A Context If You Can Keep It

AS ALWAYS, when dealing with a seemingly complex political issue, we should seek to assert basic normative principles using core parameters with _strong_ respect to Objectivist epistemology (based on facts while adhering to the Aristotelian axioms).  Of course, America was founded on the concept of individual rights.  (See: Identity axiom.) While those rights are to be extended to all innocents, it (invariably at least) falls to the U.S.A. to make an example of itself and carry forward the gift that the Founding Fathers gave everyone.  While the Founders could not have possibly had the basic philosophical awareness that Ayn Rand would later develop, they did have enough historical perspective to know that they had to offer a better system than they previously observed or experienced.  The Charters of Freedom suggest that rights are to apply both within the U.S. as well as outside of the nation-state.  Obviously, for the American federal government, applying rights protection outside the confines of America can be a logistical nightmare, but then that is included in what government is actually for after all i.e. rights protection is exactly why the citizenry pays taxes (leaving aside that those taxes should be paid voluntarily given a trading context).  To put it differently, the Founders understood something unprecedented in politics: they had to work to provide for a government that would allow the American citizens to operate without the overhanging threat of force from that very government while simultaneously offering a justice system that would allow those citizens to reconcile problems of force amongst themselves.

It should be noted that at the same time the U.S. government is always obligated to protect the rights of U.S. citizens, it is NOT obligated to do any such thing for other nationals let alone for those who claim no nationality at all. For example, the matter of Elián González's immigration was one of deferring to sound philosophy whereupon he was to be united with his family in Florida.  Given that there already existed _explicit_ laws on the books for automatically naturalizing Cuban political refugees, and given that migrating the rest of González's family to America would be of negligible cost to other Americans, there was no legitimate reason for denying the American-based unification of that family.  (González was a pawn that both governments used to placate a miserable status quo.) The relevant point here is that the provision for migrating the González family to America was (and still is!) a viable and logical _option_ (not a requirement).

Again, government is a proxy for (and an extension of) an individual's survival mechanism.  That is (noting the division of labor principle), government is hired by citizens to do a far more efficient job of protecting the citizenry than those citizens could otherwise do for themselves in a direct way.  Some consequences to take note of: 1) This indicates why ideas such as "Let's make a Mulligan's Valley/Galt's Gulch today!" or the Libertarian "free-state" project are absurd. For one thing, there necessarily has to be a central authority (noting AR's reprisal against state fragments viz. "50 tyrannies vs. 1"). Also, there must be minimal proper philosophical and psychological standings in place i,.e. the specific populations of those breakaway groups would have had to already express the sanity let alone the comprehensive understanding to know the conditions for preserving and protecting freedom given that context.  In point of fact, they would have to be _more_ sophisticated than the Founders in certain respects, and that is _highly_ unlikely to happen in the time before America is reconstituted as a rights-adhering nation.  (Among other fallacies, that presumption of theirs involves question-begging... In point of fact, those type of idealists are also pretentiously dropping the context that neither are a) the national conditions synonymous with those in _Atlas Shrugged_ in the relevant respect nor b) do those idealists have altogether substantially greater facility than other Americans when it comes to the required "nation-building" skill sets.)  2) Likewise, another false alternative in the form of anarchism is absurd given that (as I already just mentioned) there's more than a passing role for government. The distinction between the actual government functions and the myriad of social benefits that Marxists approve of is well-defined, so not all of government need be considered pointlessly lost and useless.  3) The 2nd Constitutional amendment exists as a backstop acknowledging that a citizen's right to physical self-protection is to NEVER be abrogated under any circumstances even if that means having the citizenry taking on a failed government that was supposed to be responsible to those citizens. Suffice it to say that negotiating the time to fight a government in such a way is off-topic here and requires a fair amount of elaboration itself. (All rights are derived from an individual's existential nature of being a "rational animal".)

As Ayn Rand spent multiple decades expounding on, rights are the means to preventing others from initiating force against oneself (while presuming that one will respect the norm in kind). _The Virtue of Selfishness_ is the definitive starting point in understanding the (Objectivist) ethics, so consider that to be the underlying normative background for this issue.

The core government functions are represented by the police, the military, and the legal administrators (The Supreme Court, The Congress, and the Presidency).  Naturally, the obverse holds accordingly: The other "alphabet" organizations are counter-productive, tax wasting, and wholly immoral.  Naturally, core government functions can't be implemented without supporting staff.  With this in mind, there _are_ a few government agencies that are worth considering as legitimate supportive bodies.

I have personally wrestled with what value the USCIS (INS) might actually have in the aforementioned respect. Predicated on the premise that maintaining the nation's existential integrity is paramount (relying on the Objectivist ethics), I believe that the USCIS should be considered as a legitimate aspect of government ...under the guise of the military.  Note that immigration is physically unidirectional.  It is not primarily a matter of citizen travel (no more than the 2nd amendment is about game hunting)!  Because government is singly concerned with rights protection, the first obvious immigration-related question is: What threats does immigration pose to the American citizenry?  There are precisely 3 types of threats that are involved:  1) Serial aka "career" criminals who simply seek to take undue advantage of rights-respecting citizens in the usual ways of domestic violence that police must contend with 2) State-affiliated terrorists who for a variety of specific motives want to threaten the U.S. government itself which the military must contend with and lastly 3) Pathogen-carriers who have the potential to cause epidemics which most anyone in government may have to deal with due to the metaphysics involved.  The reason for cordoning and then expelling the 3 types is essentially the same.  They are all an explicit and outright threat to the greater populace.  That is to say, those threats can violate the rights of masses of citizens simultaneously.  Leaving aside ancillary concerns e.g. trying to get military intelligence from a capture, those who represent any/some of the 3 threats should without exception be immediately captured and controlled and in all likelihood also transported beyond U.S. civilian borders _at minimum_.

See here for the relevant Immigration Services mission statement for current status:
http://www.uscis.gov/aboutus

Likewise, the Border Patrol should also completely be subsumed by the greater military services. Obviously, the rationale for this is synonymous with that of subsuming the USCIS.  From a practical point-of-view Aristotle's identity axiom is the most fundamental principle.  Considering that philosophy is the foundation for all science, normative principles are themselves philosophical concretizations (while being abstractions in respect to everyday behavior i.e. teleological specifics). Naturally, Ayn Rand had quite a bit to say on this as well as on the relevant antecedent ethical theory.  A value "is that which one acts to gain and/or keep."  In concrete terms, if America fails to differentiate itself from the other nation-states which are currently not based on the same basic normative concept, then America itself loses value and vanishes (which would in turn, extinguish all other derivative values). In other words, America's borders mean the life or death of the nation just as a person's epidermis (including all cilia, etc.) exists as the differentiating factor between potential life or death as far as the physical elements are concerned.

See here for the relevant Border Patrol mission statement for current status:
http://www.cbp.gov/about

The above represents the _entire_ general border control policy as far as philosophy goes.  Because normative principles are still abstractions as far as specific events are concerned, it is naturally important to further concretize them for immediate application.  Understand that that point of application is where general philosophy already ends and where specialization begins.

To wit:
Some have concerns regarding illegal aliens inside the U.S.  It would be good to remember the most important inscription excerpt on the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

http://www.scrapbook.com/poems/doc/3061.html

http://quotes.yourdictionary.com/articles/quote-on-statue-of-liberty.html

Assert the principle; it isn't an accident or a matter of caprice whereupon Ayn Rand fundamentally associated America's identity with the virtue of independence.

Those who have crossed U.S. borders illegally and subsequently have lived in America while working to better their respective lives without taking undue resources have presumably only broken the one law.  We aren't mindless machines.  If and when illegal immigrants are found, then ask them a simple question: "Do you wish to continue to live here after complying with the law?"  If they say "no", then send them from whence they came.  If they say "yes", then put them through the naturalization process.  It is the ultimatum that they asked for and deserve, and that is that.  (_All_ other related concerns e.g. potential for broken families and/or job cancellations are logistical matters or ideological derivatives.)

Other threats (such as the D.C. sniper from several years back as well as current Ebola fears) can and should be likewise resolved in general as follows: Identify the physiological (including psychological) and philosophical (including political) status of the threat agent, and then process such a threat given the pro-American/Capitalist paradigm. To put it differently, there are no gray areas, fine lines, or mysteries ultimately.  Once the nature of the threat is understood, that threat can be categorized and then processed.  It is incumbent on the American people to understand that a so-called "threat matrix" has no need for "complexity worship".  On the total contrary, thinking in essentials leads the way to reconciling any and all extant threats to America without unnecessary haste or confusion.

The One in the Many for Some

I could spend the rest of my natural-born life talking about the subject of false alternatives.  In the meantime, I am going to focus on a specific example of that logical fallacy.  It is entirely natural to wish to prioritize, judge, and make comparisons.  Of course, adjudication depends on references; in the case of ethics, the standard is in the form of normative principles.  Likewise, as Ayn Rand indicated, the specific reference is to Man's Life.  Briefly, she was considering not simply what comes to mind nor what is possible; no, she always was reaching for what was simultaneously possible and _ideal_.  That is, as a philosopher and literary expert she attempted to encourage people to look past their given momentary range, issues of the day, minor personal problems _for at least long enough_ to consider what could possibly be in store for their own future existence.

Since humanity lives and dies by its ability to not only think but also to make use of knowledge by way of manifesting practical solutions which improve their individual lives over long periods of time, it behooves those people to consider their values in an organized and, more to the point, a conceptually integrated fashion.  The bottom line is that: whether people know it or not, they explicitly acknowledge it or not, or they care about it or not, knowledge theory underpins all decisions including those decisions focusing on value-judgements.

