend hours on YouTube watching lectures by my favourite atheist intellectuals Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins; Hitchens is not a fan of Rand at all and mentioned Objectivism from time to time.  But again, I thought nothing of it.

 

Something was bothering me though.  My interests have never been confined to just atheism and science, which for me involved criticising religion and espousing the wonders of evolution.  I’ve always been very opinionated politically, but as I paid more attention to politics, I realised how incredibly ignorant I was.  Where did I stand politically, left, centre, or right?  And why?  What was the difference between communism and capitalism?  Was I right to think of myself as a socialist?  During this spell of questioning myself, I wondered which political party I should align myself with.  The idea of partial state-ownership of land seemed reasonable, and making the world a more unified and collective state meant I favoured joining the EU.  However I also strongly agreed with Christopher Hitchens and supported the war in the Iraq (something many internet atheists do not).  I favoured the war in Iraq because I thought it was a noble ideal because 1. it was intended to remove the threat of terrorism and 2. more importantly, freed the Iraqi people and promised to bring democracy.  Needless to say, I was also a strong proponent of democracy.  (Also needless to say, the two reasons given for the war in Iraq I have cited here are fundamentally flawed, because 1. the war was NEVER intended to remove the threat of terrorism despite the claims of our leaders and 2. spreading unlimited majority rule is neither noble nor moral, but I digress…)

 

And then in September 2007 a good friend of mine (you know who you are) sent me a link to another WordPress blog, to an article entitled Richard Dawkins is NOT an Atheist, which happened to be written by an Objectivist, Ergo.  My very first words were “I disagree.”  (My comment is number 35 on this post).  You will notice Yours Truly having, to put it in scientific terms, his arse handed to him.  Fortunately, I pride myself on intellectual honesty, and I like to think I always have (otherwise I would never have deconverted in the first place) – which means if I am shown to be wrong by objective rational standards, I will admit it and change my opinion.

 

In the coming weeks, I exchanged e-mails with the blog-owner, Ergo, initially just concerning moral dilemmas.  I remember asking his opinion on the Prisoner Dilemma, and his response was to my mind, unprecedented!  Rather than get bogged down by which is the best percentage game to play to ensure the best for all concerned, he simply explained the following: “where force is present, morality is impossible”.  Which basically means that the Prisoner Dilemma is in fact a false dilemma, and an absurd situation in which to formulate a moral code.

 

Sometime prior to this (last year), I had gotten myself into a debate with several theists also regarding moral dilemmas.  I was rude and impolite from the start of this debate and not wishing to promote a fundamentalist blog is the only reason I haven’t linked to that discussion either.  I was responded to with equal and abrupt rudeness by a fundamentalist, but most importantly I was unable to justify my position philosophically, which was also quite embarrassing.  The problem is that atheism itself is not a philosophy, and none of the New Atheists (like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc) had an objective basis for their positions.  Modern philosophy, like science, is rooted on the empiricists’ notion that certainty is impossible and degrees of probability are all we can hope for.  I knew this wasn’t good enough.  Just as I knew politically I was weak, I saw a philosophical weakness in myself.  Just as we all do, I needed objectivity.  Of course, many atheists claim to have it and virtually everybody recognises the NEED for it, but no one and nothing I had read provided it.  The best I could hope for was Ebonmuse’s Universal Utilitarianism, which for a time, provided an “objective morality” for me.

 

Then I started to ask Ergo about Objectivism itself – what it meant, what was different about it, and its consequences.  I am very appreciative of the time and patience he took to exchange long e-mails with me.

 

The discussions got onto politics.  Politics is the social extension of one’s morality.  That is to say: only when one understands what is right or wrong, can one begin to ask what should be allowed in society, when force should be used, and the proper role of government.  (This post is about my learning Objectivism; I will not be explaining the philosophy here).  Objectivism necessitates laissez-faire capitalism, which for me led to the immediate question: without taxes, who pays for all the things that taxes do?  And who cares for the disabled.  After fruitful discussions, Ergo even posted the following:  http://ergosum.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/who-cares-for-the-disabled/.

 

Rather than spoon-feed Objectivism to me, Ergo helped me understand the principles and suggest I apply my reasoning process to take me further.  I ordered several of Rand’s books immediately, the first of which I read was The Virtue of Selfishness (TVOS, incidentally I would always recommend this book to any beginner with Objectivism).  Next I read “Philosophy – Who Needs It?”  I now own nine of her books and I still haven’t finished reading them all!  The point I wish to make is this: I was committed to having a rational and objective philosophy, and I took the honest steps necessary to arrive at it.  I looked to the scientists, to the empiricists, to the physicalists, to New Atheists, and even to the fundamentalists, and none of them had it.  Ayn Rand did.

Many people cling to emotionalism and their preconceived beliefs.  This is true for atheists as much as theists.  The idea that the redistribution of wealth is evil and animal Rights are non-existence is RADICAL in today’s culture.  I know from experience that a person who is very emotional when it comes to animals WILL NOT listen to reason.  A person whose family member is living off state hand-outs doesn’t want to hear why the welfare state is a gross moral crime.  But as I have said, an intellectually honest person accepts reason.  Objectivism starts with necessary axioms of existence and (then) consciousness, and proceeds from there.  I was totally won over by Rand’s rational logical approach from start to end, and once one accepts the next chain in the link through the flow of the argument, one must accept a conclusion.  To put this in literal terms with an example: I COULD NOT accept that animals have Rights once I understood the correct nature of Rights, which are an extension of  MORALITY, with morality being a guide to man’s actions, based on his IDENTITY and relationship to REALITY.  And Reality is Existence, Existence is Identity, A = A. 

Another example: if one accepts that man’s property is his own, then NO circumstances EVER violate this principle.  That means that the welfare state is wrong; taxation is wrong; the redistribution of wealth is wrong.  No amount of “what if?” scenarios change this.  Because I understood this, it was not very difficult for me to “get” where Ayn Rand was coming from.

 

Have you ever read a book and found yourself smiling and nodding and saying to yourself, even out loud: “yes!”; “of course!”; “that makes so much sense!”?  Such was my reaction to TVOS.  And I maintain that John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged is the finest passage of text I have ever and will ever read.  For a long time as I was studying Objectivism and challenging it, I found myself unable to disagree or disprove any of its conclusions, because they logically follow from its foundation, which is reality itself.  And who can argue with reality?

 

I refrained from calling myself an Objectivist for many months because I wanted to be totally sure that I could reasonably understand and defend the philosophy to myself before I spoke from that position.

