Consent and Non-Consent/Freedom and Force is a Binary

Some people have commented in the past that I am too extreme or too far rightist. In the sense in which right means being for Capitalism VS Anti-Capitalism of some form. However, they are philosophically incorrect and not understanding of the essentials of right and left, of freedom and force or of consent and non-consent. You see force or breaking of consent is a binary and you either have consent/freedom or you have force/compulsion of the innocent. There is no such thing with this in mind as too in favor of Capitalism. There is no such thing as being too pro-Consent. There is no such thing as "extreme-right" or "Far-right" other than to separate yourself into being the pure form of rightism if needed. However, it is in the end an oxymoron as there is no degrees of Capitalism. There is no degrees of Consent Society and of freedom for the innocent. You either are free; to live, to think, to judge and then to act or you are not in which case you are a Surf.     

The options (Right or Left; Top or Bottom) are the binaries at the heart of all philosophy how mankind qua mankind should treat each other while living on Earth. It is a humane Ethical code put into practice in the political realm of the world and of philosophy. Anything that is not Right (On the Right) is Wrong/Evil and not correct or moral. Thus it is not I; the moral man with the fully coherent and fully rational moral code of conduct expanded to politics that needs to explain things. It is the immoral, the vile, the vicious and pernicious parasites that think government exists to cater to their entitled attitude that need to explain why they are not in the realm of politics either evil or wrong. Why is it right to force all other moral men and I's minds? What is your evidence for the need and moral backing of stopping our minds? Of squashing our very Human Spirits at the barrel of a gun? You do not get to control others because you grew up in a padded Snowflake friendly entitled world. 

I am not your Surf, I am not your Slave... I am a human being, a human mind and a living entity of your species. You have no right to make me your surf or your Slave. You have no right to demand my time or money be spent on what your values are at the expense of my own. I do not live for those whom demand sacrifices at every turn like I am a stuffed Turkey at your Thanksgiving. I am a man qua man and my freedom is Binary. As is all of yours. Freedom/Consent or Force/Non-Consent. It is a Binary; it is Right (Morally and Politically) or it is wrong (that which the Left politically represents and the Moderate Muddled compromise allows to poison the broth.) Even if one uses the term Top for Freedom and Bottom for degrees of force it is still a Binary one direction or the other. There is no other direction it is either Freedom/Consent or some level of evil, of wrongness of the vile thing known as force/non-consent in dealings with your neighbors. The Anti-Capitalism in any degree is the anti-mind, thus the anti-human and the anti-life. Moderates; those whom call me too extreme or too far-right are the ones that are wrong for they are in the end compromising with their own deaths. 

Masculine traits, feminine traits and human traits

If one actually looks up on Google or some other search engine the words masculine traits one is sure to find numerous results. Some of them will be your generic "be the Alpha" sort of sites. Some will be the average dating type website. Others will be about Evolutionary Psychology an actually backed up science of human nature. Meanwhile still others will be "game" websites which preach their ways will get you the girl if you work it right. 

Sometimes you can find very useful and truthful claims about what is masculine psychologically and feminine psychologically. Other times what you find is snake oil salesmen pitches. Still further there is also a whole bunch of blatantly anti-male feminist crap online as well which calls masculinity toxic. When one is wondering what is masculine and what is feminine the net can harm as well as help your mindset. There are some really good websites dedicated to men and masculinity. There is also a bunch of junk. 

Let me state first of all I do not think being feminine actually makes you less of a man. However, I do find there to be a difference between a masculine and feminine man. These are not matters of one being worth more than the other when it comes to human worth and value. Just because people are different even within the same sex does not mean those differences have any moral or ethical weight. You judge a person by the contents of his character and not how limp or firm his wrist is. However, I do find that the differences do exist for sure. 

I have taken more than one Gender Identity Expression and psychology test on the net. I find I always get the same results more or less. I end up with either a standard or very high masculine metric on each one of them simply by answering authentically about how my brain works when presented with certain situations. Some of these situations are more generic than others. Further still some psychological testing simply uses descriptors and sliding scales of where you sit in regards to it. 

Also, one must differentiate between what ones brain thinks or responds like and whether said person actually acts in accordance with those thoughts. A person could think in a more masculine way than they act in the actual environment around them. One could also think more feminine typical than they act as well. Not every little reflex, thought or desire manifests in behavior or mannerisms. The point being that metrics do exist that are not just some airy fairy nonsense and I would never argue otherwise. 

