Commentary

October 2001 -- A commentary from the Navigator Special: The Assault on Civilization, posted September 18, 2001 As the full impact of the barbaric terrorists attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon unfolded, TV anchors, commentators, and community leaders invoked God and prayer as a means of personally dealing with all the tragedy of this attack. Communities and congregations organized prayer vigils and religious services. President Bush declared Friday, September 14, 2001 a "National Day of Prayer and Remembrance."

Oct 14, 2010

|

December 2001 -- Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies . By James C. Collins and Jerry I. Porras. (New York: HarperCollins, 1994. 336 pp. $26.00.) If I had to recommend one book in the field of organizational behavior, Built to Last would be it. The authors, James Collins and Jerry Porras, conducted extensive research on "visionary companies"—members of an elite group of companies that outperform and outlive their competition.

Oct 14, 2010

|

January 2002 -- In recent decades, friends of liberty have celebrated the new economy not only for the tangible benefits it brings but also for its promise of liberation. Technology has dramatically increased the mobility of people, capital, and information, and thus provided them with escape routes from the heavy hand of government. In a global capital market, for example, where a mouse-click can send money across borders in a microsecond, central bankers in Washington, London, Tokyo, and elsewhere can no longer impose onerous controls with impunity. E-commerce with strong encryption, some have argued, will prove impossible for governments to tax, and the Internet will undermine governments' power to censor information. Some theorists have confidently predicted that the nation-state will become obsolete. How can you rule people and things that won't stay put?

Oct 13, 2010

|

David Kelley, Ph.D.

December 2001 -- Ayn Rand 's Atlas Shrugged portrays a corrupt American government populated by "looters" with suggestive names like "Cuffy Meigs" and "Wesley Mouch." The "looters" are blindly rapacious power-seekers who see the entire world as a candy shop. The challenge of life, for them, is to seize as much of the goodies as they can as fast as they can: devil take the hindmost and never a thought for tomorrow. The looters do not consider how goodies come into existence (or, if they do consider it, their answer is "somehow"). They give no thought for the human mind nor the rights of the individual. In the novel, the looters stumble blindly from crisis to crisis, digging the country ever deeper into a morass of economic and social breakdown.

Oct 13, 2010

|

January 2002 -- The fastest way to undermine a precious value is to dilute it with lesser materials. Gold coins are cheapened by the addition of brass. High art is corrupted by pop infusions. And the strenuous ideal of public service is adulterated by the inclusion of mere volunteerism. That is not to say brass, popular art, and volunteer work are bad things. On the contrary, considered in themselves, they are good things. But just as the best may sometimes be the enemy of the good, so the good may be the enemy of the best. And that is just what is happening today in America's public discussions about public service.

Oct 13, 2010

|

About this audio program: In this talk, from The Atlas Society’s 1998 Summer Seminar, Dr. Nathaniel Branden presents an uplifting interpretation of what it means to love one’s life. And in the process he explores the preconditions, the obstacles, and the psychological issues involved in achieving this way of thinking.

Oct 12, 2010

|

Question: What is in this Objectivism for me? Answer: Objectivism has offered different things to different people, usually based on what they were looking for at the time. It has provided spiritual inspiration, philosophic wisdom, intellectual stimulation, political advice, and more. Frequently it even has provided a blend of these values. However, there are two values that Objectivism offers that are of particular significance, not only because they are infrequently found elsewhere, but also because they involve fundamental issues that shape people's entire lives.

Oct 4, 2010

|

Question: Objectivism defends capitalism, and capitalism is associated with wealth and affluence. However, I read instances, mostly published in the religious press, that go something like this: "Mr. X had enormous wealth. He had two vacation homes, a yacht, a gorgeous wife, and two kids attending the finest colleges in the nation. However, he looked back on his life and sadly lamented, ‘Is that all there is?’ He discovered that material possessions do not relieve the emptiness in life. Religion gives a supernatural answer to Mr. X's dilemma." How does Objectivism deal with the "Is that all there is?" question? Answer: In the Objectivist view, pure, laissez-faire capitalism is the "unknown ideal" because it is a social system in which everyone is free to live the life he chooses, respecting the freedom of others. And in the Objectivist view, making money is presumably good, because if it follows from a career of productive achievement, it represents the finest in man and that which is his best mode of living: creation, production, achievement, trade.