 

When I did finally call myself an Objectivist I was embracing a philosophy.  We all need a philosophy.  We all have one, whether we realise it or not.  The question is: is my philosophy logical, rational, self-consistent, complete, and founded upon reality?  If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, the philosophy is useless.  Objectivism explains epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.  As an Objectivist, I can justify my knowledge base and I can account for my metaphysics.  I have an objective rational morality.  I have a precise and consistent ethical political ideology.  I know what is right or wrong, and I know how to decide this for myself.  I know where I stand politically, and why.  These are the things everybody needs and most people crave, myself included.  Objectivism fulfils them.

 

So the obvious question I asked others including myself is: why aren’t more people Objectivists and why do many people object to it?  I won’t attempt to answer the first question but I will attempt the second: why do many people object to it?

 

Obviously the religious would object to Objectivism because Objectivism is a rational reality-based philosophy that rejects anything supernatural.  But many of the people I used to identify with, atheists, and those who follow Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett etc (The Big Four, like I used to) that I shall refer to as the New Atheists, are not Objectivists and disagree with Rand.  Disagree is a weak word.  I have encountered positive bile and venom towards Objectivism from the same people who accuse theists of it.  The same people who would applaud me for criticising religion and theism would spit hatred when I criticised THEIR cherished political beliefs, such as the welfare state.

 

This is why I do not identify myself as just an atheist or think of myself in the same group as other blog-writing secular atheists or Humanists.  For me, there are far too many of these New Atheists out there who’ve read the works of the Big Four, understand a bit of evolution, and fancy themselves intellectuals.  Unfortunately, they are totally philosophically ignorant.  Some of them are even explicit subjectivists, a position I hope I don’t need to explain the ridiculous stupidity of.

 

The problem with these atheists is that they think calling themselves an atheist makes them rational; as if they have left the irrationality of religion behind and are now free rational beings.  Some of them then become so sure of their new-found “rationality” that they become obstinate to change and develop an emotional commitment to their new beliefs: do you think there is a difference in rationality between a fundamentalist Christian and a mixed-economist?  There isn’t.  Are Muslim terrorists more irrational than socialists?  Not necessarily.  All these positions are fundamentally irrational and immoral.

 

And that is the fact that many people do not want to admit.  And that is why they don’t like Objectivism.  The problem is that most people hold their beliefs in a vacuum with no reference to reality.  They have no philosophical basis on which to draw conclusions so they hold a mass of opinions and notions together without noticing that most of them contradict the others: they want all the benefits of capitalism as long as everything is subject to state control.  They want to give animals the Right to not suffer but take away their Right to NOT be eaten for food.  They want the government to moderate food, drink, speech, decency, until it conflicts with their notions of acceptable food, drink, speech, and decency.  They want people to freely help other people, but then hold a gun to your head and demand your money for the welfare state when you “freely” choose not to.  They want to make as much money as possible for themselves, but take money away from those who have “too much”.

 

We live in a culture that refrains from moral judgment, where anything goes, where multiculturalism is encouraged, where the wealthy are the object of envy, where firm definite statements are laughed upon, and ‘objective reality’ is said tongue-in-cheek.  Objectivism is the antithesis of all these positions, and that is why some people will not accept it.

 

We live in a culture which tells us that morality is a “grey” issue.  With Objectivism, there is no grey issue.  Because morality is based on objective fact, there is always a right and wrong thing to do, although that doesn’t mean it’s always EASY to tell which is which.  But if you want to believe morality is grey, and someone tells you that there are definite objective moral truths, you will most likely be hostile.  It’s the same with Objectivism.

 

Now, there is only one other philosophy that tries to offer a complete self-consistent objective worldview: religion.  Religion fails (spectacularly).  But unfortunately, when the New Atheists see something that claims to be a complete self-consistent objective worldview, in a world that says that such a thing is impossible, what do they think?  Cult.  Objectivism has been called a cult before.  Anyone who understands Objectivism can appreciate how divorced from the truth this accusation is.  A cult is precisely what Ayn Rand would NEVER approve of, despite how some misguided fanatical “followers” of her have acted.  Just as all religions claim that only their religion is the right way to live your life, I would also claim that Objectivism is the only right philosophy by which to live.  That is the sort of claim that would make many Atheists dubious, and even aggressive, to Objectivism.  But is that fair?

 

So the truth is, I can see why some people might see Objectivism the way they do.  I do understand why some people don’t like it.  And I definitely understand why some people don’t understand it.  But this is not the failing of Objectivism.  In my opinion it is the failing of others to be honest with themselves and rational; in short, it is the failing of those who put emotion over reason.

 

In a society where emotionalism and “doing whatever you feel like” is the norm, this is hardly surprising.  In a society where objectivity is avoided, Objectivism is like a silver stake to a vampire.  In a society where altruism is the moral ideal, rational egoism is the epitome of evil.

 

*

 

It was early this year that I decided I could honestly call myself an Objectivist.  And although my articles have dried up of late, I am still very passionate about philosophy and politics.  I wanted to take this opportunity to reflect on the past year that has probably been the biggest intellectual progression for me since I deconverted.  And I also wanted to express a few thoughts I’ve been having for a while about other atheists, Ayn Rand, and why I think her work evokes some of the reactions it does.

 

If you’re curious about Ayn Rand’s philosophy, by all means read the blogs of Objectivists (see my blogroll for suggestions), but the best thing I can recommend is to buy and read her books yourself.  Although I can’t predict your reaction I can guarantee that if you are honest and rational, what she has to say might just change the way you see the whole world.

Western governments to sacrifice even more money on developing countries

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is preparing to spend £40m of taxpayers’ money plus £5m a year on research into malaria treatments and vaccines in the developing world.

 

http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=9769780

 

With the NHS millions and millions of pounds in debt, is this really where the government’s priority should be?

 

Apparently the US is also committing $5bn to the cause.  Where is this money coming from?

 

One million people die from Malaria every year, so the charitable act of free people to help others is indeed a commendable one.  But the enormous sums of money being invested into other countries is at the non-voluntary expense of the taxpayers of those countries; countries whose economy is already faltering; the US is in great financial turmoil and Britain is on the brink of recession.  So what do our altruistic governments decide to do?: hand over millions or billions of expropriated wealth into causes that arguably have no benefit to their own countries.

 

Now the Pope is asking the Western world to be “brave” despite their financial problems and end poverty and hunger (as if it was the sacred responsibility of these governments to carry out these tasks).

 

Needless to say, I am not against charity or helping other countries out, providing such countries are at least partly-free and doing so is of practical benefit to our own.  Indeed, when people are left free to appreciate their own property and wealth they invariably do help the less-fortunate out by charity.  This is undeniable: where do you think any and all existing charity in the world today actually comes from?  It CANNOT come from the have-nots, so it must come from the haves.

 

What I am against is the role of government as a re-distributor of wealth and “saviour” of other less-fortunate countries, which necessarily comes at the sacrificial expense of its own.  It must necessarily come at sacrificial expense, because the billions of pounds being given to help developing nations is not connected to any real world market – it is taken from mass taxation and is not linked to any genuine production (which is the source of wealth).  This is obvious, since if countries were so wealthy that they could spare this much money to help other nations, their economy would not be in the state that it is!

