Happy & Brainy Group discussion
Brainy
>
Q & A
Mod
A:
Its theme is “Heaven on Earth can be achieved
when reason reigns.”
Explanation of the theme and plot:
Religions usually claim that if you sacrifice, suffer, or do what religious leaders say is good, here on Earth, then, when you die - you go to heaven.
Reason Reigns depicts the values and virtues that enable people to achieve heaven here and now.
Two virtues are rationality and productivity. Rational people are reality-oriented; they revere reason.
But virtuous people can thrive only if there is freedom.
This is why my plot is about "battles between tyrants who crave to rule and thinkers who cannot be ruled." The latter cannot be ruled by men because they are ruled by reason.
Mod
From Saleh's profile (about me): "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love?"That's My Important Question From Two Years Ago Until Now!!!"
A:
Love of self. Benevolence towards others would follow. Then, others would be drawn to you, and you can talk about what you think and what makes you happy.
From Reason Reigns: Self-love is the hallmark of a good person.
Mod
In two months, Vangel noticed what the girl confirmed a few days after. Kori was pregnant. “May I ask your advice?” she asked the older woman. Vangel nodded.
“I am not ready to be a mother. I was forced into marriage. I was told that I am not a good woman on my wedding night.” She recalled her last conversations with her husband and her father.
“You were not a virgin.”
“I sure was, before tonight.”
“You tricked your father and me. You were sullied when I married you.”
“That is not true.”
“Then why did you enjoy it?”
“You think I am not supposed to… and you?”
“Yes, of course; I am a man. Good women, especially virgins, do not like it.”
“I did enjoy it. It was the first time, and I am a good woman.”
Her father sided with her husband and ordered her out of their lives. She gasped, and then hurried out of the house. She ran as fast as she could for a long time… When she stopped, she found herself alone, deep in the woods, still trembling. She stood up straight. Her eyes smiled… followed by her mouth… then her whole face glowed.
“I’m free! That I experienced pleasure set me free! This is heaven!”
She found Hugo and Vangel; they were very kind. Hugo was a giant of great physical and mental strength. He stood six feet and seven inches. He had dark hair and brown eyes. His joyous confidence was as evident as Vangel’s benevolence.
Kori enjoyed her freedom. She pondered the responsibility of having a baby.
Vangel counseled, “God is so loving that He allows man a window to change course, that one may not go through a lifetime paying for a mistake. He is so good that He always keeps the door to happiness open. Your own life is precious. Right to life dictates that you not suffer the toils of unchosen paths. Life is not just breathing… A baby is a great responsibility; you can’t renege on it. A chosen responsibility is a fount of pleasure.”
Mod
July 26th. My wish is to have many more birthdays.
Mod
I just marked my calendar, so on July 26 I could wish you the best of birthdays and many more happy, healthy, and prosperous birthdays.
Take care and be happy, my friend.
Mod
Thank you for your friendship and for your company here.
May I plug, please?
I posted the first 88 pages of Reason Reigns (RR) under "My Writing". I would be very glad to furnish you with the rest of Part 1.
Two sets of RR giveaways have been approved: 2 copies for the US, and 4 copies for 14 countries where RR is available for purchase online, plus the Philippines.
The set for the "world" is awaiting approval.
Thanks.
My birthday is April 29th and my wish is that I live to celebrate it with joy.
Mod
I will compile all the birthdays, then post it in one topic, so we could all greet birthday celebrators on their special day.
my birthday is july 16 and I got my wish my divorce which was final 7 days before
Mod
May good fortune be always with you.
Mod
A:
Hello _____,
Foremost, I am an independent thinker. Belief-wise, I am an Objectivist-Thomist.
These are in Reason Reigns:
Quote:
“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
- Thomas Jefferson
* * *
Meanwhile, Grandmother Connor gently admonished, “Toni, the Holy Book warns of punishment for proud, ambitious people. Study the Holy Teachings and pray more often, instead of performing experiments. Read the Holy Book more faithfully, rather than science books.”