Yet, some things that seem to get lumped into the feminine side sometimes is to me patently bullshit and not feminine at all. For example the BEM sex role inventory puts compassion in the feminine box. So, I get like 20% -40% feminine on some tests along side 100% masculine in the same exact test. Mainly due to things like compassion being coded as being feminine instead of just being a human trait and perfectly compatible with being in the masculine box. So, men whom take these tests get coded by default as some sort of androgynous being simply for being human. 

So, men are incapable of being caring of others is basically what this misandric anti-male nonsense is trying to say. The standard non-androgynous man is an uncaring, cold hearted prick? This is complete nuttiness to say that the moment you might somewhat care about anything you are becoming like a woman. There are things that are definable and masculine or feminine, but, that is not one of them. It is a human trait that manifests irregardless of what is in between your legs. Often men's compassion is shown differently, but, it sure as hell exists.

A good example would be crying and I will use myself as an example of men's feelings. If I were to be super sad about something to the point I was possibly going to have my eyes become watery I would never cry around a stranger. I just would not if I cry it needs to be around someone I trust or better yet alone with no one around. During my more depressive days at work for example I would never cry if I were to work in the center. Tears do not help me work at all it is an unproductive behavior. Now, when I got home if the issue was bad enough a small little bit of water might come down my chin, might, but, maybe not either. 

The point I am trying to make though is that just because emotions are expressed differently by men does not mean we do not have them. To argue we do not simply because men do on average have more emotional mastery in that way is to misunderstand human nature itself. It is to in essence make an argument that men are not human and never can be unless they deal with emotions the way a woman would. To argue that I see the word compassion and say I agree makes me or any man any amount of less masculine is absurd.

When it comes to myself I do not plan on dropping my masculine self-identification simply because some test tries to say I am whatever percent feminine. That would be equally absurd as some of the tests assumptions are. In the end of the day I am just going to as Allan J. Frantzen puts it Grab My Balls and own my manhood not some random testers that know nothing about me. I refuse to put the source of my own self-esteem at the mercy of people whom obviously do not think very highly of men in general.  

On the Non-Initiation Of Force Principle vs the Non-Aggression Principle

The below article was originally posted by Redditor Mr_Koroand it took the words right out of my mouth. In other words he says in wonderful words one of the many issues with the libertarian movement and its context-dropping/reality evading by ripping NIOFP from any context or possible lines of evidence. No infringement or plagiarism intended by posting it on this blog. This is purely for education reasons. Peace!

Abstract

In this post, I discuss what some Objectivists call the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (hereafter NIOFP) and its relation to its ostensible libertarian-counterpart, the Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter NAP). I presume the reader has some preliminary familiarity with Objectivism.

To begin with, I talk about its origin in the Objectivist literature as well as its validation.

Then, I move onto the origin of the NAP, and some of its validations.

Later, I discuss the aforementioned relation and contrast it with other views.

Finally, I recap and add some personal thoughts.

Quick Introduction

u/JamesShrugged said on a recent meme:

[The NIOFP and the NAP] are the same thing. “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of force.

This led me to think about it. On its surface, the issue seems to be purely semantic. I began thinking whether or not aggression necessarily specifies the initiation of force, and what are the implications of using either formulation. The following is the result of my thinking.

The Origin in the Literature and Validation

The NIOFP's earliest appearance is in Atlas Shrugged. In Galt's speech, Galt spends several paragraphs addressing physical force. In essence, he introduces the idea that no man may initiate the use of force against another, and notes the immorality of succumbing to physical force as forfeiting one's judgment. He finishes by relating the issue to the basis of ethics, stating, in effect, that reason is man's means of survival.

There are many other further discussions of physical force which you can find in the Lexicon.

The validation of the NIOFP is grounded in the Objectivist ethics. There are two fundamental elements to this foundation:

• The first element is the Metaphysical Element. Man, being the rational animal depends on reason to survive. His needs are not accounted for by instincts. The goods he consumes can only be created. In other words, in order to live, man must produce his values, and the only means to that end is thought.
• This leads to the second element, the Normative Element. A man, should he choose to live, and thus be rational, must create the values his existence requires. He cannot expect another to live solely for his sake, and create the values he needs for him. And so, taking by force the values another man has created is self-destructive.