 

The issue of taxation aside, a government’s role is to protect the Rights of its citizens, and that is all.  For a government to actually acquire its own citizens’ wealth and plunge billions of it to aid foreign countries whilst their own economy is on the rocks is not just foolishness, it is treachery.

Rumours of my demise

…are greatly exaggerated!  I haven’t been blogging much lately.  Initially this was because I was devoting my literary creativity to a work of fiction, latterly because my passion for writing had diminished due to other things in my life, but mostly because I’ve been playing a MMORPG to death!

 

In the coming days and weeks I plan to get back onto the regular blogging scene, but I hope to make my posts shorter and more current-affairs based, instead of detailed essays that cover general issues.  This is mostly because I feel I’ve already written about almost every important matter in great detail.

 

Today I’d just like to mention a complaint several colleagues were having over new congestion charges in Manchester.  The Council is introducing charges merely to enter the city by road, and further congestion charges aimed at reducing car use, pollution etc etc.  Most people who know me are aware of my political stance, which is an application of my morality, and my morality from my philosophy, so on this occasion I didn’t bother entering the discussion.

 

The interesting thing is that only last week we were discussing government interference in the market.  The typical mixed-economy supporter believes government should interfere in a market where there is a genuine “life-or-death” need, such as healthcare, food and drink, or power.  One of the usual arguments in favour of government interference in the departments of Water and Power is that is lowers prices and ensures competition, when actually the exact opposite is true; government endorsement of one or two companies is actually the ONLY way for coercive monopolies to exist, and even if the cost to the consumer is apparently cheaper, higher taxes and inflation are the result (e.g.: the NHS).

 

Of course, the very question that mixed economists don’t (and cannot) answer is this: what gives government the right to interfere in the transactions of private businesses and individuals?  There is no legitimate political answer to this question, because there is no moral justification for it.  Government’s sole purpose is to protect the Rights of its citizens, not to deny the “haves” in order to supply the “have-nots”.

 

This is why the same mixed economists who complain about yet another needless tax are reaping the seeds of their own doing.  They want a government that has arbitrary power to violate the Rights of its people, yet they complain when it actually does so!  But of course, they only complain when THEIR rights are violated!  Who cares about the businessman, whose creativity and industry provides the foundations of society, because he has money anyway?  Who cares about the people who take care of the bodies through good health practices and rarely require healthcare, because they obviously have too much money in the first place?  Who cares about the profitability of companies who can provide water and power, because people “need” these things?  The mixed economists don’t care – they want it THEIR way.  But of course, the only way to force other people to suit you regardless of the cost is by government force, a two-edged sword.  So when inflation soars and government needs even more money to fill the hole created by its interference in the market, it looks to squeeze even more money from its citizens by ridiculous fines and charges.

 

The mixed economists don’t even question the absurdity of charging ANYONE for using their own property, regardless of what the alarmist environmentalists threaten will happen (which changes from year to year, decade to decade).  Compare the pollution caused by cars to that of enormous power plants.  If polluting the air is wrong (it’s negligible anyway) let’s close the power plants.  Instead we’ll just light fires to keep warm.  But wait, burning fuel releases carbon dioxide, and we can’t have that…

 

Anyway, the point is to highlight the contradictions inherent in any socialist’s politics.  A typical socialist wants government interference, and doesn’t want it.  A socialist wants government to have enormous discretionary power, and then complains when HIS rights are violated.  This is because a person’s politics are derived from their morality, and the morality of the socialist (which is the true name for a mixed economist) is that of collectivism and altruism.  And the collectivist denies that any man has a right to live for his own sake; that his sole purpose for living is to serve others.  They must believe this, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be collectivists, and would necessarily embrace the ONLY political system that totally respects individual Rights: capitalism.

 

So before you moan about more taxes and congestion charges etc, check your politics, check your morals.

Life as the Ultimate Value

Continuing a discussion on a recent article of mine, here is my reply to one of the commenters on that article. Because my reply is so long and explains in detail the Objectivist theory of rational values and life as the ultimate value, and refutes any alternative notions, I thought it would be helpful to display it here in a blog of its own:

Martin’s comments are in italic and bold:

Evanescent you are repeating yourself, saying nothing new and failing to answer the questions and avoiding them instead. I will analyze your last comment one more time and list the question for actual answer rather than avoidance.

Just because you refuse to accept the answers I give doesn’t mean I am avoiding anything.

Incidentally, you, like your anti-objectivist kin, have yet to answer the challenges that I have presented. Namely: name an ultimate value other than life (since I proved that there MUST be one), and: state your own objective moral system and justify it philosophically from reality.

I am still waiting.

“Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher – life makes value possible.”

This is the genetic fallacy. Just because life is the cause of value does not mean it is value. Alonzo made an equivalent argument over the existence of value versus the value of value.

Objectivist definition of value: that which one acts to keep and/or gain.

Does one act to keep and/or gain life? Yes. Therefore life is a VALUE.

Q1: Now please answer and try to refute either what I or Alonzo said.

“There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself.”

If a value is an end in itself – the other meaning of intrinsic BTW.

You are wrong here. An end in itself does NOT mean intrinsic, it means that it is not a means to any other end.

Intrinsic (in the case of value) means that something is a value in and of itself, without reference to a valuer. Life is NOT a value in itself and Objectivist doesn’t claim that it is. It does claim that life is a value to the VALUER. It does not claim that human life is sacred, or precious in and of itself. What it DOES claim is that a human being’s life is a value to HIMSELF/HERSELF.

…(versus a value that is a means instrumental), then there is no “by definition” that there is only one such value. Q2: Where is your argument that this is singular? Q3: What is the meaning of an ultimate value if it is not intrinsic? Do you just mean an end in itself?

Already answered in my paragraph above.

As Ergo and I have already proven, there must be an ultimate value for philosophical and logical reasons that is an end in itself. You haven’t actually rejected this I don’t think, since you recognise the epistemological nihilism that would await you, therefore I assume you accept it; you just deny that life is the ultimate value. However, it necessarily is, and it necessarily is the ONLY ultimate value for the reasons argued above.

“Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.”

This challenge has been repeatedly met. A desire to avoid pain, a desire for happiness, a desire to avoid predators, a desire for food, a desire for drink, a desire for sex. These are all ends in themselves.

How can you not realise the absurdity of your own statements?

Why do you DESIRE these things? Why is happiness a value to you? Why is food, drink, sex, a value to you??

These are self-evidently NOT values in themselves. You eat because you ENJOY food, and pleasure makes life worth living. You eat because otherwise you will die. You eat ultimately because you are pursuing your LIFE. Eating is a means to an end. All forms of recreation are a means to an end. Food and drink are a means to an end.