With the aforementioned in mind, I find an ever-growing and ongoing peeve in the form of the pedestrian pretense for judgement today.  People routinely get defensive about their respective jobs, their favorite sports teams, their favored music or movies, and so on.  To be concerned with those subjects is fine and even sometimes valiant.  To be concerned with those issues without much understanding but with much emotionalism is _not_ suitable or productive.  As someone who has been using Internet services since the mid-1990's and as someone who has used social media and networking as long as they were recognized as such, I've got more than a fair idea of how people communicate online. 

Obviously, most people aren't interested in philosophy let alone Objectivism.  I'm more concerned with the lack of interest in logic _altogether_.  It goes without saying here, that more people should take epistemology seriously (and this very much includes supposed Objectivists).  Likewise, hardly anyone formally studies logic, and it's quite unlikely that hardly anyone will do that in the foreseeable future.  As both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have indicated, people induce their knowledge in a piecemeal way.  (These days, that's a process that goes on almost completely unwittingly.)

It's easy to establish that people depend on philosophy in general as well as the particular consequences of logic.  Likewise, just as most people understandably get their knowledge piece-by-piece, they attempt to form their respective philosophies part-by-part, but then those same people typically fall short of even trying to complete the process of systematizing any philosophy at all.  Naturally, this state finds these people at a disadvantage in that they can only hope to come to correct conclusions _sometimes_, solve problems _sometimes_, and in turn, work with other people in a mutually beneficial matter _occasionally_. 

Now to turn to the world of online communication as we know it today…

Examples of false alternatives and particularly the one I'm thinking of now are so readily available/seemingly omnipresent that I'll refer people to simply consider the online world for themselves.  It is true that what people discuss via Facebook, Twitter, blogging websites, et al. are normally of some minimal value at the least.  (It's not yet as if most people are contemptible and mindless post-Modernist fools although the current culture would suggest an unfortunate direction as far as that goes…)  In the main, while the _content_ of what is discussed is generally worthy of attention, it would be of far greater benefit if those same people also considered the realm of _methodology_.  Having an opinion does not indicate the validity of the opinion or the credibility of the person who has the opinion; there's more at stake… 

I could go into grave detail as to the nature of the false alternative in question, but for now I will offer a general overview.  One would think (after some consideration) that _not_ offering an opinion at all doesn't facilitate progress i.e. silence is _not_ golden in this context.  Yet, many online participants would have their readers think that simply offering an opinion should register a knee-jerk reaction that sweeps away anything not to immediate liking.  (See: AR's elaboration on the fallacy of argument from intimidation for more on this tendency.  http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument_from_intimidation.html )  It _is_ the case that coming up with a summary conclusion is not only prudent; such a result is also ideal …if it's truly _essentialized_.

Now we get to the meat of the matter:  Yes indeed, online participants will actually and frequently condemn those who offer objectively-honed opinions.  Wait for it, (of course!) there is even a corresponding conceptual trichotomy in this case.  Let's look at how people behave.  If someone were to explicate an honestly-obtained and simplified (let alone a properly essentialized) consequent, then many people will exclaim something along the lines of: "…but that's too broad!", "…that's overly simplistic!" or "…that doesn't fully consider all possibilities in the world!"  I've even had someone quickly conclude that I was _religious_ under such circumstances!!!  (There's a long-running problem of religion implicitly dominating the field of epistemology even in the midst of the transition to Modernism and thereafter, but that is for another discussion at another time.)

What is interesting to me about these particular reactions is that they provide evidence that those people are grasping …but only unsuccessfully starting to see the more fundamental issues which are in play.  What basic trichotomy (or false dichotomy) underpins this scenario further?  Well to start with, we can go back to the classic trap that Ayn Rand elaborated on: Intrinsicism vs. Subjectivism i.e. what Dr. Peikoff has referenced as the "I-O-S" trichotomy.  Just to make the point of reference, it's worth noting that _all_ religious people _are_ Intrinsicists (although like their Subjectivist brethren, they are want to utilize psychological rationalism).  In turn, when those who aren't familiar with philosophy encounter a wholesale concept, they are unlikely to know AR's conceptual theory.  Further, they are going to attempt to grasp for whatever reference that's available.  Hence, (given the popularity of religion) they make the headlong leap to associate a legitimate concept with the anti-concepts of religious mystics. (Suffice it to say that I can and have made the relevant and proper distinction between such anti-concepts and valid concepts many times …for decades actually.  In this light, it is wholly impossible for a real Objectivist to be dogmatic.)

The Subjectivist flip-side to this argumentative coin amounts to figuratively throwing one's hand up in the air in resignation: "Who knows?", "Who cares?", "There are multiple logics(!)…" and so on.  Such a person might very well continue to argue _while unwittingly trying to undercut i.e. concept-steal_ the very axioms their arguments depend on.  E.g. Claiming that there are multiple (inappropriate) explanations or multiple logics is an outright violation of Identity law.  Likewise, stating indifference and/or ambivalence while continuing to argue a point as before violates Causality law.  Such a person has put himself outside logic, and no benefit can be garnered from arguing with him (outside of skills testing).

An interesting conclusion we can draw right now: a) Typically (though naturally not universally) those who claim sympathy to Intrinsicist philosophies want to argue _more_ with the supposed purpose of gaining greater understanding (despite their assumption that "God" is already omniscient.) b) Typically (though not universally) those who claim sympathy to Subjectivist philosophies want to _cut off_ arguments sooner with the supposed purpose that more discussion would be futile (despite their typical support of university studies which is supposed to be predicated on gaining knowledge via scientific method).  (The underlying thinking is interesting but beyond the scope of the subject here.)

In summation, there is a prevailing but un(der)stated acceptance of the false choice between blind acceptance of the conventional thinking of the day vs. acceptance that knowledge isn't possible.  Of course, the true alternative is provided via truly scientific methodology viz. Objectivist episteme.

Now for a peculiar twist:  The reason why I was considering this false dilemma more frequently is that in recent years, there has been a growing though barely organized cadre of pseudo-Objectivists who have castigated formerly and justifiably venerated Objectivist intellectuals such as Leonard Peikoff and more recently, David Harriman.  There is a bitter and savage irony here.  Peikoff and Harriman have (almost exclusively) brought not just Objectivism but the inherent and fundamental structural aspect of conceptual validation in the form of induction to the foreground.  The very people who have most vociferously opposed them are supposed Objectivists …who suffer from badly pre-conceived notions on what Objectivism actually is.  That is, the very people who have done the most to promulgate real Objectivism in recent years haven't been supported by supposed ardent Objectivists (as would be expected).  Rather, Peikoff and Harriman have been considered as outcasts deviating from Ayn Rand's work(!!!) …by the very sophomoric and pretentious pseudo-intellectuals who hardly have a hairsbreadth of the understanding necessary to even begin to lodge such arguments.  (I will _only_ make a passing remark about a recent controversy involving David Harriman as to say that his newest attackers are not only devoid of epistemic prowess, they also fit the bill of the very Intrinsicist profile I outlined earlier i.e. it's just more of the same nonsense.  IF by some stretch of the imagination, David Harriman has some contradiction that poses a threat to his readership and students, then that can be dealt with at the time.  Leave it to Intrinsicists to try to pre-empt other people's thinking, when they haven't hardly checked their own premises at all!!!)

I can't reiterate the point enough:  I _STARTED_ with a long and persistent study of logic over a period of years before I ever encountered Objectivism as a full-blown system.  I always assumed and expected that Ayn Rand would depend on her readership to take such preparation to heart for themselves.  She is on record in expressing occasional disappointment with her readers, and it should be no misunderstanding or surprise as to what the nature of that disappoint ultimately is.  For it is the case, that that disappoint is of the same type as I have today.

Of Objectivist Advocates and Apologists

Let me see if I have this correct! Person A is operating under the pretense of being an intellectual activist though she really wants to be a media mogul; meanwhile she’s still laying claim to the title of “philosopher.” On the other hand, Person B has been more of a media mogul by dint of day-to-day operations than Person A ever will be. Likewise, Person B has a more substantial track record of being an intellectual activist than that of Person A, and Person B’s activism is still only a comparative sideline to his philosophical work. Further, that philosophical work spans decades, and it substantially stems from first-hand information which Person A could never hope to have access to. To top it off, Person B is arguably the foremost philosopher of our age. (No need to invoke Person A by way of comparison in this respect!)

Now, Person A continues to allow for the idea that Person B has been undercutting an intellectual movement which he in no small part helped manage and broaden, and he’s arguably done more than anyone to propagate that movement today. Likewise, without that movement which he spear-headed, it could be argued that Person A’s involvement in the related philosophical work could not even exist. In turn, Person B’s credibility is to somehow be questioned while Person A’s credibility is to go largely unscathed even while withstanding the aforementioned considerations. Likewise, this credibility differential is to be considered without reference to the very epistemology that’s both required for credibility evaluation and is also among one of Person B’s specialties. At the same time, this epistemology has largely gone misunderstood by Person A who leveled charges against Person B’s credibility to begin with!

How’s that for irony?!?!

The Ground Zero mosque, part 1

The essential question about the status of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who’s behind the “Ground Zero” Islamic center is plain and simple: Is the Imam an enemy of the state or not? Likewise, there are two further questions which hold the answer to the original question: 1) Does the Imam sanction Hamas or for the matter any other group that falls under the umbrella of Islamic Jihad such as Islamic Jihad itself, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa, et al.? 2) Does the Imam intend to foment insurrection by the manner the G(round) Z(ero) Islamic center is to be founded?

