Monthly Archives: October 2002

North Korea's Making Nukes!

If you read my blog from August, you’d know that I suspected that some of that expertise the U.S. is putting into building North Korea a nuclear reactor might not just be used for peaceful purposes. Not surprisingly, N. Korea just admitted to having an active nuclear weapons development program, rejected its previous anti-nuclear agreement, and refused to allow any inspections. Oh, and when the U.S. envoy asked about its programs, it accused our diplomats of “threatening remarks.”

So, not only are we sending Korean troops millions in food every year, but we are even teaching them to build nukes!
Whatever happened to the “Axis of Evil”? And how does the fact that Korea may have an advanced nuclear weapons program affect our stance towards Iraq? I’m not sure, but if there is anything to be learned, it is that you shouldn’t provide weapons and military training to wacko fundamentalists, such as we did for Afghanistan, military intelligence and support for dictators (as we did got Iraq in its war against Iran) and nuclear plants and other aid for the “Axis of Evil” – such as we are doing now for North Korea.
Really people, this isn’t rocket science.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Middle East/Terrorism

Post: Why theft is always self-destructive.

[October 15, 2002] After tonight’s meeting I had a debate with a friend of mine (the only other Objectivist on this list)

I took the opposite position of the one I held tonight and played devils advocate as he tried to prove why theft is always wrong.

Take a look, and skip to the bottom if it gets boring.




GreedyCapitalist: Give me a solid proof of why theft is always self-detrimental
: First of all it may be wise to consult textbooks on egoism/altruism. They seem to say that both egoism and altruism say that you shouldn’t steal or do something against other people, but where they disagree is whether it’s wrong to refrain from doing something for other people. I’ve been thinking on the subject and think I’ve come up with an idea.
RedRyan3523: Your self-interest is your health and happiness. Happiness can only be achieved in a certain way, and it’s in the nature of happiness that you refrain from theft. You don’t refrain from theft because you care about the other guy, you refrain from theft for your own selfish reasons.
RedRyan3523: So all it has to be demonstrated is that by the nature of happiness and logic, and then it follows that theft is detrimental.
GreedyCapitalist: how?
RedRyan3523: also one can’t have the value of pride if he steals. Altruism neglects this aspect of man’s character.
GreedyCapitalist: Can’t you be proud of being the best in your business (thievery)?
RedRyan3523: can you be proud of how many women you have sex with in a short period of time?
GreedyCapitalist: sure, why not?
RedRyan3523: what is the character of such a person?
RedRyan3523: is he really happy?
RedRyan3523: Happiness is dependent upon self-esteem. That which hurts self-esteem hurts happiness. Self-esteem entails self-reliance.
RedRyan3523: So while you may gain what you steal, you lose some degree of self-esteem because you aren’t being self-reliant.
GreedyCapitalist: why does self esteem entail self reliance?
GreedyCapitalist: can’t you have high esteem in your ability to steal?
RedRyan3523: Stealing only seems attractive because you are only taking under consideration material values.
GreedyCapitalist: oh?
GreedyCapitalist: why can’t you be satisfied by material values alone?
RedRyan3523: It’s not in your nature.
RedRyan3523: Man needs material to maintain homeostasis, but he will be little more than a vegetable unless he has other values.
GreedyCapitalist: why can’t he get those materials by theft?
RedRyan3523: that neglects his non-material values.
GreedyCapitalist: why does he have to fulfill them [non material values] to be happy?
RedRyan3523: it all falls back on self-esteem and its relationship to happiness and self-reliance and its relationship to self-esteem.
RedRyan3523: Feelings of helplessness are common symptoms of depression.
GreedyCapitalist: you still haven’t tied self reliance and self esteem
RedRyan3523: It seems there’s a relationship between self-esteem and competence, i.e. self-reliance.
RedRyan3523: Depression feeds on incompetence, and one’s evaluation of oneself is dependent upon what a person can do.
RedRyan3523: In other words, happiness is not independent of the path through which you try to achieve it.
GreedyCapitalist: ok, but why can’t you feel competent at thievery?
RedRyan3523: self-reliance entails dealing with reality independent of an agent. Theft is dependence.
GreedyCapitalist: ok, but why is self-reliance so important to self-esteem?
RedRyan3523: You judge how well you do on a test by how much you got right. Your evaluation of yourself entails a standard by which to evaluate. An evaluation of a particular entity entails a particular standard by which to judge that entity. Self-reliance is that standard.
GreedyCapitalist: why is it the only possible standard?
GreedyCapitalist: maybe you could have a standard of other-reliance, i.e. altruism
RedRyan3523: Evaluation of a particular entity entails evaluation by a particular standard. You don’t judge how well you did on a test by the same standard as how you would judge how ell you did building something. The standard of evaluation goes hand in hand with what you are evaluating. Altruism entails assuming that one’s self is worthless, so that in particular can’t be used as a standard.
GreedyCapitalist: but you are saying that actions can only be evaluated by one standard — self-reliance. Why are other standards not applicable?
RedRyan3523: Like you can only evaluate particular things according to the nature of the thing being evaluated, you can only evaluate people by a particular standard. How much is a person worth to you? That depends on what he can do for you and how well he can do it.
RedRyan3523: There may also be characteristics of character people may have to be worth something. What qualities do you find attractive in others? Ability and character are the standards by which you judge others, so those two are the standards by which you evaluate yourself.
GreedyCapitalist: I see
GreedyCapitalist: Going back to the thief, I think you correctly point out the necessity of self-reliance for self esteem — which is itself necessary for happiness
GreedyCapitalist: The nature of humans is such that they must be productive to survive, and being a thief violates that nature
GreedyCapitalist: One may confuse true productivity with proclivity in crime, but that will only worsen the thief’s reliance on others labor for his welfare
GreedyCapitalist: he cannot escape that fact because reality is such that if you are not producing your own daily sustenance, you are taking it from others