“Grandmother, God does not punish,” Toni smiled confidently. “I enjoy finding out about God’s creations. The mind and body are wonderful gifts from God. Surely, He wants us to use them.”
* * *
Back on the podium, Santo Sacrificio was requested to speak. He prayed, “God, please have mercy on those who do not worship, praise, and serve you. Please forgive them for flouting your will, for their ambition and pride. To all dear Saints, please help them see that self-sacrifice and suffering are pleasing in God’s eyes.”
When Toni’s turn came, she prayed, “God, You are all-good and all-loving. You do not need praises – You are not insecure. You do not need service – You are omnipotent. You are not a sacrifice profiteer nor a sadist – it must break your heart to see anyone suffer. You want people to be happy, and have given us everything needed to achieve happiness: our minds and bodies, the Earth, and the universe.”
* * *
“Reason is the faculty that deals with the perception of reality, while faith is the claim to a non-sensory means of knowledge. Principles and values derived from faith are often accepted without question even in the face of contrary evidence, while reason deals with facts and employs the method of non-contradictory identification.
Faith has been used to further ignorance, enshrine irrationality, and exploit people. With faith, there is no necessity for justification. Force is its corollary.
But if one's personal faith holds reason as its top value, then, faith and reason are not incompatible. If one's personal faith holds the life, freedom, and happiness of each human being as the most sacred of values, then, reason and faith can coexist, parallel to each other, in the same man.
This man uses reason for everything that can be explained, while his faith holds on to dreams that inspire him to live.
Faith in a God who is all-good and all-loving, who treasures each man, endowing him with a mind capable of understanding man's nature, the Earth, and the universe.
Faith in a God who so loves man that He respects his freedom of choice.
Faith that God shares the most sacrosanct of values: each man's life, his freedom, and his happiness here on Earth. Faith that Heaven and Earth are one and the same.
Faith that human life goes on until eternity, that everything is possible to man. Faith in miracles -
Think of a miracle. Believe that God has given the means to achieve it. Think, and find out the facts. Think, with the clarity of purpose. Let the vision of a miracle be a beacon to guide your actions. Think, and then act. Act with the confidence that miracles do happen to doers who strive to actualize them.
Rejoice! Angels do exist in our midst, though it takes the highest of virtues to recognize them.
Heaven on Earth can be achieved when reason reigns.”
* * *
“God is all-good and all-loving. He is not a sadist. Neither is He malevolent nor whimsical. He is just, firm, and steadfast. His creations share the same attributes: nature is governed by laws that are unchanging.
Every creation of God has an identity that was, is, will always be, and had to be. Whether a man’s understanding of nature is real or not, true or false, right or wrong, depends on its correspondence to a thing’s identity.
God is so benevolent that the laws of nature are absolute. They are not subject to change by time, whims, or even by prayers. They are not open to anyone’s choice. They remain constant to the good as well as to evil.
God is so just that the laws of nature are knowable by every man. They are not revelations arbitrarily disclosed to a favored few. God is so loving that He has gifted man with the faculties to understand nature.
Every man who chooses to use God’s endowments reaps benefits. Those who do not constantly fear the unknown; they follow, copy, or repeat mindlessly. In the face of alternatives, they are never certain whom to imitate or what to borrow. They might choose to rule those who do use their minds, by force, or by the thinkers’ overly generous goodwill or unearned guilt.
It is necessary to build defensive structures against those who might use force.”
* * *
In two months, Vangel noticed what the girl confirmed a few days after. Kori was pregnant. “May I ask your advice?” she asked the older woman. Vangel nodded.
“I am not ready to be a mother. I was forced into marriage. I was told that I am not a good woman on my wedding night.” She recalled her last conversations with her husband and her father.
“You were not a virgin.”
“I sure was, before tonight.”