Thus we can observe that the initiation of force is immoral. In order to maintain this position rationally, one must rely on its foundation.

The Origin of the Non-Aggression Principle

Locke was the first to originate the NAP, stating that

no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [1]

Many thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, and others, maintained such positions thereafter. But to my knowledge, none have based it on the Objectivist foundation prior to Rand.

In fact, we can observe that some thinkers have based their support of the NAP on their support of equal individual rights. Their support of individual rights can be based on a theological basis, like Jefferson's view of rights as endowed by a Creator, or on a utilitarian basis, like Stuart Mill's view.

Interestingly, as previously mentioned, Rand bases the NIOFP on an ethical basis, and not on rights. Although there is a strong connection between the two, that is worth discussing.

The Relation: Equivalency or Contrast?

As we have seen, the NIOFP is necessarily a reference to the principle as Rand formulated it, and in the context of the Objectivist ethics. The principle specifies precisely what is its subject, by using the words "non-initiation of force." It maintains the proper context that validates it also.

Contrast this to the NAP. This principle can be said to be the result of God's edict that all of mankind was created equal; it can be said to be the result of the need for peace and order in society for the Common Good; it can also be said to be the result of the fact that man cannot truly know reality, and thus all action is amoral, so "live and let live".

The crux of the issue is the huge ambiguity in using the word "aggression".

The word "aggression" has two main senses:

1. Unprovoked physical force.
2. A hostile attitude and/or willingness to attack. [2, 3]

And something we should keep in mind is the fact that the intended sense of words is derived from their context. We should also keep in mind the fact that, unless otherwise specified by the speaker, you cannot assign the NAP any context. Given these facts, one can only conclude that the NAP cannot, and should not be a primary in a given discussion.

Conclusion and Personal Thoughts

By now I have shown that the NAP is a context-less concept. In order to validly use it one must tag onto it a context. This weakness, I believe, invalidates the use of the term NAP on its own, and renders its use for the purpose of communication impractical.

Moreover, this leads me to think about how the use of the term NAP without a context is prevalent in the libertarian community and reveals the arbitrariness with which libertarians base their support of freedom. It also validates my concern for the term NIOFP, as it could be tainted by the irrationally used term NAP.

Objectivism for beginners in Philosophy (a primer for newcomers to philosophical thinking)

This is intended as an article for people whom know nothing or at least very little in regards to broader philosophy in general. It will be both an intro to philosophical thinking as well as an introduction specifically to Objectivism. There is no intention in the reader coming out of the article a new Objectivist by any means. In fact, in order to actually be able to give yourself said title you would need to be able to see the philosophy is grounded in reality and only take on the label following seeing it is correct in reality or not. Objectivism is not a faith like a religion it is a reality based philosophy and thus for the title to be truthful you need to see the truth in its principals first.

Let us start with the first region of philosophy and that is the domain of metaphysics or the nature of reality. All philosophies have something to say about the nature of reality and different ones say different things. Some are coherent with reality and others are in fact incorrect about the nature of reality. However, metaphysics is this crucial aspect of our worldview. We all have such a worldview even if it is not explicit we pick up ones implicitly from others around us. Such is the fact with all philosophical thinking. We all have one even if it is just copying the thinking of those around us. (Even if that view is dead wrong.)

Metaphysics means asking yourself the crucial question does reality even exist? Is there a reality and if so what is its properties? What comes first consciousness or existence? Some people will answer reality is subjective. Some people like myself will say reality is objective and external to our consciousness.

Existence does exist outside of just our wants and desires. The real world is outside there and reality itself exists regardless of ones wishing it did not. If I jump at a wall I will no go through it like a character in a work of fiction where the laws of nature need not apply. Reality is in other words objective and not subjective. Things outside you exist as they do irregardless of what you would like them to be. The role of your consciousness is to look out at existence and learn how to navigate in your current environment using your reason/facts/knowledge of your environment. Consciousness is not primary existence is primary and your means of survival in your current environment is your reason. The fact that we are an animal that has the ability to be rational as its main differentiating factor from other species of Apes in the Animal Kingdom.