As of now, the Imam has yet to renounce his support for Hamas. (Apparently, Hamas has also recently expressed support for the Imam, so there can not possibly be any mistake as to his philosophical orientation and sentiments.) Likewise, A New York official recently offered the Imam the chance to move his proposed facility to state-controlled property away from GZ. (The current given status of _that_ property is irrelevant in this context.) Imam Rouf denied the offer made by the official. The Imam _still_ intends to open the Cordoba House at GZ, and he apparently also still plans on doing it on Sept. 11th, 2011. Support for Hamas itself makes a person a threat to America. Also, by establishing the mosque that the Imam wants at the location where thousands of Americans were killed in Lower Manhattan and on an anniversary date referencing the same 9/11 destruction, the Imam is clearly and obviously making a grave statement. That statement is unquestionably one of validating the 9/11 attacks. It is also no small coincidence that the doctrine of Jihad stipulates that the overtaking of enemy location is a highly prized conquest. No matter what the Imam and his sympathizers say, there are no legitimate grounds for interpreting this building process in any other way. The true Islamic believers will recognize the new dominance of their religious system over the American way of life, and they will celebrate that dominance while conspiring to generate more attacks on American soil.

Since the question of the Imam’s status is paramount, no other question raised about the mosque can change the status of the Imam or of the project in question. Some people have charged that denying the founding of such a facility is unfair discrimination. This is baseless since the concern that many Americans have is not yet remotely focused on mosques in general let alone on religious temples (though Americans _should_ at least be concerned about the implications of any such building!) The focus is squarely on _THIS_ Islamic center in _THIS_ location. The charge of the mosque's opponents harboring racism obviously is based on a non sequitur since the Muslim faith is practiced by people of myriad races. The charge that the center is only for peaceful means is further overturned by the fact that the Islamic radicals have been waging war on America and other nations for several decades. The war on America easily goes back as far as the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 and further on.

As a matter of fact, the Islamic war on America is the _only_ factor that properly elaborates on and determines the status of the Cordoba House project. That is, it is the general context of what America has had to sustain in the way of Muslim attacks that fundamentally sets the terms for how the Ground Zero mosque is to be evaluated. Absolutely nothing else is close to being as of substantial consequence in this regard. (It is ludicrous to evaluate the proposed GZ mosque in a cultural, historical, and philosophical vacuum.) Just as the attack on the USS Cole ship, the bombing of various embassies, the surprise attack on the Marines in Lebanon, and various other Muslim-promulgated atrocities leading up to the 2 bombings of the WTC center in downtown NYC are part of the same war, the Cordoba House project is simply another attempt to destroy America because of its generally pro-reason, pro-science, pro-technology, selfish, and Capitalist orientation which is rooted in the essential ideas and ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Islamic Jihad is defined as a cultural effort to bring about God’s will by force according to the Muslim faith. See here: http://www.meforum.org/357/what-does-jihad-mean

Jihad is a verbal noun with the literal meaning of "striving" or "determined effort." The active participle mujahid means "someone who strives" or "a participant in jihad."

The term jihad in many contexts means "fighting" (though there are other words in Arabic that more unambiguously refer to the act of making war, such as qital or harb). In the Qur'an and in later Muslim usage, jihad is commonly followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, "in the path of God."

By true Muslim faith, the entire point of Jihad is to render the goal of making the world more Islamic. Obviously, America represents the arch-rival and antithesis of Muslims and their faith, so it naturally follows that those of that faith would want to stop and overturn American progress. Lest anyone forget or even be ignorant of the facts, the 9/11 attacks occurred precisely because Washington D.C. and New York City respectively represent the foremost centers of political and economic value to America. The values and virtues as generally best expressed in those two cities are exactly what those of the Muslim faith have sworn to Allah to destroy. There’s every reason to naturally figure that those people behind the Cordoba House project are driven by the exact same philosophy. In war, philosophy isn’t just the fuel, it’s the very basis for a military campaign. The Cordoba House is perfectly consistent with the ever-growing and decades-long Muslim campaign to demolish America. The Cordoba House is a de facto act of war against America given the nature of war in general and the Muslim campaign in specific!

While the apologistic arguments for the Ground Zero mosque are fallacious and tangential, it is worth at least mentioning how they can be differentiated from my argument here. Some supporters say that there are other American mosques and actually there are some mosques in the nearby downtown area, so the GZ mosque is equivalent to the other American mosques and there’s nothing to fear in turn. This line of thinking is naturally wrong because it commits the fallacy of begging the question. Again, those other mosques are _in this context_ currently irrelevant because they are not specifically being founded at Ground Zero let alone on the anniversary of the 2nd WTC bombing attacks. Other people have the effrontery to say that the GZ mosque would actually provide greater sympathy and understanding even to the point of benefitting the Muslim faith. No real American would even have such a consideration since that motive is sacrificial in nature. Further still, as I’ve already indicated the last thing that Americans should be doing is trying to actually benefit Islamic agendas in this regard. If anything, Muslims in America should be humbled and go well out of their way to help wage war against the Jihadists. They should have a particularly grave concern for and fear of the Cordoba House since it obviously will make their own lives more difficult and endanger the very nation they claim as home. Also, arguing that other similar dubious though less threatening constructions exist simply is an attempt to misdirect attention from where it belongs i.e. it's a “bait and switch” tactic. There must be other silly arguments, but my point here is that they are neither remotely compelling, nor logical, nor relevant. It is _far_ more important to communicate a proper argument than to focus on refuting bad arguments let alone irrelevant arguments. That is, given the actual nature of the Cordoba House project, the focus of attention _must_ be on why _that_ mosque should not come to fruition.

The Value of the Tea Parties

I haven’t personally attended a Tea Party event, but I’ve done some related tracking. To this day, there has not only not been much integrated organization for that group in general beyond some Internet linking; there hasn’t been an explicitly dominant guiding philosophy. As Ayn Rand indicated, simply opposing a position doesn’t fulfill the obligation(s) required of having a positive normative philosophy. In other words in this case, for the Tea Party movement to be anti-status quo in government in some superficial way isn’t nearly enough of a surrogate to carry the prospect for American freedom forward. Make no mistake at best, supposed American renegades are merely coasting currently. The Tea Party supporters have some idea of what to oppose, but they have little idea of what to be united by. They really don’t understand what they should be fighting _for_.

America was founded by an explicit guiding philosophy as elaborated in the Charters of Freedom. We haven’t seen anything along those lines in decades as far as the general populace has been concerned. In recent years, a faction of Americans have come to realize that there might be some political benefits to the ideas inside Ayn Rand’s _Atlas Shrugged_. Still, it’s a long way to go from being merely aware of a potential value as against becoming throughly versed and immersed in a broad-based ideology. Whether someone is involved in the Tea Party movement or not, those Americans who seek greater freedom need to not only become more pro-active in politics, they also need to be more mindful as to the type of ideas that they subscribe to and promulgate.

Though the Tea Party has not been a movement which has had a major power vacuum or usurpation as of yet (since there never was an established intellectual leadership), the movement is becoming ripe for manipulation to outside forces. Coincidentally and recently, former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin has been in the news for courting the Tea Party movement. This may be unsurprising, but it’s certainly disturbing. It clearly indicates that Palin is looking for a vehicle to express her ideas; at the same time, it further reinforces that the Tea Party movement hasn’t been particularly aware of how it should be intellectually guided. If any political movement can so readily and easily be influenced by an outside interest which is expressly part of and representative of the very establishment which is supposed to be opposed, then that movement is to be questioned for its motives. The problems inherent of the movement in support of Ross Perot some several years ago come to mind here....

Likewise, it has been mentioned in the news that there may actually be a Tea Party in the form of a political party running in competition of the Democrats and Republicans. This is a decidedly different focus for the Tea Party movement to take. Again, it’s unsurprising that this movement would eventually seek to actualize and manifest ideas into practical reality. Still, the aforementioned intellectual vacuum makes for a further troubling turn of events given the potential rise of a related political party. It benefits no one for yet another political party to be raised if that party hasn’t even clearly differentiated itself in a way that would offer positive benefit to Americans.

The over-arching background for all of this of course is that the Republican Party continues to be bifurcated by the religious conservatives and everyone else who’s been left sidelined. The fact that this division has not been addressed by Republican politicians shows that the GOP hasn’t made any real headway since the days of Barry Goldwater running for the Presidential office. It used to be needless to say that if the Republicans didn’t stand up for individual protection, then no one would. Today, no one in politics stands for individualism or individual rights. This cavernous vacuum still stands as the greatest American issue to be dealt with today.

The recent news about the Tea Parties reveal ongoing issues that need to be dealt with if these organizations are to actually benefit American people. It should be obvious by now that the religious conservatives are overwhelmingly responsible for America’s demise. It is just as obvious that no appeal to that same faction will save or salvage America in any way. As per usual, what Americans must discover is that the very nature of their way of life depends on the identification of the virtue of independence. Americans must realize that to be American _is_ to necessarily be politically free from government tyranny in any shape or form. Americans have had a track record of knowing how to fend for themselves in an economic context. What has left those same people vulnerable to internal political turmoil is their lack of understanding of the importance of intellectual ability in the more fundamental context of rational politics.

