Objectivist Summer Conference

I was surprised that so many people were interested in learning all about the Objectivist Summer Conference I attended from July 5 to 17, and now that I'm finally home and my blog is working properly, it’s time to spill the beans.

I went to the conference as a “working scholar” -- which meant that I went free in exchange for helping to run the conference. The work involved setting up rooms, making sure the other participants had passes to the events, and generally being an errand boy. A pretty good deal considering that the full cost probably exceeds my annual income.

I arrived in LA on the fifth and paid an outrageous amount to drive to the resort where it was being held. The place was very nice, with great facilities all around and the best breakfast I have ever had. The only problem was that a lunch at the hotel cost the equivalent of a normal five-course dinner with lobster, so I often took a cab into town with the other working scholars to try out the local cuisine instead.

On to the actual conference. The general attitude I held during the conference can best be described as “shock and awe.” As I walked down to lobby on my way to the first lecture, I casually passed by Yaron Brook, president of ARI, Dr. Gary Hull, whose lecture was my first introduction to Objectivism, Dr. John Ridpath, Dr. Andrew Bernstein, and Dr. Edwin Locke, all philosophers and lecturers whom I had been reading for the last three years. Then, if I weren’t dazed enough as it was, I heard and saw a lecture on sculpture by Mary Ann Sures, who knew Ayn Rand for many years.

The daily schedule I followed basically went like this: I would get up around seven for breakfast and usually meet fellow Objectivists from all over the world in the process, and then run to set up for my 8:30 week-long class. At ten, I would listen to the first general lecture, and then go to lunch with some of my fellow working scholars. After lunch, I would attend the second general lecture, followed by two more week-long classes. After the classes, we would either have the evening off, or some planned event, such as a banquet, a discussion panel, or a Q&A session. At night, the college-age group would get together to play parlor games (balderdash, mafia, cards, etc) stop by the bar, or go out to town. Sometime after midnight, I would come back and collapse into bed exhausted and eager for the next day.

The quality of the general lectures and week-long classes varied widely, but all of them certainly exceeded the usual mindless garbage I was used to as a liberal arts undergrad. Where I could choose optional classes, I went for anything related to economic and ethical issues, and not surprisingly, those were my favorite topics. Here are some of lectures I liked best: “Vanderbilt and American Free Enterprise” by Eric Daniels, “Capitalism: The System of the Mind” by Andrew Bernstein, “The 19th-Century Atomic War” by David Harriman, and one that I disagreed with but nevertheless found fascinating: “The Cause and Consequence of the Great Depression” by Richard Salsman. Also notable was “Nietzsche and the Nihilism of Our Times” by John Ridpath, which reminded me of an essay I wrote a year ago called “The Virtues of our Time: Collectivism, Nihilism and Pragmatism.” Of the classes I took, my favorites were “Refuting the Moral Accusations Against Capitalism” by Dr Bernstein and “Aristotle as Ethicist” by Greg Salmieri. Greg btw, is not only a budding philosopher, but plays the blues like a pro, as I witnessed for myself.

Overall, the information presented at the conference served to integrate my current knowledge of Objectivism, fill in many gaps, and provide the factual and historical context necessary to connect the abstract concepts I have been learning to reality. The most complex and information-packed lectures were Dr. Peikoff’s lectures on Induction, which I found to be an exhaustive but thoroughly enjoyable experience. I have to admit that I lacked to proper background to properly understand much of the material he presented, and will have to wait for the tapes or book to more fully grasp that fascinating subject. The sleep deprivation I experienced throughout the conference certainly didn’t help, so I compensated by consuming massive amounts of hard candies to keep the blood flowing to my brain.

What else? Well, the other working scholars were fellow college students, and since most of them were leaders of their own campus Objectivist clubs, we used the occasion to discuss strategy, plans, and the hostility Objectivist groups faced on college campuses. Some of them had the fortune to go to Duke, which is not only top five in philosophy, but has not one but two prominent Objectivist professors teaching classes with overwhelming demand from students and support from the administration (backed up by large donations) -- despite strong opposition by the philosophy department. Others went to the University of Toronto, which has an Objectivist Club of 250+ members, (from the general area) publishes its own newspaper, and regularly hosts prominent speakers. Yet others went to school in Belgium, where openly advocating capitalism or Objectivism on campus can easily get you beat up or even expelled. Overall, I felt fortunate that local campus opposition to my club is restricted to tearing down and writing on fliers rather than burning them and rejecting student organization status.