Reason brings us to the second level in philosophical thinking epistemology or how one gains knowledge of existence or reality. Reason is our means of taking facts about the world and integrating them together in a concise whole. It is our means of using logic to guide our lives as opposed wanting the facts to change to match what you wish them to be. Other philosophies will come to different conclusions, but, they would be wrong. We cannot just act on mere whim and not think through our actions. This level is all about knowledge and whim is not knowledge. Nor is instincts which were evolved in a different environment. Reality is primary and thus reason is our primary means of long term survival.

This brings us to the third level or aspect of philosophy. Ethics what ethics would or should one live by and many different philosophies with give you different answers. However, following the hierarchy nature of philosophical thinking will bring you to your ethical destination. As the reality is that we all have our own mind and must live our own lives. As we need to take certain actions in order to live. Mainly we need to pursue certain things to live we all have values we need. We need to act to gain and keep them. However, it is the individual that needs to pursue values to live there is no collective mind or collective stomach. Thus the ethical attribute of philosophy in accordance with the level below it would be rational long term flourishing of each individual person. AKA nurturing the self AKA "Rational Long Term" Selfishness or Rational Egoism.

This does not mean one condones throat cutting or harming other people or their property. Nor does it mean that one condones using other people as your means to an end. The exact opposite as all minds are individual only individuals truly exist. Society is just a bunch of individuals living together that come together for various reasons. However, in the end we are all individual minds, individual souls if you wish to use such terminology. Which means it is immoral to use others and instead each individual mind that exists on the Earth is an end in themselves to pursue their own happiness in life. The only ethical social system is where no-one is sacrificing others to themselves nor sacrificing themselves and their values to others. All actions are taken as mutual exchange to mutual benefit and voluntary. The initiation of removal of consent, the initiation of coercion on other people is banned in an ethical social system.

This leads to the next branch which is social or political systems. Only one is constantly coherent with the previous levels of philosophy in my view. However, lots of other philosophies will and do come up with other views other than my own. The important part is that it is in the hierarchy at a different level and not primary, but, a conclusion based on broader philosophical considerations. The only social system consistent with a world where you are left alone to live as you see fit is a Genuine free market AKA Capitalism. This is because it is a social system that lets peaceful live as they see fit and in which all property is privately owned. Meaning you are able to keep the fruits of your labor and any rightful and just property you have obtained by creating it or trading it with other people.

The final area of philosophy is aesthetics or art. Many people will come to many different conclusions based on their broader philosophical outlooks. This is simply a beginner primer in philosophy and Objectivism. There is no obligation or duty on your part to agree with Objectivism based on this outline. However, I do hope this at least makes you realize the importance of philosophy in all of our human lives on this Earth.

Shoshana Milgram - Frank Lloyd Wright and The Fountainhead

This talk was recorded at Objectivist Summer Conference 2018 in Newport Beach, California.


Frank Lloyd Wright and The Fountainhead: The Full Story

To what extent (if any) was Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark really Frank Lloyd Wright? The parallels between her fictional hero and an actual architect have, over time, been exaggerated, denied and distorted. This talk, drawing on Wright’s archives, uncovers key relevant facts. You will learn the full story, including Ayn Rand’s remarks on a never-reprinted Wright article and the secret negotiations regarding the prospect of his working on the 1949 film.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

Proper and justly obtained Pride is a Virtue not a vice!

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned -- that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character -- that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind -- that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of the character that makes his life worth sustaining -- that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul -- that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has to automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral idea, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must make by choice -- that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself -- and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness, and then incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others." [Ayn Rand, For The New Intellectual, p 130]