Where the Founding Fathers failed to identify the proper intellectual nature of freedom, Ayn Rand managed to single-handedly succeed. She was the very person to signal to Americans what they must to do in order to protect themselves and their general way of life. Neither religion nor Socialism has ever offered the political benefits that the Founding Fathers hoped to leave behind for their successors. Still, the Founders were themselves disarmed by the very people who disarm us today: the philosophers. If Americans are ever to seriously resurrect their country, then they must realize that it is in rational philosophy that they must significantly start investing their time and energy into. The increased reading of _Atlas Shrugged_ is the one true bright spot in our current political landscape, but that book is a work of fiction that contends with politics in artistic terms. Americans must embolden themselves as colonists of early America did by studying the humanities. The important difference that new rational revolutionaries must be mindful of is that an adherence to reason in politics is not an expendable option.

How Not to Essentialize the Vote

In Craig Biddle's article from _The Objective Standard_ Vol. 3, No. 3. entitled "McBama vs. America", he claims that the major Presidential candidates are fundamentally the same. Biddle considers the candidates' respective positions on major issues of recent concern. While it is very obviously true that both Barack Obama and John McCain count on the philosophies of altruism, pragmatism, and Socialism to form their respective policies, there is more to consider. For example, are the concerns over general foreign policy or general medical care _absolutely_ fundamental?

While there can be some tangential benefits in noting how two (or more) candidates are similar, that tactic belies the greatest importance of each of the respective candidates' policies. For example, seeing what those candidates agree on can indicate what the wider culture considers important. (No doubt that Americans largely accept altruism as morally valid despite the overwhelming preponderance of how dangerous that philosophy is.) It is incumbent on voters to at least try to find essential differences in candidates. I don't want to focus on mechanics, but if readers are curious, then they can follow-up by researching Ayn Rand's "measurement omission" technique which is required for proper essentialization. Some indications are here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/measurement.html

From _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, page 59, here's some of what Ayn Rand has to say about evaluating fundamental concepts:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html

"Now observe . . . the process of determining an essential characteristic: the rule of fundamentality. When a given group of existents has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existents, man must observe the relationships among these various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greatest number of others) depend, i.e., the fundamental characteristic without which the others would not be possible. This fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.

Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others."

Certain issues _are_ more fundamental to any human than other issues. While personal context is always of major import to each voter, it would be utterly relativistic to figure that those personal concerns eliminate the interest in issues that are not only universal but are of sheer survival value. For example, American voter C may be particularly concerned about the growth of the welfare state while American voter D may be concerned about American military involvement in parts of Asia. Certainly, it can be argued that neither the welfare state should be allowed to grow unabated nor should military be funded to go anywhere and everywhere in the world when (noting AR's recognition of the rule of fundamentality again) certain countries pose greater foreign threats to Americans than others. (Today, the greatest foreign threat is still Iran of course. See Dr. Leonard Peikoff's writing on Islamic terrorism for more information on this subject.) The rights to self-protection and self-preservation are so wholly basic to human survival that any talk of other issues necessarily begs this question of fundamentality as Ayn Rand indicated.

Since _I_ am not willing to overlook them, I'm highlighting some of the differences on a fundamental issue of freedom that hits closer to a person than many other issues do...

Note the dates...

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/John_McCain.htm

"Pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere. (Feb 2008)"
"Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)"
"Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)"


http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

"Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)"
"Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)"
"Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)"

What this indicates is that while there may appear to be some common ground between the candidates even on the issue of abortion, the truth exists elsewhere: It is in the basic differences where a voter can begin to establish comparative value between McCain and Obama. Note that Obama has continued to affirm the individual woman's right to abortion. At the same time, McCain has a history of ignoring and even expressly attempting to violate that most basic right of an individual to control their body.

Also of relevance, it wasn't an Islamicist (or an atheist) that did the following...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm

"A doctor was shot to death outside his abortion clinic here today when a man who prayed for the physician's soul stepped forward from a group of antiabortion protesters and opened fire, according to police and witnesses..."

Skeptics might want to review what Ayn Rand said about abortion as a political issue (and in particular for elections.) Also, thanks in no small part to Ronald Reagan (and the Christian Coalition), America is at the cultural point which it is at today.

Of further note, here is an excerpt from an Ayn Rand interview: Again, note the date.....

The Objectivist Forum, June 1980, _Interview with Ayn Rand (part 1)_

"Q. Would you please (elaborate)? You have said many times that you are not a conservative and you are not an admirer of Ronald Reagan who seems to have, in a sense, preempted the "right" in this country. Can you explain?

A. Yes, certainly. I am not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, and I will not vote for him, because he is the representative of the worst kind of conservatism. I am opposed to him on the same grounds as I am opposed to conservatism, that is, to the mixture of religion and politics. I am, as you know an atheist. I do believe in a man's right to believe a religion, if he wants to. But he has no right to bring his religion into politics, which means to impose it on other people by force. Political power is the power to initiate the use of physical force. If you bring religion into politics, it means that you are forcing religion on people at the point of a gun, and destroying the intellectual freedom of your citizens.

The combination of religion and politics is the worst possible combination in our society...."

Ayn Rand died in 1982, so it's very likely that the interview I just excerpted is the last or certainly among the most recent interviews she ever gave. She gave that interview at the very time when American Christians were starting to engage politics in a more serious way. With the greater affluence of Americans in the 1970's and the follow-up of President Jimmy Carter's destructive economic policies, it's not so surprising that conservatives would think that the time was right for them to swing into action. That they did.......and Christianity is here in this country as a major factor _now_ still to this very day.

If anyone doubts this, then they can ask Nicholas Provenzo at the Rule of Reason weblog if abortion opponents strike him as rational. A few weeks ago, Provenzo discussed what he thought of Sarah Palin's attempts to elevate her raising of a disabled infant to the level of great moral virtue. The religious zealots came out in droves and not only scolded him for his position, several dozen of them went as far as offering Mr. Provenzo death threats. Did as many supposedly even-handed religious advocates come out to offer him sympathetic support for what their cohorts had done? As far as I can tell, hardly any of the supporters of Palin's rhetoric offered consideration for him. They also did not substantiate their arguments with reasonable premises though they certainly resorted to blind faith and emotionalism! My point here is that we are a long way from seeing religious Americans come across as believable when they supposedly advocate peaceful living.

Considering that Craig Biddle's essay notes the similarities between McCain and Obama while neglecting the differences, one would have to figure that he would expect us to figure that those similarities to be of greater (or even greatest) significance when it comes to comparative moral evaluation. Given that a mother who is prohibited from exercising her right to abortion will hardly be able to live the life she would have otherwise figured on, there is little reason to argue that she (or her significant romantic other) would consider other issues as being equal or even greater in value. If Biddle would have maintained proper context, then his argument would have at least come off as plausible. If he would have focused on how Americans are actually required to live their lives in terms of their respective hierarchy of values, then he would have been able to see that his warning is misdirected.

If he had shown contextual consideration for the ramifications of the very policy positions he did note, then he would have been able to offer a proper and more immediately identifiable perspective. As it is, it would seem that Craig Biddle needs to check _his_ premises. Let's get really practical here: In reality, there are actual women who have foreign policy concerns who are also facing the prospect of bearing and raising children. If someone is in the situation where she found out that she is pregnant and she wants to further her career, then will ANYTHING that a foreign politician says be of greater immediate concern to her over and above her attempt to reconcile her pregnancy? In reality, even under the most dire circumstances, if another nation threatens America, then it will have to engage in some long-term planning in attacking us. Meanwhile... that woman (and untold thousands of others) will have to deal with whether or not they are even allowed to utilize a perfectly moral and medically viable option for terminating pregnancy.

Shall we wait until things get even culturally worse? Given that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and the current Republican President has gone farther than anyone to strong-arm legislators into supporting a massive bail-out which is of course an example of naked Socialism, are people still convinced that there are no _fundamental_ differences between the two major Presidential candidates and their respective parties in 2008?

From Homeschooling to No Schooling

In recent insanity, the Second District Court of Appeal of California has made a new ruling that prohibits parents from controlling their children's education. On the contrary and to put it positively, a parent has the right and obligation to control how their children are raised. End of story. To put it negatively, no one else has any authority over this parental right. The new resolution runs entirely contrary to the basic decency and good sense of proper child development. The act of requiring a child to go to a public school (or any day school for the matter) against his family's desires entails (among other things) that: 1) That child is prohibited from receiving his guardian(s)' provision for physical well-being viz. the parent's concern for the child as it involves safety, exercise, food, nutrition, and special medical needs 2) That child can not refer to his parents/guardians for conceptual points of comparison and other follow-up questions. It isn't entirely unusual for a teacher to offer up a subject matter in a manner that is offensive to both the child and his parents. Consider the trend of giving sexual education to increasingly younger children with greater explication and frequency. 3) Further, consider the extra burden that this involves. A parent who invariably already has his and his child's daily routine set, now has to disorganize that and start over. The parent would have to take additional time for scheduling and come up with requisite transportation. He'd also have to consult with a variety of public school agents for his own comprehension of how the school administers its programming. Plus, he would have to further consult with school staff in meetings instigated by their whims and arbitrary scheduling. 4) Then, there's additional financial costs. The public school scheme as we know it is more of a 20th century manifestation of multi-tentacled Modernism than anything the American Founding Fathers could have envisioned. That is, it amounts to an excuse for greater taxation which in itself will likely beget more taxation and regulation as it always has. Obviously, all of the aforementioned would invoke sudden psychological turmoil for the members of an affected family as well.

It should be noted that any legislative Constitution can only acknowledge and protect individual rights. It's a total and fundamental self-contradiction for legislators to write laws that "give" rights. Rights are not given by a legislative body or anyone else for the matter. Rights are derived from an individual human's nature i.e. his conceptually-oriented ability to negotiate reality, and those rights exist prior to society. In fact, as Ayn Rand indicated, society is held back by rights so that any individual may live according to his own respective consciousness as he sees fit so long as he doesn't violate others' rights.