To ultimately destroy this argument of yours, I will use another analogy using “food” and “drink”. Imagine you are immortal (like a vampire or something) and you don’t need to eat or drink at all – of what value would food and drink be to you then? None.

Imagine you didn’t care if you enjoyed your mortal life or not. Of what benefit would tasty food, good friends, great sex, be to you? None. Zero. They would be valueless.

Everything you can possibly think of is only a value to you in the context of enjoying your LIFE and furthering your LIFE. They are of NO value outside of this context. And it is this more than anything else that refutes everything you’ve said. More than just objective philosophy, this is just common sense. How can you fail to see that?

They are all relational values the value is in the relation between the desire and its fulfillment. Q4: Your “stealing the concept ” argument is invalid. How can you show these are not ends in themselves without breaking Occam’s Razor?

Occam’s razor is totally irrelevant here. For a start, O.R. doesn’t state that the simple-minded explanation is the best. First off, it has to ACTUALLY BE an explanation to begin with! Your suggestions for alternative “ends in themselves” explain nothing, contradict reality, and open more questions – therefore they are not parsimonious and in fact violate O.R.

“There are no rational “multiple ends” – this is logically self-evident.”

Empty rhetoric. Q5: Where is your argument that this is self-evident.

Every goal that you pursue, you do so with your life as the ultimate value. You might deny this but that’s irrelevant, as I’ve already shown it’s the case whether you realise it or not.

Example: to pursue multiple ends is contradictory: it is akin to smoking whilst having therapy for lung cancer (which of course some people do). This is irrational. If one wants to live, therapy is the answer, but smoking is inimical to human life. One might claim to be pursuing pleasure by smoking, but if one’s wishes to stay alive, the irrational pursuit of pleasure (or pain for that matter) is contradictory. Either you want or live or you don’t. If you do, don’t smoke. If you don’t, kill yourself immediately. There is no rational middle ground.

Incidentally, this AGAIN shows you that pursuing pleasure/pain CANNOT be an end in itself. IF it was, then one should pursue pleasure <i>for the sake of it</i>, which means one should take harmful drugs, rape girls for pleasure, steal money, hurt people if necessary etc etc – do WHATEVER brings happiness to you! Is this what you’re suggesting?? I doubt it, but if pleasure is an end in itself as YOU claim, this is the logical corollary.

I won’t labour this point further: it has well and truly been established: to avoid irrationality and contradictions, an ultimate goal/value is necessary.

Far from being “empty rhetoric” this is the objective rational basis of Objectivist morality. And if you think about it, this is probably how you live your life – so why do you deny it here?

“All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life.”

This is a beneficial side effect. We have evolved to have the desire-as-ends that we do as they enabled our ancestors to survive and reproduce and we are the result. No animal reasons nor is able to reason this way. As humans we can go further but only need to replace this as needed. Q6: The same argument is made by genetic biologists that the ultimate goal is successful reproduction. As far as I can see these are both abstractions. How can you refute the geneticists and show your is better than theirs?

Because Objectivism identifies man as a rational being, not as a mindless animal. How we evolved to become rational beings is really irrelevant. Evolution is NOT a prescription on morality, and you won’t find a single evolutionist who would claim that it is!

Objectivism recommends that a rational being pursue his own rational happiness in his life. Happiness is not to be found by pursuing arbitrary emotional or instinctive impulses, such as to eat, defecate, or fornicate wherever and whenever one wishes (like an animal would).

Evolutionists describe how life developed to the point it is. Philosophers attempt to answer the question: “how should man live his life? What is right or wrong?” These questions are NOT answered by evolution, and even Richard Dawkins would agree with me on this. Ayn Rand was a monumental philosopher because she answered these questions objectively, rationally, and derived them from existence itself.

“One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.”

Q7:Define rational values. I suggested means-end rationality but you appeared to reject this. Means-end rationality is about reasoning over means not ends.

A value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain. If it is non-contradictory with the hierarchy of one’s other values (which themselves are subordinate to life itself), the value is rational.

To use the earlier example, cigarettes are an irrational value.

“Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something – even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action – is to have an end that is an end in itself – something is not a means to anything else: life.”

Q8: Geneticists would disagree with this (see above). What do you say to them

Infinite regress can be also avoided with multiple desire-as-ends so this does not refute such a position.

As I have shown, multiple desires-as-ends do NOT exist, because they result in contradictory irrational behaviour.

To repeat: let’s say my smoking is a desire as an end in itself. Let’s also say that my wishing to avoid dying of lung cancer is a desire as an end in itself. Here we have multiple “ends” – notice the contradiction??

This is just one example, but it is impossible to name ANY “desires as ends” that either: do not conflict with each other, or: reduce ultimately to the pursuit of one’s life. This proves the point.

“Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?”

You are implicitly equivocating over life. I post life too but this does not lead to Objectivism, that is the whole point. I am not presenting an alternative as such, I am saying that everyone seeks to fulfill the more and stronger of their desires.

You are correct that people seek to fulfil their desires, but that is because they DESIRE what they VALUE. And if you wish to live as a rational being, your values should be rationally chosen. Since I doubt you disagree with this, we can proceed to: desires in themselves are NOT guides to actions. Why? Because our desires and emotions are not always rational. Emotions are REACTIONS to the world, not descriptions of the world, therefore they are not reliable guides to what is good or bad for us. E.g.: I’m sure heroin feels amazing (I’ve never taken it) but it is not a rational value (desire) to pursue, because it is BAD for me; for my life; it is ultimately deleterious and potentially lethal.

If on the other hand, one pursues (or desires) rational values, then one’s means will never conflict with each other, or with one’s ultimate end: happiness (non-contradictory joy) in life.

“The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question – you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE.”

Confusing instrumental again. Your are imposing an ad hoc rationalization

Q10: where is your logical or empirical argument that your approach is correct?

Already answered this.

“By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.”

There are no SHOULDS here. Once you have burned your hand in a flame you do not want to do so again. There is no should involved. Desires exist we are not arguing over having desire-as-ends people do not have have, only recognizing the desire-as-ends they do have and the implications of this. You are performing the same instrumental error as before. It does not matter how often you assert it this error will not just disappear without an argument.

I have dealt with the issue of “desires as ends” etc above.

“An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous!”

Q11: How about making an argument as to why this is preposterous.

Already done above.

“Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals – one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value?”

Q12: What is a rational goal? This sounds very Kantian, I thought Rand did not like Kant.

Already explained rational goals above. There is nothing Kantian about this.

Q13: What is the logic that leads one to eat poison one day, certainly not the desire-as-ends already listed.

“One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?”

One always has “ultimate goals”, which ones are activated depends on the situation. When you are thirsty you seek to satiate that thirst. When you are not thirsty you do not.