In sum, the conference was an awesome experience, and the most relaxing, educational, and intensive two weeks of my life. I should add that I loved the location as well, and would love to live in southern California someday, especially if Gray Davis loses the recall. The beaches and eateries around Santa Monica were great despite the nanny lifeguards who went after me for swimming too far out, and the annoying pedestrian lights that interrupted my beachside experience with their loud beeping. You can check out the photos I took here.

Where are the lefties now?

LFG has created an interesting gallery of PLO child abuse. Looking at pictures like this makes me wonder one thing -- where are all the outraged leftists? Oh that's right, protecting the Palestinians' "right" to teach their kids to be good little suicidal terrorists.

Wow, I've finally managed to move my entire blog to Movable Type. Please bear with me while I iron out the wrinkles.

I have heard this before, but I'm glad someone took the time to write an article about it: Earth Worshippers Cause Death in Space: Environmental Dogma Has Led to the Sacrifice of Fourteen Astronauts on the Space Shuttle

More Killers Released

Someone should knock on Sharon's head and say "What the hell are you thinking!?" Ah well, nothing like some random thoughts to calm me down.

I'm back from vacation and eager to get my blog on once more. Preview OCON photos here, and some family photos here. More to come soon!

I was taking my final

I was taking my final early today because I am leaving for the Objectivist Summer Conference tommorow. My prof had me sit in the hallway while he was in class, and as I sat there doing my final, this couple comes out of a a nearby room and starts a conversation about 20 feet away from me. So the guy starts talking about morality, and I can't help but listen since he actually sounds halfway intelligent. First he goes on bashing liberals and pragmatism, talking about how living according to principle is the only path to happiness, how modern society is corrupt, etc etc. The woman he's talking to isn't really following, but I quickly catch on to the flaws in his arguments and if you know me at all, you should know how I love a good debate, so I'm really temped to interrupt, but I'm taking my final exam and all, so I try and focus. Then the topic switches to money, and the guy suddenly goes on a rant about how money is the root of all evil, and how materialism is what's wrong with society, etc, etc, and I can barely focus on my exam becuase he's just so wrong and I have to sit there and think about relational databases and audit trails. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, the guy starts preaching about the bible while I try to draw an ERD diagram, and about all I can do is try to sit there and not jump in the conversation. FINALLY they leave, and I thank God (hehe) that I can finish my exam in peace and go to a place where I don't have to deal with irrational raving mystics, but hopefully do get a chance to debate my brains out. So if you dont see any posts for the next few weeks, you know what I'm up to.

Fox Hunting and the Politics of Compromise

The House of Commons has just voted for a total ban on fox hunting in England. One might be tempted to dismiss this as another sign of the loony leftists in Europe but the failure of the "pro-hunt" lobby holds a number of important lessons for conservatives in America. The primary causes for the failure of the hunting lobby to defend their rights were their willingness to compromise and a failure to offer a moral defense of their rights.

Two weeks ago, Andrew Linzey, a prominent British "expert" on morality and "animal rights" compared fox-hunting to rape. To quote, "'Causing suffering for sport is intrinsically evil. Hunting, therefore, belongs to that class of always morally impermissible acts along with rape, child abuse and torture...All acts of cruelty to animals are of a kind ....they diminish our humanity and offend."

While Linzey's argument is flawed on oh-so-many levels, I am more interested in what the opposition had to say in response. Here is one of the spokesmen of the Countryside Alliance, a pro-hunting group: "If you ask a rape victim or a victim of torture who has suffered so much whether they think what they have gone through can be compared to hunting, I think you know the response you would get. Frankly, it's disgusting. We are talking about a legal pastime which is being likened to illegal acts of gross exploitation."