A parent raising his own child in no way violates anyone's rights. Again, a parent is, if anything, morally obligated to look after a child's education. Legislators most certainly do not know of and couldn't possibly keep track of every parent's particular pedagogical agenda. It's simply off-the-charts ludicrous to suggest that a governmental bureaucracy could even begin to have a hope of properly raising children. Consider the track record of modern government these days. Governments around the world constantly violate individual rights even while they operate under the color of supposedly objective laws. (The laws themselves are to be questioned as well as the execution of the laws.) This new court opinion leads to nothing more than another trial balloon and naked power grab.

Politics is derived from ethics. Does the State of California attempt to substantiate its claim with rational morality? No, not at all. What California government has instead given us is an edict from on high via rationalizations i.e. an initiation of force based on the logical fallacy of argument from authority. The appellate court is apparently resting its argument at least in part on the following excerpt from the California Constitution: "A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement." Really now? This is entirely presumptuous. Again, leaving aside the complete impossibility and the abject ineptitude of a governmental body in attempting to provide any of the previous enumerated values, the law is illogical. (...so much for the intellect, ethics and science!)

Note the bait and switch here: If there is an "authority" to be concerned with, then it would be of a pedagogical nature, but that is in using the term authority in the sense of being an expert. When the government claims authority, those agents are entirely depending on the threat of force to coerce parents to follow orders. Also, who decides what educational paradigms and practitioners are best? Caveat emptor! Education, as is the case with every other commodity, must be traded commercially for everyone involved to get the values they seek to obtain. The California government is not only insulting the intelligence of parents by suggesting that they don't have rights to educate their children but that even if they were allowed freedom to choose among competing private educational institutions, those parents wouldn't have the intelligence to decide which organization is best in aiding their children's education.

There's another logical fallacy that the state's argument rests on, and that is that of an anti-concept. In this case, the anti-concept in question is "group rights". In particular, the appellate court invokes that specious idea of public welfare. What is this welfare? For that matter, what is the public? These terms are themselves anti-conceptual. That is, "public" and "public welfare" are undefinable, and they are only used to obfuscate issues. As Ayn Rand indicated in her _The Virtue of Selfishness_ book on page 102,

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob …

The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectiverights.html

...so the idea of "group rights" is used to mutually reinforce the state's authority (the group's supposed agent) as that authority is used to prop up "group rights". Also, "public welfare" merely skirts the essential issue which is that of man's rights. In effect, the state is saying: "You, the parent, must cede your right to parent to the whim of a nebulous idea of society... because we, the state, say so." Education is not a right in the sense that it's something to be extricated from others by force. There isn't any such "right". As the Founding Fathers noted, a person qua parent has the right to _pursue_ values e.g. the value of education as against having the value handed over to the child at the expense of someone else's life. This itself involves still another logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, the state's argument is a circular and baseless argument. The state legislature is ultimately counting on a conceptual shell game to keep parents confused and preventing them from identifying the root cause of the decline of American education.

A child stands to benefit more from greater interaction with his parent(s). Why punish a parent for trying to offer his child more support? There's a larger context at play here. Along with the problems that the recent appellate court resolution involves, there's the fact that education has been up for grabs in political circles for decades. There are pressure groups including those of the teachers' unions that wish to gain ever greater authority over the decision-making possibilities that are yielded by past governmental encroachment.

From the related San Francisco Chronicle article at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL, we have this:

The ruling was applauded by a director for the state's largest teachers union.

"We're happy," said Lloyd Porter, who is on the California Teachers Association board of directors. "We always think students should be taught by credentialed teachers, no matter what the setting."

Of course, this further begs the question of "What is the basis of teachers' credentials?" It just so happens that I personally was raised in a family of teachers. I know from hearing stories from my family and their co-workers that there's entirely too many parties pulling at teachers for them to do their job properly these days. ...and that is leaving aside the condition of school curricula.

What's also disheartening is that the teachers themselves are unlikely to fight the trend of greater state control. They are beholden to the state for their jobs since the state has what nearly amounts to being a monopoly. In recent decades, it isn't as if homeschooling parents have ever represented the numerical majority of parents, so neither homeschooling parents nor the teachers who are sympathetic to those parents have much leverage in this situation (unless they protest the infernal legislation which the several courts depend on of course!)

Parents and teachers alike need to understand that if they are sincere in having children receive proper education they must not get in the way of laissez-faire Capitalism. That is, everyone involved must take responsibility for their own respective role (and only that personal role!) in educating children. They must also understand that government has no value to offer; it can only take away values if it's improperly directed. At best, government can only protect an ideal educational system... rather an educational _industry_ if it's ever allowed to develop. Parents must continue to fight for greater recognition of the fact that they are the first and last authority in respect to their own children's development. That means, parents must have a minimal understanding of the basis for laissez-faire, and they must be willing to speak out in support of such a theory.

On the precipice of American Sobriety

1 October, 2007

Yes, I am about to actually make a (potentially unfounded) speculation. (Gasp!) Far be it for I to be someone to make too much of the recent press references to Ayn Rand. (Watch me as I rub my hands together.) After all, anyone could figure that the major press (as the collective that they truly are!) would in their infinite Leftism find that they would feel guilty if they didn't at least pay such a literary nemesis some lip service for fear of being "derelict of duty". Oh irony, sometimes I can not but help love you! (In case someone is slow on the uptake, Ayn Rand equals sales.) What the Hell am I _really_ on about? Well, leaving aside that no fundamental cultural change is likely to happen in the next decade, and it will take at least part of another decade for all of those students who have been getting ARI's book donations to get to that age where they really get serious about politics (due to having established careers, houses, families, etc.), I think we have good evidence that the intellectual vacuum will get filled in the near future! (No, no one could even begin to know specifically when...)

This is, of course, no small matter. If we are to have a political revolution (which apparently many sentient people are longing for), then that can _only_ come after an intellectual revolution has gone into full swing. You don't get a Mussolini or Hitler without a Marx going to work beforehand, for example. Likewise, you will never get another American revolution without a substantial American minority becoming well-aquainted with Ayn Rand's work. (Yes, please do refer to Dr. Peikoff's _Ominous Parallels_...) What I am getting at is the realization that there truly is "no alternative" circa 2020 or thereabouts. Okay, America is not lead by a papacy now, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is yielded by the aftermath of Presidents Reagan and George Bush, Jr. It's not hard NOW ..after so much has transpired legally! Also, (big surprise) the Dems. are following suit in advocating religion...., and there shouldn't be a doubt why that is. Please. The consequences of this path-switch are to come eventually (barring the very interference which Objectivists hope to provide.)

Consider this: Objectivists are already lamenting the Democratic absorption of religious ethics. Well, aside from witnessing what is likely the inevitable, is there anything to fear in the short-term by having the Democrats in power? NO! It will very predictably play out... (as awful as that certainly is), and the result will be the same. There are two fears; each correspond to each party's use of religion, and we already know plenty about the respective future outcomes.

Let's say the Democrats get and retain the White House for 3 successive terms. (Yes, that would actually be the sound of Hillary having an orgasm..., but never you mind....) What precisely will they do that could be significantly worse than what we would likely get otherwise? More restrictions due to future Patriot Acts? Table that concern! Haha, more spending... yes, as if anyone on the face of the Earth can actually come remotely close to quantifying the spending of the American government. What else is there to say except that the flood gates have been open for decades? Who are we kidding here...? You couldn't possibly rocket into space that much money as we have wasted.... You couldn't begin to burn it... If you are number-crunching, then you are wasting your time. We are FAR beyond that as a nation. (One of the several reasons why Libertarians are fools is that these sorts of issues first depend on principles of basic philosophy not of economics, but that's a tangent...) As I've said before, the Democrats are following the Republicans' lead. I have to emphasize this further. As Objectivists have said in recent years, the Left doesn't have new ideas (and that's leaving aside that hardly any of their recent ideas are good regardless of sources.) The Left has and will continue to merely mimic the Conservatives. Yes, it sounds implausible and harsh, but the Left is that myopic actually. The Left couldn't find a new idea if it was held in front of their respective faces. Oh no? Go back and read my earlier blog postings... ...or merely recount the news of the past two decades. Oh ye, of too much faith...lose that drunken altruistic stupor! ...and I hear the calling that the Democrats will wreak havoc via medical legislation. No doubt that they would. ..and still it was this administration under President Bush, Jr. that implemented new provisions for prescription drug issues, yet my words fall on deaf ears I suppose. Meanwhile, the "comatose" believe that there are substantial differences between the two major parties... in ideology?!?!? Madness! I could go on for ages... Let's move forward...

What of the Republicans? Suppose that they have total control of the federal government for the next decade. Would that be different than that of Democratic control? Yes and no. Initially there isn't going to be much of a difference worth noting. The problem is that Republicans have the very things that the Democrats used to have. Republicans have a comprehensive agenda, they have fortitude, they have a well-worn morality to fall back on, and they have more (such as filled coffers.) Looking down the road, it is very unlikely that the Democrats will put up much of a fight. It's simply not in the cards. The Democrats blew their chance. For freedom-loving people, the situation is much more dire. We actually give more than a damn about our own respective futures, and we can visualize those future directions. Does it scare you to know that there is a political party that relies on the idea that the greatest rewards can only come in the "afterlife"? This should terrify you. It's the 21st century folks; it's not supposed to be the Dark Ages. There's more to be said, and still I have to keep moving...