But if you were incapable of dying of thirst, you wouldn’t seek water! Water sustains life, therefore water is a value (a means) only because life is the ultimate value (an end).

However, life is a not a means to ANYTHING ELSE. One drinks in order to live, but one does not live in order to do anything else. Life simply is; it is metaphysically given.

“It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends!”

To be accurate it is their fulfillments that are the ends.

As I’ve shown many times above, it is rational values that should be pursued, because they are consonant with life.

“If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself.”

Q14: Why would you want to do this?

Why would I NOT want to do this??? That’s the point!

You cannot answer that without begging the question. You’d have to answer that it would be painful. But when I’d ask: why avoid pain? And you’d answer: “avoiding pain is an end in itself, so avoid it for the hell of it.” And I’d answer: “well, pursuing pain is an end in itself, so I’ll chop off my big toe for the hell of it.”

“I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself.”

All these desires are possible and people have had and acted on them. Who is going to recommend and encourage them, rather they are to be condemned and discouraged?

You are begging the question: why should they be condemned rather than encouraged?? If they are ends in themselves they cannot be condemned on any grounds! If would take a foundation of higher value from which to judge an action not good or bad, because “good” and “bad” are terms that presuppose the question: “good or bad to whom??? To what??”

Again, Objectivism answers: life. You don’t answer anything, which means you have no grounds to condemn any action. That is yet another reason why “ends in themselves” is a meaningless bankrupt notion.

“But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values.”

Yea duh!. I am thirsty and I fulfill my desire for water by drinking water.

Because you want to LIVE.

“But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what??”

When I drink this satisfies me.

And when a paedophile rapes a kid he satisfies himself. Desires as ends, eh?

I’ll underline this because it’s important and the crux of the matter:

You cannot condemn the paedophile for pursuing his desires “as ends” because that would require you to posit something higher than “desires” as a guide for right and wrong. Objectivism can condemn the paedophile, because LIFE is the ultimate value and must be pursued rationally, therefore all desires are means to an end, which means they can be judged in relation to THAT END. But since you accept multiple desires as ends in themselves, you can no basis to judge anything.

“Objectivism answers: LIFE.”

Q15: So when you are thirsty you want a drink because it will save your life. If you don’t think it will save your life you will not drink?

Well, yeah! I drink water to live, just as I avoid poison in order to live. What alternative are you suggesting??

“A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.”

You need to define what a rational value is then we can see it is impossible or not.

Did this above.

Certainly desires can conflict and this leads to dilemmas, a subject of much philosophical analysis, partly because there can be rational support to both sides of certain dilemmas.

Ultimately, there cannot be rational support to both sides of a dilemma. That is like saying there is rational support for the propositions that the moon is made of cheese, and that is isn’t. In the end, the facts of reality always win out because reality does NOT contain or tolerate contradictions.

Morality also pertains to facts of reality, so there is always a right vs wrong; there is always a good vs bad, and there is always an irrational vs rational.

To suggest that two contradictory positions can be equally rational is illogical.

“All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction);”

This is false, no-one here rejects ultimate ends, it is just we have defined what we mean and you have not.

I had. And if I wasn’t clear before, I certainly have been with this post!

“…in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).”

This is a completely empty argument we have covered before. One does not need and can indeed reject Objectivist “metaphysics” and epistemology and make these arguments as we have all done here.

You can indeed reject Objectivism but you must still steal its concepts in order to make your arguments work. That is the point I am making.

I don’t think I could have been more detailed and complete in this post. I believe all your objections/questions/suggestions have been answered and refuted.

Ultimate Value and Morality

I had a discussion briefly with several atheists on other blog that fancied themselves critics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

 

The blog-owner himself claimed that he had been an Objectivist for seven years, before realising the philosophy was flawed.  One of his reasons for rejecting Objectivism was of its notion of intrinsic values.  Later on, he clarified that the paper he wrote debunking Objectivism (which of course was highly praised in the Philosophy community) was actually an attack on Libertarianism.

 

Objectivism REJECTS intrinsic values.  Objectivism is NOT Libertarianism.  So, once again we see that those who pretend they have found a flaw with Ayn Rand don’t actually know what they’re talking about.

 

The only thing I can’t understand is why Objectivism should meet such a vociferous reaction; atheists like this slaughter theists when the latter make ridiculous claims about evolution and science; yet every other New Age Atheist feels themselves qualified to attack Ayn Rand on philosophical grounds when they haven’t the slightest clue what they’re talking about.  It’s pretty embarrassing.

 

One point that was raised again and again was: why is life the ultimate value?  One commenter even asked me for empirical proof to justify this statement, a question that belies gross philosophical ignorance.  Again, I wouldn’t criticise somebody for just being ignorant – what I criticise is those who pretend to know what they’re talking about and cover it in all the usual postmodern philosophical rubbish to make it seem like they do.  (If you want an example of this nonsense, wait until one of these philosophy students says something like “but how do you even KNOW you exist??”)

 

Since this “ultimate value” issue seemed to be the biggest bone of contention, I’ll deal with it here, and then encourage discussion in the comments below.

 

First of all, what is a value?  A value is that which one acts to keep and/or gain.  To quote Rand:

 

“The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.”

 

Where there is no valuer, there is no value.  The concept “value” means something only in relation to a living being, because only living beings face the dichotomy of LIFE OR DEATH.

 

Ayn Rand again explains this better than I can:

 

“Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

 

To even ask the question “why is life the ultimate value?” is to assume that there can be value without life!  This is the fallacy identified by Rand of “concept stealing”.  It is the philosophical equivalent of bungee jumping without a rope.

 

Life makes value possible.  And all sub-values exist precisely because one is alive and needs things to further one’s existence.  Ultimately, every value one pursues either has a positive or negative effect on one’s life.

 

I’ll let Miss Rand have the closing remarks:

 

“To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.”

 

Once we understand the correct concept of “value”, we can understand the meaning of the terms “good” and “bad” – but good and bad, for whom??  “Good” and “bad” are moral concepts that presuppose a living being for whom something can have a positive or negative effect.  But an effect on what??  That entity’s life!  Therefore, the standard of morality is life.  It is not duty, sacrifice, authority, consensus, society, god, or ‘others’, which define morality.  What defines morality is that which is of value to the life of a rational being: that which benefits such a life is the good; that which harms such a life is the evil.

Neil Warnock is an Idiot

Many of my non-British readers won’t know who Neil Warnock is, or won’t even be bothered about football (Americans, read: soccer), but please don’t click the X on the browser just yet!

Here’s the background: Liverpool FC in the last two years have gotten very far in the UEFA Champions League competition. Last season we got to the final, (we won it in 2005!) and we are in the semi-finals again this season. This is actually the only silverware we’re competing for at this stage of the season, which means our league games are relatively unimportant in comparison. As a result, the Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez decided to rest several of his key players for Saturday’s game against Fulham, as the semi-final first leg against Chelsea is as close as Tuesday night.