Oct 4, 2010

|

Question: What is Objectivism's take on the value of people who are not as brilliant or talented as the main characters in Rand's novels? I am disheartened by the thought that these people are considered "useless" (as not everyone can be a Howard Roark, Dagny Taggart, or John Galt when it comes to brain power). Yet that is the impression I get from her books. Answer: Objectivism holds that each person has moral worth and that each person can be proud and happy. It is not an elitist philosophy in that sense, and certainly does not consider less able people "useless."

Oct 4, 2010

|

Question: Ayn Rand said that a "value" is "that which we act to gain and/or keep." Does this mean that something is a value only if one attempts to own or possess it? For example, suppose that there is a painting in a museum that I like very much. Seeing this painting gives me inspiration and "emotional fuel." However, I make no attempt to purchase and own the painting. Since I am not attempting to own the painting, is it therefore not a value to me according to Objectivist philosophy? Answer: First, be clear that Ayn Rand characterizes but does not define "value" by "that which one acts to gain and/or keep." Her point is that one of the conditions for considering something as a value to you is how you act towards it. A mere idle wish does not a value make.

Oct 4, 2010

|

Question: What do Objectivists think of the validity of Objectivism? In analyzing its own construct, is it merely being subjective? Answer: Objectivists hold that the philosophy is fundamentally inductive and empirical: It is objective, based in the facts of reality and human nature. Its essential principles have such a sound basis that we can be certain of them.

Oct 4, 2010

|

July/August 2000 -- In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote: The direction of all economic affairs is, in the market society, a task of the entrepreneurs.Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme.

Oct 2, 2010

|

A central focus of the Business Rights Center is prosecutorial misconduct, as I suggested in my editorial last week: “ Let’s Jail Prosecutors Who ‘Obstruct Justice .’” It is also a particularly potent issue, because it is a problem for all classes of people, and so does not immediately provoke an anti-business reaction from Leftist journalists. Yet once a person is sensitized to prosecutorial misconduct, he will likely be wary of it even in white-collar cases. Thus, a press more aware of the problem might not have accepted out-of-context leaks from Eliot Spitzer and used them to vilify his helpless targets.

Oct 1, 2010

|

Question: In Viable Values, Tara Smith expresses the view that things can only be objectively good or bad for someone who has adopted life as his final end. I wonder then, if one saw clearly what life would mean for oneself and decided that he didn't want that, would this mean that he could not rationally avoid things that he would find painful or displeasurable? For example, although if I decided I didn't want to live I could not possibly have anything which would be objectively GOOD for me, could other things nonetheless appear to me not to be bad, or to be avoided (such as avoiding a torturer, for example)? Answer: There is a difference between what can appear to be good or bad for us over the short term or out of context, and what really is objectively good or bad for us in the full context. Metaphysically, a life is an end-in-itself, because its continued existence depends on one's actions. Biologically, our abilities to feel that something is pleasurable or painful, or good or bad, evolved as capacities we need to survive. But we have free will: We are not required to act for the sake of our lives, nor even do what feels pleasurable. Indeed, we are not even required to act as we judge right. This is why we need ethics: Consistently acting for the sake of our own lives is not automatic nor easy. And because it is not automatic, it depends, at root, on a voluntary choice to live.