Do you realize what this all begins to add up to? The Republicans have a situation where all they have to do is merely "show up", and they are automatically going to look like American saviors. After all, the citizenry has _no other viable political alternative_ to rely on. Absolutely nothing else. As I have said before, both parties are anathema to American freedom. Still, when you are presented with a problem, you are morally obligated to cut it down at its source i.e. its root lest you welcome your own demise. The root is the politicization of altruism. It's been this way for most of a century, but what is different now is that that theory is finally being manifested into ultimate practice. We _are_ seeing the beginnings of theocracy in America. ...and if this process is not averted, there will be no turning back for generations to come.

Fortunately, America just might get the white knights it has been pining for. Make no mistake that no philosophy will or can be a panacea for those who are weak of will. Still, if we can dare presume that Americans can hold onto enough resolve for a few more decades, then maybe they can also summon enough intelligence to recognize that it is time for a real paradigm shift. At best and at the necessary least, the following must transpire: 1) Americans must discover philosophy i.e. they must realize that Objectivism just so happens and necessarily must be their solution for establishing the mode of life that they spend so much time dreaming of. (Did they actually think that freedom doesn't require work? ...that it's a metaphysical given? ...that the Founding Fathers were just merely in the right place at the right time?!? MADNESS!) 2) Americans must _finally_ act like grown adults and follow-through i.e. they must take responsibility for their own ideas. They must claim freedom in theory and be willing to execute the provisions to better ensure the protection thereof in practice. To put it in yet another way, they must recognize the right ideas, they must recognize _that they then have_ the right ideas, and THEN they must forcibly (and legally) employ those ideas in social terms. 3) They must still further educate every person they can possibly reach about the dangers of Statism with EXACTLY the same demeanor that Jews educate their children about the perils of Nazism. That is, freedom must be promulgated as the life-or-death issue which it is.

Nothing less than total commitment is required. This is the final consequence of "Give me Liberty or give me Death." as well as "The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance." If Americans don't want to be free, then be assured, they won't be free. In other words, if you don't want to do the work to keep yourself alive, then someone else will gladly take over that responsibility ...at the cost of your life.

It's your choice. I've certainly long since made mine....

An Immutable Truth

I haven't posted recently because I haven't created nor come across a new integration that I was willing and able to elaborate at length on. In the case of this entry, I just wanted to relay some news, but then that just triggered a new "jumping-off point."

First the news:
At the Objectivist Conference in Colorado this past July, there was talk of a new ideological campaign. Well, The Objective Standard has come through. The journal now has new merchandise that neatly sums up the Objectivist recognition of how mankind should consider natural resources. You can now purchase the new t-shirts, etc. at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/merchandise/

"Exploit the Earth or die" indeed!

...and on to some consequential thoughts:
Savvy readers will recognize that the binary (and true) alternative presented by such a dictum is in direct opposition to the mealy-mouthed advocates of compromise who wish that we would just operate in terms of "managed use". Managed, mitigated, restricted, etc. by whom and for whom?!? This idea of compromising on the principle of property rights is supposed to be "reasonable", but this belies the nature of man viz. an individual requires freedom to pursue his means of survival. It is a false alternative to posit that either 1) a man should be guaranteed particular comforts by government or "society" with whatever he thinks is "needed" or 2) a man (who is innocent) should be thoroughly estranged by others such that he isn't even allowed to engage with others in order to pursue a fair trade of exchange. Think that no one subscribes to either of these alternatives? Try this on for size: Some of the very people who advocate the redistribution of wealth "from the haves to the have-nots" or based on "..each according to their need..." are _also_ amongst those who wish to attack business every which way via "monopoly" laws!!!! Let's not remind these advocates that no matter what a business does, it's considered in illegal operation if engaged in setting "extortive" prices "too high" or "wiping out" competition by setting prices "too low" or "price fixing" by leaving prices as is. Never mind that government, yes government(!) has gone as far as taking it upon itself to set the prices of products which it has no legitimate interest in controlling at all in any fashion. I guess the Leftists got one thing that they hoped for... they never wanted the marketplace to be free after all, and that increasingly Statist direction is one that our governments are guided by normally these days.

Ultimately, whether these advocates know it or not, and whether they admit it or not, what they advocate is nothing more than a power grab. That is, they are simply and essentially offering re-fashioned Marxist philosophy in the idea of the redistribution of wealth even when they just want to do "nothing more than establish some minor regulations". (Any governmental limits on property will steal value from the property owners no matter what the form of control and no matter the type of value which is at stake.) I guess I could stand to mention something else since some Leftists are so callous to assume a related negative premise: The redistribution of wealth idea is not justified as they think i.e. it actually would be a proposition for legalized theft ...not unlike "taxation without representation" ...or "eminent domain" used to take a person's house. As Ayn Rand indicated, freedom of action is rooted in freedom of thought, and an attack on the results of individual human action ultimately prohibits goal achievement which must originate in thought.

Any Environmentalist argument will _always_ be vulnerable at its root. It doesn't matter who makes the argument, when the argument is made, or what the motivational angle of the argument is. The fact remains that the Environmentalist philosophy depends on an invalid conceptual inversion. As I've just elaborated, the Environmentalists wish to summarily sidestep the true Capitalist alternative which would not only serve the producers. In addition, Capitalism (if allowed) would actually allow the best chance of thriving to those who are willing to work while claiming to be poor (a relativistic term). The fact remains that products (including oranges) and services don't simply fall off trees into the marketplace. As the French economist, Jean-Baptiste Say, indicated, economic demand is consequential _not _ causal. This idea wasn't properly understood by Karl Marx and his followers. The metaphysical-epistemic inversion of putting a man-made product's existence before its morally proper formation was accepted and left by Modernists for Leftists to draw further upon.

As Objectivists know, values only exist as long as there are valuers. In other words, the entities who necessitate production are indeed the very producers (and, in turn, those who depend on the producers) who seek to improve their lives. This isn't completely lost on those who wish to put their Nihilistic hatred in Environmentalist terms. Those types of haters of mankind communicate that Capitalistic products and services are made by those who are wasteful, insensitive, myopic, and even baselessly idealistic. Of course, they have trouble making arguments against the very basis of true Capitalism because they don't really understand the nature of rational selfishness to begin with.

What Subjectivists such as Environmentalists fail to distinguish is that, unlike the metaphysically given, the man-made comes from human effort and could not possibly be otherwise. In turn, the man-made is property that in actuality is owned and controlled by individual humans. (There are no group rights.) Natural resources are potential pieces of property. (This is the _only_ moral view of natural resources!) Again, those natural resources have _no value_ until they are claimed and processed by men.

It is true that the metaphysically given comprises some of the material that man must depend on for survival, but in order for men to work amongst each other, those natural resources must be claimed and managed according to the terms of objective law which acknowledges property rights. Let's not mince words here: the laws, the industrial concerns, and everything else conceived of is for the benefit of individuals who are willing to work to earn their keep. The sub-human portion of the animal kingdom can and will continue to fend for itself, and those entities exist automatically i.e. by instinct and without (conceptually-directed) volition. Lastly, the men who wish to operate as nothing more than parasites tend to get better than what they deserve as a matter of fact.

Consequentially, a way of viewing money is in terms of work. Just as work can be turned into money e.g. payment for services rendered, resources of various types (including money) can be converted into work also via trade. For example, when you purchase an orange, you are _not_ engaged in some sort of ethereal and bucolic procedure that exists in a vacuum devoid of modern industrial action. (Even the attempts to "get outside market forces" are ultimately dependent on market forces.) That orange could _not_ have existed as you now have it were it not for human action in the form of Capitalistic production. To the degree that Capitalistic economics is allowed to proceed unrestricted, you have the results of work only by the grace of the so-called "robber barons". Those "robber barons" manage the fields where the oranges are harvested just as they manage the financial transactions that take place via stock markets where oranges can be traded for maximal value as part of a virtuous process which, in turn, allows for fruit to be afforded by even the laziest or even the very man-hating Environmentalists who hypocritically wish to hamstring the "robber barons" who make the entire process possible.

There is so much more that can be said, and much of it has been said. See the writings of various Austrian economists such as Carl Menger, the American Founding Fathers, and Objectivist intellectuals such as Andrew Bernstein for in-depth elaborations on the mechanics and theory that make production possible. Remember on Labor Day, it is the "robber barons" for without which labor (as a formalized and integrated portion of general industry) would not even otherwise exist. It is only the producers who allow the rest of us to live as we comfortably do. They and their like-minded brethren are the ones who we should not only remember but also honor.

Now, if this were roughly 15 years ago, I could stop here, but today even those who claim great positive support for Objectivism seem to find sympathy in Christian politicians. Once again, I have to invoke the bitter irony of our circumstances. While it is true that the Leftists openly led the charge against Capitalism _in the past_, they were not and are not the main culprits against Objectivist politics now. Of course, without fail, it is the Conservatives who have developed a track record of thwarting not only "bedroom freedom" but also freedom in the corporate boardrooms. This shouldn't even be remotely surprising to Objectivists. As I've already stated before in this blog, altruism was founded by the religionists. They represent the archetype; they all but perfected the destructive paradigm which threatens America even today. That is, later generations of religionists took advantage of the mind-body dichotomy that was inherent in the Founding Fathers' basic ideas. Simply put, the Leftists could not have existed in America without the support of the political Right, and Ayn Rand herself said this throughout her life. ...so while the specific point of this post is that the Leftists should be corrected for their Environmentalist sympathies, the most fundamental political concern is to attend to the grave injustice of the Conservatives hijacking Capitalist theory while selling it out as they operate as the Great Pretenders which they are.

How is Objectivism relevant to society now?