Being Selfish : The Virtue of Selfishness | Dr. Yaron Brook | Full Length HD

Dr. Yaron Brook (M.B.A., University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D., Finance, University of Texas at Austin) is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a leading advocate of Rand's ideas. A former finance professor, he speaks internationally on such topics as the causes of the financial crisis, the morality of capitalism, and ending the growth of the state. Yaron is a columnist at Forbes.com, and his articles have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor's Business Daily, and many other publications. A frequent guest on a variety of national television programs, he is co-author of Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea and contributing author of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. His newest book, Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government, co-authored with Don Watkins is now available. To follow Yaron and see his most current activities, please check out Yaron Brook and Don Watkin's blog Laissez-Faire: The Uncompromised Case for Capitalism. Born and raised in Israel, Yaron served as a first sergeant in Israeli military intelligence and earned a BSc in civil engineering from Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Yaron admits to being a socialist until the age of 16--then he read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Despite his best efforts to poke holes in Rand's arguments, he couldn't, and went on to become a student of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. In the late 1980s, Yaron and his wife started thinking about where in the world they would want to live their lives and raise a family. Where could they find the greatest amount of freedom and the greatest amount of opportunity? The answer was clear, so in 1987 they emigrated to the United States. He would go on to become an American citizen in 2003. Yaron received his MBA and PhD in finance from the University of Texas at Austin. For seven years he was an award-winning finance professor at Santa Clara University, and in 1998 he cofounded a financial advisory firm, BH Equity Research, of which he is presently managing director and chairman. While in America, Yaron continued studying Ayn Rand's philosophy. In the mid-1990s, he joined the Ayn Rand Institute's new educational program, the Objectivist Graduate Center. It was in the OGC (now expanded into the Objectivist Academic Center) that Yaron deepened his knowledge of Objectivism.

It was also during this time that Yaron launched Lyceum International, an organization that for many years ran conferences on Objectivism. In 2000 Yaron left teaching to become the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and go-to source for laissez-faire policy. Yaron's field of speciaties include Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), capitalism, finance, business ethics, venture capital, economics and foreign policy.

Yaron Answers: What's The Difference Between Altruism And Benevolence?

Yaron Brook answers a question from Robert: "What's the difference between altruism and benevolence?" www.laissezfaireblog.com

The Virtues are the core of it all and a refresher on what Objectivism actually means.

Previously I have posted up a copy of The Objectivist Virtues which are the core of Objectivism and its ethics. This is what an Objectivist should look out for in the character of other people and not whether they are an Objectivist themselves. While I definitely have a view which says that Objectivism whether you agree with the applications has a core of reality and reason. Thus that it is consistent in its virtues with the objective reality. It would be a mistake to judge others as having a good or evil nature based on not being an Objectivist.

What matters are the virtues such as rationality, honesty, integrity, independent thinking, justice, productiveness and pride. If someone has good character traits such as these he does not need to declare he is an Objectivist he is a good person of good character. He might fervently disagree with the other parts of Objectivism and be a perfectly good person. What matters is the person is living in reality, using reason and has a good character. Their status when it comes to being an Objectivist is not a primary even if Objectivism contains all the above virtues of a person of good character. In fact, not all Objectivists understand nor practice these same core virtues of their very own philosophy.

As Diana Brickell said on her now defunct, but, archived philosophy radio show "some of the best people you will ever meet are Objectivists and some of the worst people you will ever meet are Objectivists." She herself is an Objectivisr or Rational Egoist, but, she still made this declaration about the reliability of Objectivism being a test of anything with a person. I feel the same way and would put forth the same notion. People that are toxic can and do misuse philosophy to meet their own ends that are itself vile. This is what I feel has given Objectivism a bad name as people take on the label and espouse it without as much as knowing the very ethics they say they agree to live by.

It is not about doing whatever you like because it feels good or because you desire it. It is about long term overall during the course of a living human what is best for the self or individual. That is not saying hedonism is good. Whatever you want should be. It is about long term rational self-interest and flourishing on Earth. Rational, based in the facts of reality AKA using reason. What actions will give you the consequences of the best life possible given the facts of reality and of human nature. Ayn Rand was against hedonism and nihilism explicitly and implicitly as well as any kind of emotionalism or Whim Worshiping within her philosophically based work.

Anyone can rationalize what they want using whatever philosophy they want to believe supports their views. From the moment Ayn Rand first uttered the words "The Virtue Of Selfishness" people whom half the time act and think like they never even read The Objectivist Ethics have been calling themselves by the label Objectivism. However, that does not mean they are. Or that they are not totally misunderstanding what Objectivism defends and what it does not. For example; to follow the philosophy of Aristotle one needs to actually understand and then follow what his core ethical and virtue code said. Even if he himself at some point missed his own mark and forgot the essence of his own ethics at sometime in the future after developing it. That would not mean Aristotle was wrong with his virtues, but, that he failed to meet his own standards.

This is why I consider myself an Objectivist even when I disagree on personal matters of application or personal life decisions of Ayn's. The Philosophy is so rooted in reality, the philosophy is not the same as the end result persay of anyone's application of it. Reality as Objectivism and Ayn Rand herself said is the arbiter of what is true not what Ayn Rand believed on subject X or V. The bases of Objectivism is sound and does match facts of reality here are the bases Objectivism begins on.