Fulham are battling relegation, which means that the outcome of our game against Fulham is not only important to them, but other teams trying to avoid relegation too. The other teams down there would be hoping Liverpool beat Fulham and “do them a favour”.

None of which is, or should be, a concern to Liverpool. Right? Not according to the bitter cynical irrational rantings of Yorkshireman Neil Warnock. His gripe? Last season, Liverpool also fielded a ‘weakened’ team against Fulham, who actually beat Liverpool and eventually avoided the drop. Warnock’s team, Sheffield United, got relegated.

Here’s what Warnock had to say just before this weekend’s game:

“My advice to Reading, Bolton and the rest would be, if you’re expecting any favours, don’t hold your breath. They will have to do it themselves.”

Yes, and what’s your point?

“The fact of the matter is that if Liverpool were already out of the Champions League and needed to win to get fourth spot, they would play their strongest side.”

Yes, but again, what’s your point? Liverpool are in fact NOT out of the Champions League and don’t need to win to get fourth spot, so they don’t need to play their strongest side. So far, so obvious.

“Instead, I fully expect them to play a weakened team at Fulham.”

As did most people in the country.

“It’s part of a big club’s mentality. They look after themselves and they don’t bother about anyone else.”

Isn’t this part of EVERY sports team’s mentality?? Which sports team doesn’t think about just itself?

If you’re a professional sportsman and you have guilt about the knock-on effect of a game YOU WIN, you’re in the wrong business!

“The whole story that Sheffield United were going down and me having a pop at them afterwards was just treated like fish and chip paper by them. Liverpool didn’t care because they weren’t the ones getting hurt by it all.”

Well, actually Neil, Liverpool probably didn’t care because no one cares about your small-time poxy little opinions.

Of course, what Warnock fails to mention is that if Fulham would have ended up getting relegated, they would have gotten hurt. Maybe Liverpool were thinking about Fulham and didn’t want to hurt them by relegating them??

“Integrity, doing what is right for the game, comes way down Rafa’s list of priorities.”

Notice the false dichotomy: doing what is right for the game (whatever that means!) versus doing what is best for Liverpool.

What Warnock doesn’t realise (because he’s an idiot and because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about) is that doing what is ‘right for the game’ is precisely doing whatever is right for Liverpool! The only thing Liverpool should be concerned about is doing what is best for themselves. What is good for “the game” is open competition where clubs are free to play the players they want against any opposition they want.

What kind of a warped mentality could suggest that a sports team (or any business for that matter) should be interested in the wellbeing of its rivals?!

All that aside, Warnock’s Sheffield United had 38 games to amass enough points to avoid relegation. They didn’t. Boo hoo. That’s football. Warnock also forgets the last game of the season, when his team LOST to Wigan Athletic. A win would have kept them up, but they lost. Boo hoo.

What does Warnock expect: that a more successful club somehow has a responsibility to not act in its best interest in case another club could possibly incur an advantage/disadvantage as a result?? What if all clubs did this? The bigger clubs would go into games actively looking to not win where possible, after all, who wants to “hurt” another club by beating them?! Pathetic.

As always with this kind of sacrificial mentality, it’s the successful clubs that are to be penalised because they are successful; the clubs with the biggest squads should be forced to play their best teams in EVERY game in Warnock’s opinion. Why? Because they have the biggest and best squads. In other words, the better you are, the more you should be penalised and help accountable for taking advantage of your superiority!

But what about Sheffield United and other small clubs? Why doesn’t anyone talk about them pulling their finger out and wining more games?!

Liverpool did go on to lose in the final last year, but imagine if we would have fielded a full strength team against Fulham. Maybe Rafa would have said: “if only I could have rested my key players at Fulham to avoid tiredness/injury etc, perhaps we would have won the final.” People would have laughed at him probably, and Warnock wouldn’t have had anything to say.

But when a team like Warnock’s has 38 games to get enough points and then complain because Liverpool acted in their best interest, he gets his obnoxious face all over the TV and in the papers.

What is wrong with this mentality? In a word: altruism. Basically, the pathetic notion that acting in someone else’s interest OVER your own is somehow virtuous, more moral, nobler, for the “greater good”. Well, that’s nonsense. Ever club must act in its own self-interest, regardless of the effects on other clubs: play whatever team you want; play however you want. At the end of the day, you will stand or fall based on how successful YOU are – not how other clubs are!

The only people who don’t want to play by this fair and healthily competitive rule are the ones who are afraid; the ones who have something to lose by a fair fight; the ones who seek the unearned; the ones who can’t actually achieve success themselves but beg others to do the work for them; the ones who aren’t actually good enough to stand on their own merit. In other words, people like Neil Warnock.

It’s Snowing!

…and only in England could it snow in April!!

well, apart from Iceland, Greenland, the Arctic, Antarctic, Russia etc etc…

Just To Say…

…I haven’t posted anything for a while now, because most of my writing effort is going into a work of fiction that is taking up what free time I have that I’d usually spend blogging.

This gives you, the reader, the perfect opportunity to read some of my archived material and discover for yourself why my blog was voted Best Blog in the World 2007, by me.

Keep checking back!

The Meaning of Life? – It’s Right Here!

Welcome again, gentle reader! This post might take a little longer than I’d like, so please bear with me. Rest assured, this has nothing to do with my ability as a writer and everything to do with your ability as a reader. To this end, I’ll try not to use too many big words, as I appreciate this can be somewhat incommodious and cumbersome. If there’s any part of this article that you don’t agree with, feel free to email me evanescentisneverwrong@mac.com. Thanks.

There must be something worth living for.

There must be something worth trying for.

Even some things worth dying for.

So go the words of Beth from Jeff Wayne’s musical version of the War of the Worlds. Granted, some of our real life problems actually feel worse than being invaded by Martians, especially to those who live in Manchester. Big, ugly, slimy beasts with lipless slathering mouths and writhing tentacles, Mancunians do have hard lives – but that’s not the point.

I was in the pub the other night, drinking with friends. A pint of Guinness, thanks for asking. Yes, yes it was nice. Thick, dark, and with a rather large head, the bartender is known for serving a good pint. Towards the end of the evening one of my friends (after I’d paid them extra for staying a little longer) despondently mused “is this all there is to life?” His point was basically along the lines of: if I die, and I’ve contributed nothing, and left nothing, does it really make a difference whether I was alive or not? I should point out that although he might have held this opinion, I believe he was playing Devil’s Advocate somewhat, and saying that even if you or I are optimistic, some people would have every right to feel that way.

Is he right? Is life pointless since it is undoubtedly the end?