One of the reasons I love thinking in terms of fundamentals is that when it works it can completely change the nature of action. Frankly, I suspect that Objectivists are stagnating in their approach to politics and polemics. Having internal discussions and working through the Ayn Rand Institute are certainly worthwhile, but those related activities are NOT all-encompassing. There are other important issues which _no one_ is addressing right now. (I mean absolutely no one I've come across....)

By the way, I _hope_ that this post provokes Objectivists because we seriously need to reconsider our tactics. Broadly, nothing much is changing... at all. Look at the evidence: We're starting to (once again) ask who would make good Presidential candidates. We occasionally take pride in ARI's book donation drive. Maybe we are even asking more advanced questions which reflect greater consideration and philosophical knowledge. These are good and promising symptoms of a generally static trend.

I think that it's time to push for more dynamic thought. I even run the risk of making much of my past thinking less relevant, but if it means being more realistic about the future, then it is worthwhile to cast past work aside. Very few people are even bothering to be both challenging and broad-minded. I believe that John Lewis and Leonard Peikoff are among those few Objectivists who are thinking far ahead. I am _not_ writing to simply cheerlead though. If someone wants to know what those two think, then they can find online resources for their writing.

I believe that we need to be cognizant of certain standing orders. For one thing, Objectivism has never been exclusively or primarily concerned with politics. We aren't tied to a group. We don't live in terms of what other people expect. Laws are there for everyone's protection not for obedience. That is, the law is not supposed to be a matter of socialization. For example, it's a total misstep to look to any political authority for leadership. Individuals are obligated to be self-responsible.

Andrew Bernstein has said repeatedly that Objectivists can and should do things to encourage the wider adoption of Objectivism. First, we need to practice our beliefs. Second, we need to tell people about the work of experts to put people on notice. I don't believe that we can afford to stop with only those directives. The world is substantially different than it was even 10 years ago. We now have a recent history of Presidents who formally seek United Nations approval. They also callously neglect what used to be common-sense morality. Sadly, many people do implicitly refer to politicians for moral references, so we can't completely ignore the repercussions of what major political figures do.

What I'm starting to suggest is that we need to operate in a more parallel and self-aware manner. It's wrong to look at Objectivist communications in terms of _just_ the inside/outside question. That way of thinking is quickly becoming antiquated. We can't sequester ourselves from the world. We can't continue to ping-pong discourse amongst ourselves while ignoring vital evidence of impending mega trends.

Simply put, if we are seriously interested in making practical differences in the culture, then we had better start outlining some new paradigms for dealing with the new trends. (Peter Schwartz's foreign policy white paper is a positive step.) It's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for starting to understand first-level implications of applied philosophy. Those days are over.

I'm not expecting anyone to offer specifics as assured requirements of cultural change. I'm offering a suggestion as to what is at stake. I tentatively think that Objectivists will have to engage in the following:

• Form or join committees that strive to outline broad policy. (This is just starting to happen now.)

• There is also the start of more professional publications e.g. _The Objective Standard_, but certainly this is just the tip of the iceberg.

• Do more testing. This could involve surveys, role-playing, debates, and blind tours.

To jump ahead and backtrack at the same time, I would like to see more evidence that Objectivists are even aware that what I'm discussing is at issue. Beyond this, I would like to see less rehashing of old debates. That expended energy could be targeted towards completely new considerations and developments.

For example, we don't have to settle for being strapped to a false alternative of 1) arguing how government can better handle legal matters vs. 2) arguing how to scrap government in ways that are bordering on anarchism. Instead we _could_ discuss the specifics of how to engage government representatives as a collected force. Objectivists have barely even attempted to utilize the idea of writing campaigns. Surely, we can agree on enough details to offer a cohesive and principled solution to many common social problems.

There is much, much more to brainstorm about, and there's much more substantiation to offer for these and related ideas. In the meantime, I want to simply encourage people to think in these terms on occasion.

A brief history of Objectivist-related music

This has been a long, long time in the making.... I'm going to focus mainly on music made by Objectivists since those artists hardly get noticed at all. There is also the matter of music made by comparatively better known artists who happen to write songs which at least imply some artistic affinity for Objectivist ideas. Naturally, the artists that fall into these two groups come to use ideas with decidedly different mind sets, There could be a potential overlap of their respective work ethics or even working affiliations, but it is still too early to expect much collusion as of now or even in the near future.

It's also worth saying something about the (meta-)trends that have arisen. It might even be too early to say that there is some strong principle(s) which Objectivist artists happen to be following outside of what's involved in simply being Objectivists. I will try to consider some possibilities in that respect anyway. If philosophy depends on history for certain aspects of conceptual development, then something similar can be said for the development of the arts. There are also aspects that are very specific to music, but I'm getting a bit ahead of myself with those related premises. Considering the age of Objectivism as a cultural force (whether in theory or in practice) and considering the sparse but ever-growing number of musicians interested in Objectivism, I think now is a good time to commit an overview for the record. Also, while I don't claim to be aware of absolutely every possible (quasi-)Objectivist musician, I have enough knowledge of this history to make some informed comments. I want to make one other last stipulation. I will be discussing artists who are established; otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to catalog such artists. By the term "established", I mean to indicate a selection of the artists who have track records as working professionals on the order of at least several years. Also, they should have made albums by now, or they should appear to have that capability. (Of course, I am aware of the idea that albums as physical recordings as manufactured up to now may fall by the wayside in the next few years. I am leaving that technological concern aside since it's not relevant to my overall purpose.)

Unsurprisingly, there are still not too many artists to reference as Objectivist or Objectivist-friendly. At the same time, I think the steady growth in the number of new artists is something of a cultural barometer itself. (I tend to have a generally positive evaluation of this growth as I hope to make evident.) I certainly encourage any readers to help me "fill in the blanks" as it might be appropriate.

I would have to start off with the time I attended my first full-blown Objectivist conference in 1995. It so happens that there was a group which periodically performed in the atrium outside of the major classrooms. MUSIC BY ANTHEM has had more than one configuration, but they have always taken on a classical style in general. Chelle Fulk is one of the driving forces behind the group, and she had a good long run with the MP3.com webservice while that existed. Also, she and the group do have CDs for sale. While I am not fully versed in their repertoire, I can testify to their prowess and good taste. From that conference onward, things got interesting; I have come across a wider array of artists covering most of the popular contemporary styles.

Stephen Siek is a classical pianist. I am not sure, but I believe he is mostly self-taught. He has performed what I consider to be some lesser known works of various master composers. I have witnessed his live performances at least twice, and I can only say given my (still) limited knowledge of such work that he has performed as admirably as could normally be conceived. If I may be so bold, I don't think I would be alone in considering him as possibly being the person who most likely brings to mind the character of "Richard Halley" as far as musical talent and knowledge is concerned.

Continuing in my loose chronological order of exposure, I can refer you to some other musicians who have also performed non-classical music in some interesting and impressive ways. Going back to that life-changing conference of 1995, I very accidentally met what would be one of the best friends of my life. Tom Shannon also happens to have been not only one of the first (if not the very first) Objectivist to work in progressive rock, he also was one of the most versatile and proficient musicians I've ever had the fortune to experience. (I will have you know that before I attended this conference I have worked with well over a hundred musicians in my experience as a concert engineer, and very few of those people could match the caliber of work that Tom delivered.) At one point, he was featured in four different groups at roughly the same time! Progressive rock fans in the Southern California area may actually recognize the name of an impressive cover group. SUPERNATURAL ANESTHETISTS aka CINEMA SHOW performed much of what is considered the "Gabriel-era" portion of GENESIS' body of work. I said at the time and still maintain that they played that music with note-for-note perfection. I would also place their respective performances up against any GENESIS cover group as well as many young progressive rock groups in general. Sadly, the group not only lost Tom Shannon via an untimely death. CINEMA SHOW also lost singer/drummer Shaun Guerin who himself worked with several different artists of great respect.

Tom had previously worked with and would eventually continue to work with many other artists in different types of configurations. One of the most unique and personally important groups that he worked with was BAG: THEORY. As was the case with CINEMA SHOW, BAG: THEORY didn't operate from an Objectivist perspective. It must be stated that BAG: THEORY's claim to fame was their on-the-fly improvisational ability. While their resulting music may not appeal to many Objectivists, there is no denying the great technical ability of each of the group's members.

Finally, Tom Shannon was likely most proud of the work that he did for his own group DEATH & TAXE$. Admittedly, this group's work was experimental by any standard, but Tom specifically helped bring a quality and breadth of musicality to his prog-metal group which very few bass guitarists anywhere could. Also, DnT as the group is affectionately known may be the very first group to be driven by explicit Objectivist intent. That is, not only was much of the music written, produced, and performed by an Objectivist, but much of the lyrical content and associated concepts were Objectivist as well. As a trivial fact, the very name DEATH & TAXE$ comes from a reference in Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_, so there was no mistaking Tom Shannon's personal general intent. (I have to say that I only endorse the work that the band did while Tom was alive. Sadly, the nature of the group and its related work has changed substantially, and the new version of the group bears virtually no interest in the prior agenda which Tom Shannon was largely responsible for. Your best bet is to look for their first two CDs.)

As far as I'm concerned, I have given you the major players up until a few years ago. With the advent of the Internet, the situation has changed substantially. As Objectivism has proliferated online, there has also been a related shift towards producing independent music for an online audience. (Sometimes this actually happens without the related stocking of albums in "brick-and-mortar" stores.)