“You tricked your father and me. You were sullied when I married you.”
“That is not true.”
“Then why did you enjoy it?”
“You think I am not supposed to… and you?”
“Yes, of course; I am a man. Good women, especially virgins, do not like it.”
“I did enjoy it. It was the first time, and I am a good woman.”
Her father sided with her husband and ordered her out of their lives. She gasped, and then hurried out of the house. She ran as fast as she could for a long time… When she stopped, she found herself alone, deep in the woods, still trembling. She stood up straight. Her eyes smiled… followed by her mouth… then her whole face glowed.
“I’m free! That I experienced pleasure set me free! This is heaven!”
She found Hugo and Vangel; they were very kind. Hugo was a giant of great physical and mental strength. He stood six feet and seven inches. He had dark hair and brown eyes. His joyous confidence was as evident as Vangel’s benevolence.
Kori enjoyed her freedom. She pondered the responsibility of having a baby.
Vangel counseled, “God is so loving that He allows man a window to change course, that one may not go through a lifetime paying for a mistake. He is so good that He always keeps the door to happiness open. Your own life is precious. Right to life dictates that you not suffer the toils of unchosen paths. Life is not just breathing… A baby is a great responsibility; you can’t renege on it. A chosen responsibility is a fount of pleasure.”
* * *
Feel free to ask questions.
Best regards,
Ilyn
I am a believing Christian, although I have been 'freed' from the institutions of Christianity, where, unfortunately, more harm is done than good, I fear, in the name of Christ.Many of the precepts you have written above are in the Bible. When asked by one of the apostles what the most important commandments are, Jesus replied that we need to love God and people. So simple. Yet, most churches focus on sexual sins, lying, stealing, etc. as if they don't do all do these things to some extent. The book of James slams the tongue. The writer says our tongue will lead us straight to the fires of hell (the things we say - like "you're gay, so you're going to hell!") We Christians overlook those scriptures.
Your words have wisdom. Many of your ideas are what Jesus tried to teach. I wish we all would listen.
Sounds like a good book.
Hello all my name is Tim and my birthday is Sept 14th and my wish is to just spend it it with my wife and all the others i love and her b-day just happens to be sept 15th how weird!lol ill never forget hers
Mod
Thank you.
Faith devoid of reason is very dangerous. Faith leaders could establish a power base that could lead to theocracy. Faith divorced from reason negates the mind, God's greatest gift - our tool for survival qua man.
Reason Reigns offers so much more. Reviews are here:
http://www.reasonreigns.com/Reviews.html
Please check out the author giveaways, and the first 88 pages under "My Writing".
Have a fun day.
Mod
I'm smiling widely as I read your post. You're a lucky man - two days of celebrations!
I wish you, your beloved wife, and your loved ones, happiness and good fortune.
I wish the same to everyone reading this.
My birthday is November 21, and I wish for better and better mental health.
Mod
I will include your birthday and wishes under the Happy Birthday (& Other) Greetings.
My birthday was February 29, I turned '14' sort of. I would not have mentioned it, since it's a few months past, but I won't have another for a few years, so I thought I get it in now. My first child missed that birthday by approx 5 hours. She was born March 1. She is grateful.
I'm also left handed and red headed, grampa born on St. Pat's and his son, my dad, born on April Fool's day. Think there's a pattern here? My son Nate was born on the Ides of March, if that means anything...
I wish for world where we all respect each other, our planet and our universe.
Mod
I added the birthdays in Happy Birthday (& Other) Greetings.
Have a fun day.
Mod
* Quote:
Ilyn,
While it has been very interesting and enjoyable talking to you, I cannot say that I agree with your writing or the groups joined. It took me a while to understand what exactly your answer to my question was, but I do not believe in heaven on earth and I do not believe this earth will last long enough to accomplish such. I am not a pessimist mind, I am just in a position of information that opens me to more than just seeing life as something just to enjoy.