Existence exists and reality is objective, it is real and it is measurable. Consciousness is not existence itself and does not make existence exist, but, is what views the objective reality. We then use what our Consciousness perceives and separate misunderstandings of perception through our reasoning facility. Through our big 5th Ape brains, through using our minds to look at the facts and bring them into the picture. In other words we use our ability we have evolved to try to be as rational as possible to find the truth. However, doing this is a choice one can choose to try to be rational and live in reality or to evade reality and to face the consequences. Humans also have free will even if just to think or not to think and then act accordingly. We also have an evolved human animal nature which can also be found through reason and science.

Due to the above the mind is our means of survival and what else could be? You are your mind you are your brain and when it dies you stop existing? So, that is all you can use to survive even if you use your hands or anything else your body has your mind in it there is no soul that makes the mind work. The supernatural is BS and it makes no sense because even the term is an oxymoron. Supernatural would indicate something other than that which can be proven to exist exists and that there is something other than existence and natural laws. Which as everything requires laws of nature to work at some level is from the ground up impossible to exist.

From this Ayn Rand also realized that minds are individual and so individuals need to be free to think and to act to gain/keep their values in life to survive. For this reason she coined the term Virtue of Selfishness to mean that long term long range well thought out best course of action within the light of reason to reach your goals. However, in order to gain and keep values as Aristotle before her stated one needs virtues. Rules of  Ethics to live by on Earth and to use to gain/keep those values. Those virtues are the ones I detailed above. No where does it say being unjust, being a douche, being abusive, or being heartless or not helping others is a virtue of Objectivism. Far from it in fact! In Objectivism it would be a sacrifice if you had a cause you supported and decided not to help that cause. For it would be sacrificing the higher value; for example getting a homeless person of good character help for a lesser value of spending your investment elsewhere.

This is what Ayn Rand means when she says she is against Altruism she does not mean she is against Benevolence, good will or human kindness. She means that she is against sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value. For example; in the John Galt Speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged she calls completely immoral any Mother that would forsake taking care of her own children for a materialistic value of a new fashion item. A Mothers higher value is taking care of her Family and not buying expensive materialistic possessions. Helping people you want to help because it is a cause worthy to you when you can afford it and when it will not leave you yourself homeless is a moral act. Objectivism is compatible with Benevolence and in fact it is mentioned in many of Ayn Rand's Essays.

The philosophy of Objectivism does not contain any of the toxic sludge that it's detractors blame on it and is compatible with a lot of things considered not be so. What makes most people dis Objectivism is its political and economical views of a total separation of economics and government. However, that is not where the philosophy has its roots metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics/virtues all come first one after the other in the hierarchy of ideas in the philosophy. Plenty of Objectivists do not even bother with the political portion of the philosophy as you cannot have such a government without a massive change in the culture first.

This brings us back to where we began the virtues are the thing, the rub and what matters here. However, those virtues also are tied with the metaphysical and epistemological which is why you need someone that lives in reality, which requires use of reason first. From that you get the virtues which are tied to that rational faculty of human experience. So, as long as you live in reality and have a good character this is what is of upmost important and whether you agree or disagree with the political implications of this can be debated fiercely.

However, first in doing so you are acknowledging that Ayn Rand at least got something right and was not all wrong. Even if you disagree with the rest of her views. Existence does exist, reason is man's means of survival and we do need a secular, reality based list of virtues which very well could include everything she believed even if it was not complete. My view on Objectivism is it is part of all good and true philosophy, but, it is of course not all of philosophy and not even all of morality persay. Also, of course Ayn Rand was not a Goddess she was a human flesh and blood woman with many faults. However, when she was right and reality has bared it out give the lady her due she was right on at least a certain amount of her philosophy even if you disagree with everything else she put forward.

 
  

No, Jennifer Objectivism does not endorse taxation in any forms

Recently I watched a video on Facebook entitled "Objectivism and Libertarianism better together." It was a plea that libertarianism and objectivism were not counter one another and could work together. For the most part I found it a somewhat interesting stream, but, ultimately I found it wanting to say the least. In fact, I found some parts of it downright deceptive. Which is nothing new for the current head of The Atlas Society.