GreedyCapitalist: The professional thief lives a life that goes against the objective requirements needed for a human being to provide for his own sustenance, and as long as he obtains his sustenance by stealing from others, he cannot have any self-esteem.  The same thing can be seen in lifelong welfare recipients and mooching bureaucrats.  They may hide from that fact, but they cannot avoid it, and that fact probably account for why most of them are losers who are often depressed, don’t amount to much  in life, and are afraid to get a real job that doesn’t involve stealing from others hard work

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Notes: David’s Brief Case for Objective Morality:


David’s Brief Case for Objective Morality:
October 15, 2002


  1. The are two forms of matter in the universe: living and nonliving, distinguished by the fact that living matter is mortal


  1. All lifeforms, including humans must satisfy certain needs (ie food, air, shelter, etc) in order to stay alive These needs are specific to the particular nature of each being: i.e. fish need water and worms, man needs air and meat/veggies


  1. Hence, all lifeforms have certain values (needs) they must achieve if they are to stay alive.


  1. For non-human animals, values are automatic: ie, their instinct tells them automatically that they must act in a certain way (hunt, run, reproduce) in order to remain alive. Humans however, are unique in that values are not automatic to them: unlike plants and animals they may choose to starve and die, and sometimes do.


  1. Man is also unique in that the means of survival is not automatic for him: instead of instinct he must learn to think and choose to do the things that prolong his life. He cannot (speaking generally) stay alive without using his mind. Thus, he must not only choose the values needed for life, but he must also use his rational faculties to achieve them.


  1. From 4 and 6, survival for man is dependent on the unique and necessary ability to use reason as his primary (actually, only) means of survival. Man cannot wish or pray for his food. He may steal it for a while, but someone, somewhere must create his daily sustenance by using his mind as the tool of his survival.


  1. The requirements for survival are objective (from 2) hence (from 6) the requirements for survival are the same for each individual and require the use of his mind to achieve objective (universal) goals in order to remain alive.
  2. Humans can choose other goals and ends during their life, but in order to accomplish them, they must remain alive (at least as long as death isn’t the goal they’ve chosen, in which case no values or actions would be needed at all.)


  1. Thus, in order to stay alive and accomplish any other goals, man must satisfy the requirements needed for his life: the use of reason to accomplish the needs of his survival.


  1. Since reason is a necessity of survival (from 7) and survival is the prerequisite of all other goals (from 9), all goals beyond mere survival must be analyzed to see how they affect survival. (For example, one can decide to risk his car as a race car driver, but since being a successful race car driver requires one to stay alive, he must take some minimum safety precautions.)