Yes, you can enjoy life, but there cannot be life without hardship, and where is heaven on earth if hardship exists? Part of my ideal life is the challenge that a hard time brings and the strength and faith you draw from it, not the utopia to find within the mind of man.
Best regards,
__
* Unquote
A:
__ ,
I am an independent thinker and I respect other independent thinkers.
I love these quotations from Atlas Shrugged:
"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a "moral commandment" is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."
"There are no evil thoughts except one: the refusal to think."
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit."
* * *
"The man-worshippers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. The man-haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature - and struggle never to let him discover otherwise."
- The Fountainhead
* * * * *
Regarding what you said: "Yes, you can enjoy life, but there cannot be life without hardship, and where is heaven on earth if hardship exists?"
The theme of REASON REIGNS is: Heaven on Earth can be ACHIEVED when reason reigns.
Happiness or heaven is not "given" to anyone; it has to be "achieved" by one's own effort. It takes rationality, productivity, and other virtues to achieve it.
If one does not think heaven is achievable here and now, then one will never try to discover how it can be done, much less pursue it.
Belief-wise, I can never believe in a God who does not make it possible for me to be happy here on Earth.
Best wishes,
Ilyn
* * * continued in the next post
Mod
I see....You think, independently. The conflict I am seeking out has no quarrel towards independent thinking in general. I am that way too, but not to the level of which you speak of I think.
For example, America became an independent nation, but they did not become so independent that standards and rules did not matter. Where is the limit of independance in your mind?
Morality, where is it? Respect for those who govorn the nations and cities we live in? Respect for elders? My own standards of morals and respect have their limits. I abhor things such as slavery and dictatorship, yet I still fall under the rules set by the commanders and leaders of a nation. If they should become so corrupt however that my moral standards (set by my G-d) cannot follow, then I fall directly under the greatest authority, G-d. And even He has commandments that we should follow, regardless of if they bring happiness or trials.
The way I look at G-d's commandments is as a child under the protection of a father. The father has such a great love for his child that he makes standards and rules that if followed to the letter can give the child the greatest joy.
__
* Unquote
A:
Hello __,
I mentioned independent thinking and included related quotations so it would be clear that I have no intention of converting anyone to my way of thinking. No, not at all.
Also, independent thinking sets men free. From Reason Reigns: "I was blind because I did not use my own mind. Independent thinking has set me free."
The "standards and rules" of the US are contained in its Constitution. The rationale is in the Declaration of Independence. Standards and principles matter - they are necessities.
Limit of independence?
From Reason Reigns:
Chapter 10 - Individual Rights
The Devil’s Eye citizens pondered the security issues raised by Lola, and took vigorous action. They accomplished many things within the eight months that Tony and Lola were in the Union of Ibelyn.
Hugo and his countrymen discussed the Constitution Ron drafted for their sovereign nation. They defined constitutional principles and enshrined individual rights.
“Every private individual is free to do anything except that which is expressly forbidden by law. Every man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
“No man may initiate the use of force. No man may impose his will, beliefs, or values on another. No single individual may be sacrificed for another or for the majority.”
They established a government with this principle: “The only purpose of law and of government is the protection of individual rights.”
“A government official may do nothing except that which is expressly permitted by law.”
“The government functions are: to settle disputes according to objective laws, and to protect citizens from foreign invaders and criminals.”
* * * end of excerpt
Limited freedom is not freedom. When a free man initiates force, he loses the right to be free.
From Reason Reigns:
"... Moral men do not vanquish people who do not think as they do. Ali and Anton spoke of freedom. Mr. ___, you were free to be evil for as long as you did not impose your evil on anyone. You were free to reap the consequences of your evil for as long as you kept your hands off other people.”
* * * end of excerpt
I will answer the rest of the questions under Q & A. Others might have the same Q on their minds, so I would be posting these. I hope you don't mind.