Before I answer that, let me give my reason for why many people can and do feel this way – as I was once one of them. I may be wrong, but I’m not. What I’m about to say will get a little philosophical, so if you’re under 12 / not very intelligent / a fan of reality TV, feel free to close this window and get back to watching Big Brother repeats or TabooSexStories.com (page 20 is a good one). Actually, that’s a bit harsh of me, since if you’re a fan of reality TV shows you’re automatically either one of the other two options anyway.

Morality. Morality is a branch of philosophy that attempts to deal with the questions: “how should I live my life? What is good for my life and what is harmful?” Unfortunately, philosophy in general today is in terrible hands, because the “intellectuals” who teach it are riddled with perverse anti-rational anti-human anti-moral contradictory notions. I’m not going to go further into this here, but as an example, how many times do you hear the experts tell us that we cannot know anything; that reality is subjective; that man can never achieve certainty?

Getting back to morality: society in general (as a result of famous philosophers and especially religion) holds one thing as its standard. What I mean is, the measure by which an action is considered virtuous and noble. That standard is: sacrifice. It is the belief that the more an action is directed towards others, and the less it is directly for personal selfish benefit, the more moral it is. The more you serve and live for others, the better a person you are – so says society in general. This is because the underlying philosophy on which this morality is based is the following: your life is NOT an end to itself. Your life has no purpose, and has no meaning, and cannot be given one by yourself. Therefore, the only reasonable worthwhile thing to do is live for others; give up what you have; sacrifice for the good of others; create a legacy, make the world a better place; disown yourself.

I’m not saying ignore others, and don’t better the world, and don’t help people, and don’t be kind and generous – the difference is this: one morality tells you to act with OTHERS as the primary beneficiaries of your life. The other tells you to act with YOURSELF as the primary beneficiary of your life, your actions, your choices.

Humans can die. We are mortal beings. In order to live, not just as animals do from one moment to the next, seizing whatever meal comes along and never planning ahead, you must realise that there are things that are of objective value to your life as a human being. It is precisely because you are mortal that things can make a difference in your life. It is your mortality that gives rise to values – and a value is that which one acts to keep or gain. It is only because the possibility of death is present, that you MUST constantly act in accordance with the antithesis – life. And whether you like it or not there is no alternative here. You are either moving toward life or moving toward death. Life is a constant process of self-generated action. Even if you stand still, you move toward death.

Inasmuch as you choose, implicitly or explicitly, to live – you must discover those values that your life as a human being, as a rational being, needs. But, this would require a morality that tells you to act in accordance with those values – to NOT sacrifice them. But whose values? YOURS!

Those who ask the question: “what does it matter what I do if I just die?” have already conceded the argument – they have already given up their morality. Those who say that your life is not an end to itself, that you have no right to live, that the best thing you can do is give your life to the service of others (like a man on a street returning a wallet that didn’t belong to him) – they have already won. They believe that life is pointless because their lives have no point. They believe life has no meaning because their lives have none. They teach that only having kids is the answer, only giving all your money to charity is the answer, only spending your life in the service of others is the answer, living like a priest and walking to work and never polluting the air is the answer, doing something that “makes a difference” is the answer. Notice the premise they have smuggled in? “Make a difference” – to whom? “What does it matter” – but to whom? “Mortal life is pointless” – to whom? The premise they have smuggled in below your radar is this: other people are the standard for right and wrong. Other people can judge your life as a success or not, even after you’re dead. And no matter how you live your life, you are forever striving after the ethereal recognition, the approval, of others.

This, is the “morality” that you need to reject. This is the subjective capricious code of “ethics” that takes other people as the standard – which also goes by the seemingly harmless and benevolent expression “altruism”. Which people? Doesn’t matter – just others, and the more the better. Until this backward evil premise is rejected, people who ask the questions we began with will never understand how life can have meaning, because they are looking for OTHER people to give it to them.

The moral person knows that their life is an end to itself. That the admiration and consent of other people does not equal morality. That giving away your values is not the key to happiness but the destruction of it. That your life is not the means to the end of others. That your life belongs to you and no one else. That we are not just the product of an evolutionary process that implies: be born, procreate, die. That the highest moral purpose you can pursue is not the happiness of others, but the happiness of yourself.

But it takes a break from convention and an objective rational philosophy to ground one’s morality on these foundations – the exact sort of “radical” unconventional thinking that society today denounces.

Rather than being the “me me me” attitude that this may appear, it is actually the only proper way to live your life. By acting with your life as the ultimate value, you will take care of all the other values that make it possible: your health, your money, your family, your friends, your lover, your music, your car, your holidays, your books, your hobbies, your pets. These values you must discover for yourself – and they are selfish. Selfish, and good. And don’t let anyone tell you differently.

That is why the question: “if we’re just going to die, what does it matter?” can be seen for how vacuous it is. For a start, “what does it matter?” – well, my life matters to me! And it matters to those people I value and those who value me. The rest, I’m not too bothered about!

There is only one way to live – to value your life and act accordingly, and that is how to achieve happiness. If you don’t choose to pursue happiness, you are not choosing to pursue your values. And since values have their ultimate goal in life – the rejection of values, of the pursuit of happiness, has only one other goal: death. If you can’t see the point in being happy, you might as well kill yourself now, otherwise you’re living a contradiction. If you live, pursue happiness. It’s your right. In fact, there is no other purpose in life.

Planetarium for your PC

I came across a piece of software this morning that is a must, if you like astronomy or planetariums!

It allows you to scan the heavens in 360 degrees, external to earth. It’s also in real time so you can see the earth as it would look in space right now, and where day and night are.

Here’s the link: http://celestia.sourceforge.net/ (opens in new tab)

And here’s a screenshot from my computer of the earth in space at this moment in time, 12.42 pm GMT:

One of the Pleasures of Life

In my opinion, there are very few pleasures in life greater than music. Okay, there’s friendship, love, sex etc. But I’m not even sure how you’d classify the pleasure you can derive from listening to a song you love. A great song, a great voice, great lyrics, can be pleasurable emotionally, intellectually, and even physically.

It is so hard to pin down exactly what it is about music that can make it so addictive and why humans would evolve to invent and then appreciate it, that it seems almost magical, almost irrational. But I believe it is anything but. If there is anything to be said for the human soul, it can be found, and evoked, in music, as in other forms of art (something that is seriously lacking in the world today). After all, animals have no appreciation for music. Music has meaning, and songs have power, but only to a being that can draw inferences from sound, and tie lyrics and tunes to memories, emotions, and fantasies. In other words, it takes a conceptual mind. It takes a rational mind, an intelligence.

A life without art, without music, would be no life at all. It would be soulless.

There’s Something Wrong With You

Is there any religion that doesn’t tell you that you’re dirty, tainted, immoral, and flawed? If there is such a religion, there certainly isn’t a monotheism that doesn’t.

Why?