It was not that long ago that Jennifer G. was making a plea to reach out to the religious for support in spreading Ayn Rand's ideas to the masses. A pure contradiction as Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy and more even than that is a reason/reality based philosophy with no room at all for the supernatural period. It is a departure from Objectivism itself and turns her philosophy away from being Objectivism as such at all.

This was the worry for those whom argued against David Kelley and his selling of Objectivism as an open system decades ago. It was not just that he talked to libertarian audiences, but, also that he argued Objectivism was an open system like a complete school of thought. However, this is incorrect Objectivism is Objectivism as A is A. Objectivism is the philosophy discovered and named by Ayn Rand as it was discovered and given said name. You cannot add to it nor subtract from it as switching A to B makes it B and not A. It is closed and was closed with Ayn Rand's death and cannot be altered while maintaining the name she gave it.

This is not dogmatic, insular or intolerant it simply says you can be an Objectivist and believe anything extra you want on top of it. However, the other things you support outside of the virtues, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and politics of your Objectivism is not Objectivism it is your additional views built on top of your Objectivism. This does not make these extra things wrong it can be totally in accordance with reality, but, it is not the philosophy that you used to get there. Objectivism is the philosophy the actual outcome of its application is not Objectivism it is the outcome.

Objectivism is Objectivism and because of this it cannot be allied with anyone on the Religious Right period. Objectivism is also against all forced confiscation of wealth AKA all taxation. In replacement there are a ton of different voluntary forms of payment and fees possible outside of confiscating peoples income for use for the government. However, Jennifer G. specifically said Objectivism was not against taxation in her interview. This is dead wrong Objectivists are against taxation all taxation and wish to replace it with voluntary payment systems. If you support taxation as an end as opposed to the least offensive forms as a band-aid towards a gradual removal of all taxation you are not an Objectivist.

In doing the interview Jennifer was revealed to be actually not an Objectivist at all. Instead a libertarian already and one of the more vicious kind that says taxation is not to turn people into surfs. That says taxation is not exploitation, expropriation, theft, extortion and also a form of social engineering. Instead that forcing a gun to peoples head at the end of a long sting of attempts to get their money by force and throw you in a prison for tax evasion is a just act. While it is anything, but, and taxation is anti-Objectivist and anti-Objectivism.

However, there is even more as she failed to denounce in the highest degree Jefferey Tucker whom is an anarchist for presenting an immoral and unjust worldview as legitimate. Anarchism is not a liberty ideal it is a no holds barred, no laws, no rules chaos ideal. It is the creed of those whom think that in a state of nature others will all just take stock and refuse to infringe peoples rights. It is the blank out and evasion of a people whom cannot tell a bottle from a jar. Government is a necessity in a civilized society. To quote Paul McKeever, "to be pro-reason is to be pro- (rights respecting) government." Anarchism is an unreasonable and irrational callback to a time of animals playing a dangerous game of might makes right and winner takes all. Anarcho-Capitalism is the doctrine of the uncivilized brute.

Jennifer Grossman is not an Objectivist at all from what I can see. She is an anarchist and theist neutral libertarian scoundrel of the highest order. Whom has no right to use that term for defining her own views that are not part of Objectivism at all. She refuses to denounce mystics and she refuses to denounce brutes whom would cause the world to go to hell in a hand-basket if their views ever got power among the mainstream. She praises the likes of Laura Ingram as being an A-OK Gal. Someone whom would have a Theocracy if she could. A Fundamentalist Christian nutcase of the highest order. Whatever The Atlas Society is peddling under Jennifer it is not Objectivism it is Grossmanism in disguise and it is disgusting.

George H. Smith helps clarify Altruism VS Benevolence and good will or helping others

Christopher Hitchens ---- The Morals of an Atheist

Christopher Hitchens talks about the morals of an Atheist from his book 'God is NOT Great'. Sorry for any audio sync issues.

The Quest to Revive Macho and Machismo as a Positive Masculine Archetype -- Double Edged Swords and Package Deals

The other night I wrote an article about how there is a revival of macho and machismo to be a positive thing for men. I also wrote how I did not know if it needed reinvented when it really only meant male or masculine pride. It also meant virility and strength as well. However, having searched over more dictionaries it comes to my knowledge that there is some not so nice baggage with the term as well. Looks like it really depends on which dictionary you look at what the full meaning is of the word machismo.

a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude  that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.

a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate

 Having an unusually high or exaggerated sense of masculinity. Including an attitude that aggression, strength, sexual prowess, power and control is the measure of someone's manliness. 