  1. Since the great majority of people have values that require their long-term survival (even when engaging in risky behavior) they must place their life as a primary means to all their other goals.


  1. Irrationality and mysticism are not a valid means of survival (from 6), and irrational values necessarily lead one towards death, since they do not accomplish the actions necessary to stay alive. (Not to mention not having any basis — which is another argument)


  1. Hence, “Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem.


  1. There is no other rational end (no possible rational justification for acting against self interest) – For example, not altruism since altruism goes against the rational requirements necessary for life.


  1. Thus: “Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society – because altruism is the irrational state of acting against one’s own life and towards death.

Introduction to Objectivist Ethics

(Notes for my presentation on Nov 13, 2002)

What questions does ethics answer? – 3 fundamental yet interrelated questions:

  1. For what end should we live?
  2. What fundamental principle, if any, should guide our actions?
  3. Who should profit from our actions?

What have been traditional answers to these questions? This depends on the source of morality various philosophers have used.

  • God
  • Society
  • Individual subjectivism
  • No basis for morality at all (since we can’t go from an is statement about reality to an ought)

Objectivism says that morality is derived from the nature of reality, and answers the fundamental questions as such:

  1. Ultimate value is life.
  2. Primary virtue is rationality.
  3. Proper beneficiary from actions is oneself.

Before we can get into what values man should have, we must ask what values are, and what their purpose is.

The meaning of values is derived from observation of how people act in everyday life.

Ayn Rand said that values are something “is something that one works to gain or keep”

This implies that values have a specific goal to be achieve and an alternative, that is an alternative outcome is possible.

This implies that values imply choice, as only one outcome may actually be possible in reality, but it does imply that the entity possessing values perceives an alternative where the value is not achieved. If some value is automatically guaranteed, it is not in our power to achieve or fail to achieve it, and this it is outside the scope of morality.

For example, one may value gravity and food. However, the law of gravity is an aspect of nature that you have no control over, while all animals, including humans, must act to pursue food if they are to survive.

The only entities that we know to have values are living organisms. A rock or a chair does not pursue values because it has no alternative other than to sit there.

Living organisms on the other hand, must pursue self-generated and goal-directed actions in order to survive. From the simplest amoeba to a human being, it is our mortality that gives us the alternative between life and death, and gives us the ability to have values.

In short, goal-directed entities do not exist in order to pursue values – they pursue values in order to exist. Or, as AR says in Atlas Shrugged, “it is only the concept of life that makes values possible.” Life is thus the proper target of all goal-directed actions, it is not just a requirement for all other values to be possible, but the goal of all other values.

When applying this principle to man, we observe that man is fundamentally different from animals and plants. For all other varieties of life on earth, values are automatic, while man is the only being capable of choosing the values by which to lead his life.

Some people in this group have brought up dolphins as an example of an advanced “thinking” species of animal. Suppose this is true – suppose that dolphins have a limited vocabulary, highly developed communication skills, and complex social orders. Even if true, this the purpose of a dolphins is always the same – to survive. A dolphin may have a limit knowledge of the world and limited reasoning skills. But whatever abilities it may have, it only can only use them for a single purpose: to continue its own and its species survival.

Man on the other hand, is a being that developed a volitional, conceptual consciousness. We do not have an automatic course of action, no overwhelming desire for self-preservation. The evidence for this is not only in many suicides but our hostility to many life-sustaining processes by self-destructive actions.

Like all other animals, man has a specific nature he must act in accordance with in order to survive, just as a lion must hunt, and a fish must swim. However, for humans the process of survival is not automatic, and the knowledge does not come to us without a mental effort.

The specific nature of man is that he must use the faculty of reason in order to survive. Reason involves the ability to form long-range goals, to sacrifice short-term gains for long-term goals, to continually use his faculty of reason. Man, like all living organisms must continually act in accordance with his specific means of survival, and when we stop using our means of survival, it’s as if we let go of the wheel while driving a car down the road of life. We can pray and hope to get to our destination, but without using the facility required to do so, we’ll only end up in a ditch.