Have a great day,
Ilyn
*** to be continued
Mod
Ms. Ross:
Please give me a phonetic spelling of your first name.
I too am an Ayn fan. However, I cannot agree with her atheism. There are times when reason just plain fails me. I have too much experience with the world to expect most men to use sound reason in governing their lives.
Man is flawed. However, flawed free choice is much better than the flawed law. An exception to all of that is the law against murder. Is there a reasoned human who sees murder as a reasonable freedom? Is man given value because he thinks or because he is?
I am enjoying reading the comments on the Goodreads link.
Regards,
__
* Unquote
A:
Hello __,
How are you? Hope we could be friends.
Ilyn (Ay-leen; long i, as in "I over We")
Ayn Rand admired St. Thomas Aquinas. But many faith leaders were/are not good men like him. The Inquisition was pure evil. Faith leaders could use faith to establish a power base that could lead to theocracy - imagine scientists being treated like Galileo; think of the evil of men who regarded anesthesia as sin.
Ayn thought faith is anti-mind and anti-life. I myself think faith devoid of reason destroys man. I revere Ayn, but I am not an atheist - my thinking is in Ron's speech (near the end of Reason Reigns' Day 1).
May I answer the others under Q & A (Happy & Brainy group)? I posted an answer to a Q on religion under this topic.
I'll write again. Please keep in touch.
Warmest regards,
Ilyn
Mod
Man is born tabula rasa. He has no automatic mechanism for acquiring knowledge. He is not omniscient. This is man's nature.
*
"The man-worshippers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential and strive to actualize it. The man-haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature - and struggle never to let him discover otherwise."
- The Fountainhead
*
Regarding: "Is there a reasoned human who sees murder as a reasonable freedom?"
No man has the right to infringe on another man's rights. Every man has the right to self-defense.
*
Regarding: Is man given value because he thinks or because he is?"
Because of his nature, man has inalienable rights.
A thinking man and one who chooses not to think have the same individual rights. A thinking man can achieve rationality, productivity, and other virtues. A non-thinking man lives as a parasite; if left alone, he would live like an animal.
Mod
Q:
Morality, where is it? Respect for those who govern the nations and cities we live in? Respect for elders? My own standards of morals and respect have their limits. I abhor things such as slavery and dictatorship, yet I still fall under the rules set by the commanders and leaders of a nation. If they should become so corrupt however that my moral standards (set by my G-d) cannot follow, then I fall directly under the greatest authority, G-d. And even He has commandments that we should follow, regardless of if they bring happiness or trials.
The way I look at G-d's commandments is as a child under the protection of a father. The father has such a great love for his child that he makes standards and rules that if followed to the letter can give the child the greatest joy."
A:
* Regarding morality:
Each man is an end in himself. One's own life, one's own self is the standard of the good. What furthers man's life is good.
A government that respects individual rights is moral. Laws that infringe on individual rights are immoral.
* Regarding "respect for those who govern the nations and cities we live in?"
One may not violate another man's rights. To protect individual rights, a society forms a government and institutes laws.
A civilized nation's armed forces follow the law. A moral government respects every citizen's rights.
A moral government official would do nothing except that which is expressly permitted by law, while individual citizens may do everything except that which is expressly forbidden by law.
* Regarding divine commandments
When I was a kid, I was told that babies have original sin because Adam and Eve sinned. My elders accepted this.
I was very young but my mind rebelled against this. My parents' sins are not mine; how, then, could I inherit Adam & Eve's sin? I believe in a just God, so I do not believe in original sin.
Some elders would say, "Fear God." Why?
This is an excerpt from Reason Reigns (RR):
Six weeks after the Connor tragedy came the holy month for honoring humility, sacrifice, and suffering. A number of children noticed the stark contrast between Ron and Alisa battling great sorrow, as well as Josephine overcoming a tragic affliction, and the self-deprivation, self-inflicted pain and suffering that many folks engaged in, especially during the holy month.