Another group which has also recently performed at an Objectivist conference and is very sympathetic to rational philosophy is FENWICKS. They do have at least one album released, but they are likely better known for their live performances. Given their transnational personnel configuration, it's not too surprising that they have toured across a fair portion of America at least. Their music is mainly ska-oriented, but they also mix in elements of pop, post-punk, and funk.

At this point, I am left with highlighting some mainstream groups who have at least been highly regarded by Objectivists. None of the following groups should be considered as Objectivist-oriented per se, but they happen to have expressed some ideological sympathy even if only indirectly.

It's almost a cliche to mention one group as far as their Ayn Rand-related notoriety is concerned. I think RUSH still deserves mention in this context even withstanding their drummer/lyricist's abandonment of pure Capitalism and egoism. It could be argued that for roughly the first half of the band's 30 plus year career RUSH represented the lone voice for Objectivism in pop music. Considering that the rock music suite "2112" was directly inspired by Ayn Rand's book _Anthem_ (as well as the "1812 Overture"), that song has been greatly inspirational to contemporary musicians around the world. It has also been among a handful of songs which helped to promote Ayn Rand's work for the awareness of many young people (including the greater awareness of this writer!) Their work from the late 1970's deserves special note. The sheer progressive/symphonic musicality and the themes of their _Permanent Waves_ album still remains one of the most inspiring rock records ever released.

I feel obligated to mention one other group which many Objectivists have lauded. OINGO BOINGO has offered a unique if somewhat eccentric take on pop/rock music. Given their tight arrangements and highly rational and critical lyrics, they would seem to demand the respect that they have received. Bandleader Danny Elfman has gone on to a very successful career in movie soundtracks, so his interest in complex compositions has only grown.

Beyond the already-mentioned artists, I find that Objectivists tend to gravitate towards music that has a certain uplifting and/or powerful quality regardless of lyrical content. Interestingly, these groups tend to fall into two camps. Some Objectivists prefer spending some of their listening time immersing themselves in overtly powerful rock anthems. Some of their favorite groups could be categorized as heavy metal. I've heard these fans mention groups such as LED ZEPPELIN, METALLICA, KING CRIMSON, and IRON MAIDEN. On the other hand, there are quite a few Objectivists who prefer listening to ethereal or ambient pop groups. These fans have mentioned COCTEAU TWINS and THE POSTAL SERVICE among others. Again, all of these groups tend to provide the sort of value that a movie or book might provide if it has bad philosophical premises and good mechanical delivery.

Once again, I want to stress that this isn't meant to be an all-encompassing history of Objectivist-related music. I just wanted to feature the artists who I would consider to be those who are among the strongest performers in a comprehensive sense.

What can be gathered from my history here? I think that it's clear that Objectivist musicians and fans alike value creativity and intensity in their ideal music. To be more specific, Objectivists originally valued classical music, but they have come to appreciate most any style of music that features great creative originality and technical brilliance. Specific tastes may change some as aesthetic and technical trends proceed, but the core values will likely stay the same.

Democrats: The future Republicans?

First off, this is a thought experiment not a proof. You can take my conclusions with a grain of salt, but you never know... stranger things have happened e.g. the Watergate break-in and (cough) "Monica-gate". You might think that I'm interested in elaborating how the Democrats are going to try emulating a past Republican President. Admittedly, if we returned to the likes of Ronald Reagan, then there would be some advantages. Naturally, I would prefer someone like Barry Goldwater to be a possible archetype of choice, but then you know how that campaign went! I'm actually going to try to setup a potential situation where someday (...maybe at the time of the next generation after the next) there could be a new alternative that takes flight from within the host of an old alternative.

At this point, it should be crystal clear where the two major political parties stand. The Republicans have various factions, but they are driven by Christian conservatism. The Democrats have various factions, but they have no real direction and have shown signs of imploding. (Don't let the recent Congressional changeover fool you on this point! The Democrats can say that they aren't Republicans all that they want, but that isn't a forward moving platform or strategem.)

Like other Objectivists who are interested in new philosophical ideas and formations, I've been listening to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's DIM hypothesis lectures. (Caveat: His theory was only made available several years ago, and he's indicated that it may undergo some revising, so anything anyone says about this theory should likely be considered tentative until the related book is published. Also as a side-note, Dr. Peikoff was looking for possible refutations in 2004.) DIM is an acronym that represents _all_ of the possible views of conceptual application with respect to subsuming concretes and/or concepts into higher-level concepts: Disintegration/Integration/Misintegration. Dr. Peikoff also mentions the epistemic "zeroes" and the eclectics, but they do not have an essential view of conceptual usage that leads anywhere directly.

He indicates that the DIM trichotomy comes from a two-step process. First, people choose whether to integrate or not. This is represented by D(isintegration) vs. I(ntegration). The next choice people have is to integrate based on reality or not. This is represented by I(ntegration) vs. M(isintegration). In other words, Disintegration is the default or starting position for a person when faced with the prospect of conceptual integration.

Now, at this point in time, The Republicans are being lead by Ms. In fact, Dr. Peikoff refers to the President as an M2 aka an extreme misintegrating agent. On the other hand, the Democrats are being lead by ideological Nihilists. In terms of applied theory of knowledge, the Democrats are being steered by Ds. (It was suggested during the lectures that Ds and Ms appropriate and actually require each other's thinking methods though they do this to a lesser degree...)

If the Republicans have failed to realize a proper view of Capitalism, and they are intransigent in their interest in religious metaphysics, then they are simply going to derail over time. The Democrats are obviously going to also need a few years before their destructive approach resolves. If the Republicans are "derailing off the train" of political philosophy, then the Democrats are currently doomed to "running out of steam" in the midst of their theoretical travels.

What occurred to me is that: If facing reality with a disintegrated mind is the starting point, and misintegrating reality is a failed attempt, then the Democrats could _potentially_ do the otherwise unthinkable. That is, the Democrats could over time rediscover the basis for political philosophy i.e. rational selfishness. In turn, they could "re-lay the train tracks" and become agents of political integration. The Democrats could eventually discover and employ Capitalism. The problem is that there is this one little thing getting in the way....

Now, for some background material..... DIM is a HIGHLY essentialized theory, and any essentialization involves loads of abstraction and temporary concrete-dropping i.e. what Ayn Rand called "measurement-omission." Examples of measurement-omission are readily available in mathematics, although the technique can be applied across human endevours. Let's say that home building contractors are hired to build a new home. They have to run measurements along the ground to figure out how to install a foundation. They have to make measurements as far as the size and weight of their building materials go. They have to also generate total quantities for those materials. When they communicate and otherwise work with those materials, they do _not_ use the full reference to the measurements, and they certainly omit more detailed descriptions of the items which are measured. For example, let's say that part of a wall requires a dozen boards. Workers are likely to talk to each other along the lines of saying, "Hand me 3 of those boards." They wouldn't continuously say, "Hand me 3 boards which are x feet long, y inches wide, and z inches deep." Could you imagine how long a project would take if every time a contractor needed materials he said, "Hand me some boards which are x feet long, y inches wide, z inches deep, weigh w ounces, are made of such-and-such material, coated with this-and-that material, etc. etc."?!?!? Obviously, people have to use measurement-omission and other conceptual techniques if they want to ever be productive. ...so using DIM as a tool for projecting a possible future won't automatically generate much of the details. Instead, I do think that it can be used for outlining a trend.

Of course, what people should remember is that the DIM theory is contextual, and I don't mean to suggest that any Objectivist would patronize relativistic positions either. In fact, it's the principles that DIM depends on that allow for what would appear to be reliable results. Again, it's the essentialized nature of the theory that makes prediction workable. There are certainly some qualifying factors to consider when it comes to how my idea could be manifested. One of the more obvious stipulations is that the Republicans and Democrats have been keeping each other in check by way of a process of nullification i.e. "gridlock". For the next couple of Presidential terms, we'll likely be fortunate to only be able to keep this tenuous holding pattern. Dr. Peikoff actually reminded students of the 2004 Integration course that an unstable philosophical situation has to eventually be either reconciled or it will break down. In terms of politics, that simply amounts to Capitalism vs. Anarchism. Also, Ayn Rand noted that Anarchism leads to a "power vacuum", so we certainly have yet another reason to fight for Capitalism otherwise America could find itself facing dictatorship down the road. In other words, there won't be a substantial transition to Capitalism without periodic stalling points and other non-essential periods of the trend.

This also may seem like a curious experimental idea given what Objectivists (and other Capitalists) want to do. Objectivists want to actually train enough people in philosophy at least to the point of influencing the culture in a positive and more liberating way. Also, it will always be tempting to want to do away with some aspect of the current political system. In fact, non-Objectivists seem to be much more impatient as far as political change is concerned. I can't remember whether it was Sen. Clinton or someone else, but after the Bush vs. Gore voting debacle, one Democratic Senator called for the elimination of the electoral college. This isn't the direction that my hypothesis is meant to suggest. I certainly do endorse what Objectivists are generally fighting for i.e. the spread of the right philosophical ideas throughout venues of academia and press communications. By the way, none of the recent election commentary was meant to take away from the importance of influencing culture by way of transforming intellectual tendencies.

What I am now suggesting is that it could be that something else will happen at the same time some people will develop into political agents after studying and applying Objectivism. It could be that enough people will become more familiar with Objectivism (or maybe just its effects) around the same time that they comprise the future current political force at the time of a major paradigm shift. If this happens, then there could be a new version of the "inside-outside" question. That is, the ideological changes within Congress might actually begin to keep up with those in academia.

...oh, you wanted to know that little problem for the Democrats, huh? They have to be able to learn to "(re)connect the dots" i.e. they have to first get a motive for learning integration.