Because unlike animals. we have no instinct to guide us at every stage of life, long term planning become a necessity for all human beings, this is where the need for principles arises. Principles are not an idealistic luxury but a requirement for all human beings in order to achieve their long term values.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Listserv: On the Nature of Free Will and Volition


The debate between free will and determinism is one of the most ancient in philosophy and has led to many misconceptions about what the various positions are. For this reason, before I go into explaining just what free will is, I have to cover what it is not. The major positions on the nature of volition can be described as determinism, indeterminism, and self-determinism.

Determinists claim that the nature of the universe is such that it is governed by certain universal scientific laws, so that each action is caused by a specific prior cause, and human action is no exception. They claim that the human mind is also governed by these rules such that no alternative course of action is possible to humans other than the specific and unique set of prior factors that caused that human action to be made. Thus, human choices are not “free” because they are determined ahead of time by whatever environmental, social, genetic, biological and any other unknown factors caused such choices to be made. Accordingly, men cannot be held morally responsible for their actions, since they have no more control over the causal chain of events in reality than anyone else.

One example of an argument for determinism is a man who must choose randomly between two eggs laid in front of him. He thinks that he chooses an egg randomly, but the determinist would say that the choice is actually because of some unknown factor – for example because one egg is minutely closer to him. Besides, the determinist would argue, when the man chooses to pick one egg, could he randomly choose to do something else? Could he choose instead … to kill himself? To jump of a cliff? No, the state of his mind is clearly not such that he would not act in this way, and the same goes for his choice of one egg and every other action: they are all determined by whatever prior factors that caused them to happen.

The determinist would say that whether the human mind operates by random firing of neurons or strict logic is irrelevant: both are governed by specific prior causes, and even if science could show that human choices were caused by random firing of neurons, the choice would not be “free” because it would not be “chosen,” independent of prior factors. In fact, to the determinist, free will would not be possible under any condition: if it was caused by prior causes all choice would follow the strict laws of causation, and if it was independent of any prior causes it would have to be random, and hence not “chosen” in any meaningful way. A skeptic could argue that just as one does not know what side a coin will land on when flipped, we do not know what people are going to decide ahead of time – but the determinist would reply that just because we do not know all the aerodynamic and structural factors that affect which side a coin will land on, does not mean that the flip is truly “random” as given enough information, would could determine the outcome of a flip ahead of time – and likewise for the choices made by a human mind, which we would be able to predict given enough information on its workings.

The classic reply in favor of free will to adopt some sort of indeterminism: that is claim that free will involves some sort of exception from the rules of causation. Traditionally, God has played this role, providing some sort of mystical “staging ground” for choice to occur. Rene Descartes took a more extreme position and argued that the mind exists on a separate plane from the body, and more recently, quantum physics and chaos theory have provides excuses to “escape” causation and allow a possible for “free” choice to occur. Both of these notions are nonsense. If a human choice is independent from any prior factors grounded in causation then it must be random, and randomness is in no way a “choice.” Whether God or quantum physics is the excuse, it is not viable to claim that human choice is independent of prior cause, and yet not completely random. As Baruch Spinoza said, “’it makes no sense to view God as the cause of all things and, at the same time, to believe that humans possess a free [will].”

The self-determinist position rejects both of these views. Affirming free will does not involve a rejection of causality in favor of a magical mechanism for human choice, but an affirmation of the process of volition that is the process behind all human choice. The self-determinist position rejects both the notion that any supernatural forces are involved or that any other cause of action is possible other than that which is determined by whatever laws, known and as yet unknown governed the workings of the universe. No “alternative world” where different choices were made is possible because the mind is not excused from the same rules that govern all other matter. Rather, “free will” refers to the uniquely human process of volition that allows multiple courses of actions to be considered and evaluated and one selected.

Human beings are thus unique in an important way: the process of volition, which makes them different from both inorganic matter as well as other forms of life, and allows for caused, yet free choices to occur. This definition of “free will” is not arbitrary but implied in the notion of “will” itself. When men commonly refer to human “choice” they are not rejecting causality but referring implicitly or explicitly to this process of volition. Volition is “free” in the sense that each individual must independently choose to think, as the choice to think or not is the primary choice and source of volition. This choice is not random, and certainly not independent of physical laws, yet it is a process unique (as far as we know) to human beings. The choice to think is not “free” in the sense that it is independent of prior cause but free in the sense that every individual must choose for himself to think or not, and suffer the consequences of his choice. Animals do not have such a choice: their actions are automatic and governed by instinct. For example, when a dog misbehaves, we punish it not because we hold it responsible but to change its action, but when a human acts in an immoral way, we hold the person as morally responsible: as culpable for their basic choice: to think or not. In other words, humans have a unique ability to project what the world be like given various courses of action (or inaction) and choose a course of action that leaves the universe in a more desirable state than the one prior to their action.