Sep 30, 2010

|

Question: If suicide could sometimes be the right course to take, then wouldn't ethics (which tells man how to act rationally) have to advise one as to how to go about it in the cases where it would be the rational thing to do? I'm assuming of course that a man would need principles of some kind in order to be successful in?any kind of endeavor, including suicide.? It seems to me that this?may be a problem with the Objectivist ethics. Answer: Your question is a bit peculiar. After all, if one truly wants to commit suicide, there are not that many decisions to make after that. At a minimum, one could let nature take its course. But perhaps you are wondering about choices regarding how to commit suicide, and how to hurt one’s loved ones as little as possible, which might be issues that ethics should address. That is how I understand your question. Objectivism holds that life is the ultimate value. In nature, all values derive from the self-generated and self-sustaining actions of living things. Moral values derive from one’s choice to embrace life and happiness, rather than suffering and death. In this context, morality is not merely a guide for action, it is a guide for living.

Sep 30, 2010

|

Question: Each man as a sovereign intellect, I agree, has a moral duty to learn and adhere to the objective facts of his existence and life-preservation. My question falls into an ambiguous and somewhat objective stance. Man, even productive man, can fall victim to illness, disability, disaster, etc. If a group of productive, trading people, who accept that at any time a brother can fall, decides to pool a portion of their productive wealth into social safety nets, and have those nets for themselves as well as others, is this not a selfish and rational idea that a civil aware society may subscribe to despite its apparent siphoning of wealth? Answer: The Objectivist politics is basically libertarian: It holds that the proper function of government is to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property. Objectivism is opposed to government programs that violate the rights of some to redistribute wealth to others, and as such it is opposed to government insurance and government-provided pensions. Morally, Objectivism stands for rational selfishness, or the idea that each of us has the ultimate moral claim on our own life and happiness. It is not just wrong to take from others politically, it is also wrong to demand that others sacrifice what they value for the sake of others.

Sep 30, 2010

|

Question: I would like to know what word an Objectivist uses to denote what the rest of the world would call "selfish." This person would be called a ??? person. Answer: There isn't one Objectivist code for this. Ayn Rand's comments in the preface to The Virtue of Selfishness notwithstanding, some people with a good grasp of Objectivism prefer to use "selfish" in a pejorative sense. I am not one of them, however, and I agree with Ayn Rand that the equation of self-interest with evil is a cultural artifact that we must not keep reaffirming. What follows reflects my own usage.

Sep 30, 2010

|

Question: What will be the view of an Objectivist on the detention of terrorists who were captured during the Afghanistan war? What is the Objectivist view on war in Iraq? Answer: In our "War for Civilization" commentary section, you can find all our commentaries on the war on terrorism and the Iraq war. The Atlas Society as such is a philosophical organization. We do not have a formal position as an organization on either of these issues.

Sep 30, 2010

|

Question: If humans are selfish, how come they go out of their way to help a baby or save a dog out of the kindness of their heart, without even thinking about the action before doing it? Answer: Objectivism does not hold that humans are selfish. It holds that humans should be rationally selfish and act in support of their own lives and happiness. In fact, few people are consistently and rationally selfish. People are taught to sacrifice themselves to others, and do sacrifice themselves to others all the time.

Sep 30, 2010

|

Question: According to Objectivism , am I being rational by putting nothing above the judgment of my own mind? Or (according to Objectivism), am I being irrational by rejecting the authority of an MD? Answer: Objectivism holds that one key element of the virtue of independence is thinking for yourself. Ultimately, no matter what anyone tells you, you have to decide what is true based on your own context of knowledge. Only you can judge for yourself the objectivity of your reasoning. Only when you think something through do you know fully that the conclusion is logically derived from the facts. However, it is a fact that on any given topic there are usually others who know a heck of a lot more than most of us do. If we have very good reasons to think that they are not lying and have been objective in their reasoning, then we have good reason to incorporate their information into our knowledge (provided, of course, that we can integrate it with what we already know and with our own experience). You can get news of the world from a newspaper. You can learn science by testing the theories in a textbook. You can take medicines based on the advice of doctors, pharmacists, and medical researchers. And those are just a few examples of rational ways in which we use the information of reliable experts.

Sep 29, 2010

|