Here’s why: virtually all religions share a standard of morality in common with secular beliefs, as much as the Humanists and New Atheists would like to believe differently. They all hold one particular action as the standard of good noble virtuous behaviour, a standard that is irrational, contradictory, and ultimately impossible to achieve. It is no surprise therefore that the phrases “nobody’s perfect” and “I’m only human” are bandied around so often by theists and atheists alike.

What is this standard? Sacrifice.

Before anybody complains that I’m tarring everyone with the same brush, I’m talking about society in general, religion in general (monotheism mostly), and even secular atheist forms of morality. Ask yourself: do you consider the parable of the widow’s mite a lesson in virtuous behaviour? To those not familiar with the story, it’s a lesson given by Jesus in the bible in the gospels of Mark and Luke. After seeing the rich and wealthy donate large sums of money in the temple charity box, an old lady comes along and drops only two mites, the least valuable of coins. Jesus has this to say: “That poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. They all gave a lot because they are rich. But she gave even though she is poor. She put in everything she had. She gave all she had to live on.” – Mark 12: 43-44, New International Reader’s Version.

There are several interpretations of the lesson being offered here, but I will take this one: the greater the sacrifice, the more it hurts, the more of a burden you impose on yourself for others, the more virtuous, the more moral the action.

Even the non-religious might empathise with this thinking. After all, taking care of yourself or those you care about is easy isn’t it? It takes a really moral person to put other people first, to put strangers ahead of loved ones, to give instead of receive.

This, basically, is what is wrong with religion and society’s warped view of morality today. Why else do you think selfishness is regarded negatively, and selflessness is praised?

But if sacrifice is the human ideal, to whom should we sacrifice? And what is to be sacrificed? You cannot sacrifice to those you care about, since that would be selfish. The more selfless the act, the more you should sacrifice to those you care least about, or even hate. And how can you sacrifice without first having? So what does this morality recommend? Do we live a life of “immoral” selfish pursuit, accruing values until some undeterminable point in the future when we must then give away? If everyone did this, what would be left to sacrifice? And when you have sacrificed until you have nothing left, the beneficiary of your actions must then sacrifice everything they have for another, and so on and so on, until the entire human race is left with nothing and there is nobody left to sacrifice to.

This thinking leads to the punishing of productivity and creativity for their own sake, and the raising and exalting of inability and suffering for the sake of being so. Don’t believe me? Consider some examples:

Who is living the more “moral” life in your eyes: the social worker who slaves all day to help people or the businessman who makes a fortune off his products? The son who leaves home to pursue a career of his own, or the one who spends his youth taking care of his sick relatives?

These aren’t specific examples – but they illustrate a trend. Act for yourself: selfish, immoral. Act for others: selfless, moral. For everyday examples, notice when you try to justify an action to others. You will have far more chance of being convincing if you make out yours actions were motivated by concern for others at your own expense, than if you just stated honestly that you were acting in your own rational self-interest.

Here’s a fact: businessmen throughout history have done more to benefit the human race than any number of social workers, charity workers, or caring for the community workers ever have done put together and squared. I’m not attacking charity at all. On the contrary, charity is a wonderful way for those who are well-off to take care of other people and benefit their society as a whole through a freely chosen genuine act of compassion and human empathy (which is a selfish action by the way). What I am attacking is the notion that this is the most noble act one can do. As if the greatest thing a human being can do with their life is live it for other people. Wrong.

No person is a sacrificial object for another person. Nobody’s life belongs to you, and your life belongs to nobody but yourself. Nobody can make a claim to your mind or your body or your property (they are one and the same), nor can you claim theirs.

Yet, that is exactly what most religions and collectivist moralities deny. They say that you have no right to exist in your own right; that the noblest thing you can do is forsake yourself, give away what you have, live on the essentials, give what you can to others, live for the sole purpose of making the world a better place, for making other people happy. What about the self?

Any morality that asks this of its adherents has only one standard: death. Why? Simple: if you choose to live, if you choose to pursue your own life as your ultimate value, you must act in harmony with that value and hold your other values as a guide to your actions. You must accept reason as your primary means of survival, and act consistently with your values. This means NEVER sacrificing a higher value for a lower one. In fact, it means NEVER sacrificing anything, ever. If you give something up of great value for something of even greater value (say, spending £100,000 on an operation to save your child), that is NOT a sacrifice.

There is absolutely no way to deny this, except to use something other than your own life as the standard. And of course there is only one alternative to life: death.

No wonder the morality of sacrifice, of altruism, is so impossible to achieve! No wonder this morality teaches people that they are sinful depraved losers in dirt, who must constantly keep giving and giving to achieve an impossible standard. The morality of sacrifice is the philosophy of self-denigration, self-abuse, self-rejection, and suffering.

Consider this alternative:

“The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.”

“Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man’s instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.”

Both quotes are taken from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged.

It’s a shame that so many New Age Atheists who are so quick to vilify religion as immoral and irrational still accept many of its basic tenets.

Ayn Rand saw man as a being that could achieve moral perfection. As a being that was not sinful and flawed, but as an efficacious virtuous rational creature without limits, that could achieve his own happiness and betterment. She did this by rejecting the irrational evil morality of suffering and self-sacrifice, and identifying rational egoism as the code of morality, and reason as the highest virtue man could hold. If you can do this, then you’ll learn that there is nothing wrong with you! You can be a perfect virtuous person.

My 40k

The hit count on my blog has just smashed through the 40,000 barrier in just under 12 months, and although I’ve not researched this properly, I’m pretty sure that makes it the best blog ever written, ever.

Here are some not so interesting facts about the number 40,000:

It comes after the number 39,999

There is a game called Warhammer 40,000

A man took 40000 ecstasy tabs in a nine year span

It comes before the number 40,001

40,000 is a round number

Asteroid 40000 has the provisional designation 1998 HZ87 and was discovered on April 21^st 1998 in Socorro

40,000 is the only number to end with four zeros and start with one four

A footprint of early humans found in Mexico was 40,000 years old

40,000+ is the visitor count of popular, intelligent, and witty writer Evanescent

 

I originally posted my blog on MySpace as a way to rant incoherently about football and everyday things that pissed me off in an attempt to look cleverer than I was. That’s not me anymore – I’ve stopped writing about football.

I’ve moved from just “atheist” to “humanist” to “anti-theist”, before discovering Ayn Rand, and I proudly identify myself as an Objectivist now. Not only has this been of great personal benefit to me, I think it gave my blog a whole new lease of life. I’ve also had the dubious pleasure of having many political and ethical debates as a result.

I haven’t posted much recently as nothing has moved me to write an in-depth article, and I’m also drafting a perennially-planned work of fiction. I’ll release more information about this in the coming months. Needless to say this will make me rich and famous, but I won’t forget you my readers, the little people, for putting me where I am.