The skeptic will claim that human thought is not fundamentally different from a car: after all, we turn a key and the car either starts or not, depending on whether reality is such that the process of causation leads to an engine starting or to the battery being dead. In the same way, the determinist will claim, the human mind will either make the right or wrong choices, depending on what prior state it is in. However a car and a human mind are fundamentally different: the ignition process is a rigid mechanical chain, whereas human thought (when one chooses to think) involves a process of evaluation and conceptualization, (creating “models” of reality) which considers multiple possible avenues of action and allows for an evaluation of the consequences of each choice. To claim that starting a car’s engine is the same as choosing to think is to claim that a car can evaluate whether it is low on gas, and then decide to start or not depending on a variety of such factors. Of course a human may design such a car, but the evaluation to include such a feature still rests with the human, not the car.

The objective definition of free will then, rejects both the mystical mind-body duality and the strict physicalism of post-modernism. It holds that the nature of the human mind is unique in that it allows due a process of volition, by which arises from the structure of our brains and is readily apparent by introspection. As Leonard Peikoff says, “A course of thought or action is ‘free,’ if it is selected from two or more courses possible under the circumstances.” Of course only one course of action is always actual, but nevertheless numerous courses of action are considered and evaluated in the process of thinking.

While the evidence of free will is readily apparent to introspection, one can only analyze the roots of decisions to a certain level. Decision making is not an infinite regression of choices, but is based on a fundamental choice – to focus. On other words, our fundamental choice is to focus (and think) or not (and remain in a daze) and the choice must be accepted as a given, readily apparent by introspection, but not derived from any other choices, as there can be none. The implication of free will is that individuals can be held morally liable for their actions, because unlike animals, they have the ability to rationally consider the implications of all their actions instead of acting on their urges or whims.

While the determinist position generally accepts the possibility of thought, it rejects the possibility of true choice, negating the possibility of more responsibility. However the determinist position is contradictory and cannot be logically held. By saying that humans should “pretend to have free will” the determinist accepts that all human thought requires choices to be made between various possible choices. (Possible to the mind considering them, that is.) He implicitly accepts the correct definition of volition while rejecting its logical consequences. The determinist cannot even argue that he knows his position is true – after all, he is only arguing for it because of prior environmental factors, not because it is independently true or false. In short, in arguing for determinism, the determinist implicitly accepts the opposite of his position.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Essays, Listserv

Nothing exciting happening lately…but Tim’s kitten is pretty cute:

Update: I forgot all about my b-day, which I really didn’t do much on, though I got some nice presents ($)
Me, Mom, and K

Leave a Comment

Filed under General

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (USSC 1977)

“The key to professionalism, it is argued, is the sense of pride that involvement in the discipline generates. It is claimed that price advertising will bring about commercialization, which will undermine the attorney’s sense of dignity and self-worth. The hustle of the marketplace will adversely affect the profession’s service orientation, and irreparably damage the delicate balance between the lawyer’s need to earn and his obligation selflessly to serve. Advertising is also said to erode the client’s trust in his attorney: Once the client perceives that the lawyer is motivated by profit, his confidence that the attorney is acting out of a commitment to the client’s welfare is jeopardized. And advertising is said to tarnish the dignified public image of the profession. “
Commentary coming soon…