Note that no attempt is made to defend the moral argument Linzey is making. The best answer the spokesman comes up with is that rape feels worse that hunting. The second part of his reply is to say that rape is worse because it is illegal, which is completely irrelevant in the question of whether it is right. Similar flaws are found in arguments in all of the Alliance's defenses. Their latest slogan is "59% say keep hunting." Other arguments call for a defense of their "way of life" and that hunting an improper priority for the legislature. Not one has dared to offer a moral defense of hunting or to explain why it's wrong to kill humans but not animals.

In response to the Alliance spokesman, Mr Linzey could easily say "Well how do know that rape feels worse than hunting? Have you ever been hunted?" In a comparison between being hunted down by dogs and being raped, most people would probably choose rape, and any sane person would certainly say that both are immoral and ought to be illegal. If a clear distinction between the moral status humans and animals is not made, what possible defense of hunting can be made? And how can one defend the moral status of humans if one does not recognize what makes them different from animals in the first place?

In short, hunting is doomed in England not because the arguments of the anti-hunt lobby have any merit, or because the defense of the hunters are wrong, but because hunters fail to provide any defense for their views at all, other to offer vague clichés such as "tradition," "way of life," and desperate resorts to public opinion. Realizing that they have nothing to offer in defense, they argue for compromise measures such as registration and various limits on where and how they hunt.

The gun lobby in America faces the same proposition. While the liberals offer laughable claims that guns are intrinsically evil, gun owners fail to defend their position on a basis of individual rights and refer to the traditional role of guns in American society and the Second Amendment. There is no certainly no question that gun ownership is an American tradition and a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but until recently fox hunting was an even older British tradition that collapsed before a small but vocal minority. Until gun owners on both sides of the pond realize that they must defend their rights on a moral basis and offer a principled stand, their freedoms will continue to be eroded by collectivists with preposterous claims that hunting amounts to rape and guns are evil while criminals are not. Ironically, it is Tony Blair who stated in response to calls to weaken the hunting ban that "this is a moral issue, and as soon as you try and compromise on a moral issue you end up hacking everybody off." Until conservatives stop "conserving" and start defending their rights, their stance is as useless as the fox hunters.

(Btw, while I think the NRA's willingness to compromise on their principles makes them unworthy of anyone's support, I was surprised to find a link to CapMag on their site. If you want to support an organization that truly supports your rights, I recommend you check out Keep and Bear Arms)

Here we go again...

The NYT has an interesting story on the internal power struggle among the various Palestinian terrorist organizations. It makes a number of interesting points, such as that Arafat has refused to halt the terrorist attacks because he prefers using the threat of violence to get concessions from Israel, and that he remains a powerful influence despite having officially stepped down. The article also mentions that Abbas and his allies do want a more moderate (i.e. less barbaric) policy that represents a threat to the groups that maintain their power by terrorist activities.

As the article mentions in passing, the recent "truce" seems to have two motivations: first, the terrorist organizations are feeling the heat from Israel and want a chance to regroup and reload for another round, and two, they are hoping that the truce will fail miserably (which it will) and thus discredit Abbas and the moderates. Their demands (which include the release of all Arab prisoners) are outrageous enough to guarantee an imminent Israeli "breach" and a "justified" response of killing of innocent civilians.

The Hamas-run website of the Palestinian groups is actually very revealing of their goals. The English section is a long complaint list of "Zionist atrocities" (Israeli officials are always referred to as "Zionist authorities" as if "Zionist" is a dirty word.) Few photos of the "atrocities" are shown, and most of them are of Israeli soldiers at checkpoints doing their job and crying babies (no joke) without any "Zionist occupiers" in the vicinity. The Arabic section however, is a list of martyrs, vilifications of Israel, praising of the various terrorist cells, and Hamas calls for more attacks. The Russian section is slightly more moderate, with photos of terrorist attacks and martyrs surrounded by what can only be described as glowing halos. Unlike the slick and glossy English section, the relatively amateurish Arabic and Russian sections have articles featuring "answers to the occupation" (if my rusty knowledge of Russian serves me right) with graphic photos of dead Israelis. Can you guess why the English section is the only one not showing the murdered Israelis and praising the terrorists? Why is Sweden allowing Hamas to run its propaganda campaign from servers located within its borders? If you haven't figured it out yet, I recommend you read Laurel's comments on the nature of the Palestinian culture.