A strong or exaggerated sense of traditional masculinity placing great value on physical courage, virility, dominationof women, and aggressiveness. 

So, it looks like it really depends on where you get your definitions from what it entails. For me I used the good old classic Merriam-Webster which simply states, "a strong sense of masculine pride." This still does not answer the question I posed in my last article about if the revival was worth it or even needed. For one, it is actually the word Macho that takes precedence in the revival. It is not the word machismo even though the two are linked in the dictionary. For two, part of the quest is a reclaiming or rewording as it were.

The question overall is the worth of reviving and using the term for something positive. If that means the term changes with the times somewhat that could easily be part of that reclaiming. However, the idea of changing the term also comes with its own risks. One of those is changing so much it loses any meaning at all. The other is changing in the direction of just being whatever the ubber-feminists want men to be. There are lots of ups and downs to using the term as an archetype of masculinity.

Within my last article I was clearly on the side of using both terms positively provided on using the proper contexts. Has my view on this changed since I have been researching further? Do I now think men are better off not using the term at all? Or am I on board with it as long as it is a reclaimed version minus the domination/superiority some definitions use? Well, I plan on hopefully answering this main question in this follow up article with more information at hand.

The issue with the word is it is a package deal; in other words traditionally there is both good and bad in it. It means pride, strength, virility, and control of a situation. It also means domination of women and male superiority as well though in some definitions too. So, there is good and bad in the definition as found in a lot of dictionaries.

It also needs to be put into context if it is in the bedroom or in everyday life. There are lots of women that like their men to be in control in the bedroom as a sign of their masculinity. Not just within the Kink community, but, just in general. Of course, a woman into BDSM would not want a man that was not about domination and controlling them. Context does really mean everything when it comes to traditional machismo.

The word macho has slightly less baggage to it than machismo and that is the word at hand. Does that word need reinvented or reclaimed as something new? Or can it be kept as it meant originally without being negative? Let us take another look at the word macho once again as it has linguistically meant. If we want to know if it can be positive we need to go back to the etymological root of the term. What does macho mean again?

It turns out that Macho is actually defined in a couple of different ways by Merriam-Webster dictionary.

aggressively virile 

having or showing qualities (such as very noticeable strength and aggression) that agree with traditional ideas about what men are like : manly or masculine in a very noticeable or exaggerated way

It looks like macho simply means a very noticeably masculine or manly man. However, there was also an additional line talking about it being characterized by displaying machismo. That other word we had been talking about above. Once again we have a package deal of lots of neutral traits mixed with a possible negative trait depending on your definition. However, the root is simply being male. The actual etymological root is to be male and thus to simply be a man. 

Spanish, literally, male, from Latin masculus

It has the root literally in a male being a male; in a man being a man. Which fits in perfectly with the idea of male pride put forth in my previous definition. Now let us see what the root word is for machismo regardless of its current baggage. According to Merriam-Webster the etymology of machismo is as follows;

Spanish, from macho First Known Use: circa 1948

So, in essence of the word and its root a synonym for macho itself. It is another translation of the same meaning. So, what other synonyms does machismo mean? According to the same dictionary they would be virility, macho, masculine, manliness and manhood. So, going by this let us trace to its root words mainly masculine, manliness and manhood.

 having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man 

• a masculine voice

: of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males 

• masculine nouns

  

 qualities associated with men : manliness

: the condition of being an adult male as distinguished from a child or female

: adult males : men

 having qualities generally associated with a man : strong, virile

: appropriate in character to a man 

• manly sports

So, essentially machismo and macho go back to simply being an expression of manliness/masculinity. Etymologically the words macho and machismo are both value neutral. They are simply other words for masculinity and manhood. So, where do I stand on the revival of the term as a good thing? I think it is very commendable. After all neither word originally had any negative association.

The answer is not to sacrifice a word that could be perfectly suitable for a specific archetype of masculinity. It is instead to put it into context and define it properly. So, if someone asks if you are Macho or not provide a proper context and define it accordingly. The New Macho is really about removing the stigma from another word for masculinity and washing it of its bad associations. It is not so much about a new definition, but, rejuvenating the original meaning once more.