Leave a Comment

Filed under General

Sinful Pleasures

I remember a bully from my childhood who liked to beat up smart kids because he had no confidence in his academic ability, and violence was the only way that he could dominate his classmates. However, the bully was not the only person who had trouble keeping up: I constantly struggled to do well in my math classes — but unlike the bully, I felt no need to take my out frustration on my classmates. Instead of being jealous, I worked harder on my assignments until I was ahead of my class.
The bully in every jealous person is like the one from my childhood: instead of being inspired by high-achievers, he feels envy and even hatred towards them, shutting off any possibility of accomplishing anything great himself in the process. A bully sees the achievements of those around him as mocking his failures, and he hates successful people because they are everything he has decided he could not be. Unlike the bully, the self-confident high-achiever is the exact opposite — he accomplishes great things not out of jealousy, but out of a desire to fulfill his dreams. Great inventors do not try to match their peers, but to do the best they can: the Wright brothers invented a plane, Thomas Edison a light bulb, and Gordon Moore a microprocessor instead of a better bike, lantern, or vacuum tube. In short, there are two kinds of men: the self-confident high achiever who does great things, and jealous, self-hating bully who wishes nothing more than to see the high-achiever fail.
[From a letter to the editor I wrote in response to “Sorrow So Sweet: A Guilty Pleasure In Another’s Woe, ” a NYT article.]

Leave a Comment

Filed under General

Disney Socialism

I just finished watching the 1998 Disney movie “A Bug Life” and despite my hopes to the contrary, I was reminded how pervasive socialist ideology has become in absolutely everything Disney produces. I have come to expect collectivist overtones from Disney’s regular programming, but the extent to which its animated films are full of socialist indoctrination is simply disgusting. Unlike most liberal media companies, Disney produces more than the usual “multicultural” garbage but actually inserts Marxist ideology into the plot of its animated children’s movies.

“A Bugs Life” has all the elements of the topical Disney presentation of the class struggle: the proletariat, represented by the worker ants, the bourgeoisie, represented by the grasshoppers, the greedy slave-driving boss, represented by the “boss flea” in charge of the flee circus. Famous lines include [as I remember them]: “if the ants only realized that they outnumber us a hundred to one, we would be finished!” and “you’ve committed the ultimate sin: you put yourself before the colony!” If that were not enough, the flea-boss frequently explains “let’s go, there’s money to be made!” as he denies his worker’s request for a raise and proposes a routine where one the bugs is burnt to a crisp. Meanwhile, the movie makes it a point to show the ant-queen diligently joining the worker ants in their work, as she and Flik, the hero repeatedly explain “I care for the colony!” I’d like to say that Flik is at least a creative non-conformist, but the movie makes a point to show that none of his ideas are self-inspired, and all of them come to fruition only by collective effort.

Not surprisingly, the movie ends with the defeat of the overclass, as the revolutionary hero Flik inspires the ants to rise up and ensure that the ants get to keep all the “surplus” grain they collect by their collective effort. Compare this plot to “Antz,” a Dreamworks SKG release, which featured an ant who questioned his role in the ant collective and championed individualism and private ingenuity.

This review may be four years late, but Disney has clearly continued its tradition of promoting Marxist ideology in movies such as “Monster’s Inc.” where the villain is a factory owner who is found torturing little children (Can those capitalist pigs get any worse??) and is replaced by one of the factory workers by a .government agency. In general, everything Disney touches display several common elements: the subjugation of the individual to the collective, the rejection of all selfish motivations as immoral, the worship of authority figures, the proposition that all cultures and values (other than capitalism) are equivalent, and of course, the duality between the greedy capitalist slave-drivers, and the hardworking workers of the collective, who almost always rise up and show the evil capitalists who’s boss.

I’d point out some other examples of Disney socialism, but I do my very best not to support Disney in any way, and if you care about self-interest, and freedom, I strongly suggest you do the same.


Filed under General

Social Unsecurity

A flash movie on the DNC website shows Bush pushing a senior off a cliff –the consequence of privatizing social security. Apparently, letting people decide what to do with their own money is the same thing as murder to liberals.

I would remind the sane reader that social security is in fact much more insecure that any stock market — after all, if you had invested in the stock market five years ago, you would have made the horrible loss of 0% interest, whereas social security payments are not only guaranteed to pay 0% interest, but are inflexible, unfair, untransferable (at death), and likely to break down, as the Ponzi scheme of the millenia unravels and millions loose as the so-called “lock-box” turns out to be empty.
Not to mention that social security is welfare socialism at its finest.

Leave a Comment

Filed under General

More Censorship

In yet another example of censorship by so-called liberals, an order of ARI fliers titled In Moral Defense of Israel sent to the University of Toronto Objectivist Club for a speech have been denied by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which claimed “The following goods [the pamphlets] have been detained for a determination of tariff classification as they may constitute obscenity or hate propaganda.”

To read the whole story, see this.

Leave a Comment

Filed under General