During a prayer session, then eight-year-old Jawo asked his parents, “Father, Mother, do you want me to suffer?”
“No. Of course not. Not ever. No parent would want that.”
“Then why do some think that God wants people to suffer?”
The adults could not justify ascribing a sickening trait to the Almighty.
* * * end of RR excerpt
Atrocities had been committed by many people who claimed they could communicate with God [e.g. persecution of Galileo; the Inquisition].
Another RR excerpt:
“God is all-good and all-loving. He is not a sadist. Neither is He malevolent nor whimsical. He is just, firm, and steadfast. His creations share the same attributes: nature is governed by laws that are unchanging.
Every creation of God has an identity that was, is, will always be, and had to be. Whether a man’s understanding of nature is real or not, true or false, right or wrong, depends on its correspondence to a thing’s identity.
God is so benevolent that the laws of nature are absolute. They are not subject to change by time, whims, or even by prayers. They are not open to anyone’s choice. They remain constant to the good as well as to evil.
God is so just that the laws of nature are knowable by every man. They are not revelations arbitrarily disclosed to a favored few. God is so loving that He has gifted man with the faculties to understand nature.
Every man who chooses to use God’s endowments reaps benefits. Those who do not constantly fear the unknown; they follow, copy, or repeat mindlessly. In the face of alternatives, they are never certain whom to imitate or what to borrow. They might choose to rule those who do use their minds, by force, or by the thinkers’ overly generous goodwill or unearned guilt.
It is necessary to build defensive structures against those who might use force.”
* * * end of another RR excerpt
* Regarding "respect for elders"
Parents choose to have a child, so they are responsible for him until adulthood. But as any human being, the child-turned-adult's life is his own; it does not belong to anyone.
A child's natural tendency is to love and idolize his parents, to please them. To be a parent is a great responsibility. Good parents explain morality to a child, and encourage him to use his own mind as he matures.
Mod
A:
The primary motive and purpose of my writing is to earn much money, not only in my lifetime but even when I'm gone. I hope Reason Reigns and the other books I plan to write will live on, so my loved ones could collect royalties.
It may take years before I achieve this goal, but the most difficult task is done: Reason Reigns is in print! ["Hope springs eternal in the human breast." - Alexander Pope]
Reason Reigns depicts philosophy in a way that is easy to grasp: through a thrill-packed story, and with young characters.
I wrote it in the hope that it would give people joy and fuel to strive and achieve.
Mod
Thank you for joining us.
Mod
Mod
1. Person
2. Athlete
3. Politician
4. Teacher / Professor
5. Media Personality
6. Businessman
7. Fictional hero
8. Real-life hero
9. Movie Personality
Mod
Ayn Rand: "Never apologize for your own thoughts, and don't estimate them for me in advance."
Mod
Hi, I don't understand why you want me to be your "friend" [...]. And we have nothing in common (I don't think so)....
I don't mean it's not interesting to meet each other but I don't think that it's your intention, isn't it ?
I am probably too severe and I ask you to forgive me.
Actually, I've got a theory about the authors who are Gods for me: I don't want to know them because if I knew them, I would be afraid to discover they're just men and women just like me. It would be an honor to know one of them...
[...]
*
My reply:
Hello _____,
It is your choice to reject or accept my friend request.
My primary purpose for spending time in Goodreads, forming two groups ("Happy & Brainy" and "To the Glory of Man"), submitting many posts including info for aspiring fiction writers, answering questions, and requesting Goodreads-friendship, is to PROMOTE my novel, Reason Reigns.
Have a fun day.
Regards,
Ilyn
Poor Ilyn. Rejected! Now, now; it'll be okay. [grin] Somehow I doubt your objective is JUST to promote your book. There is a desire to help others, I sense and appreciate. It was their loss in their rejection; not yours.
Now, back to more pleasant things.
I am not an athiest. I do not reject God, faith in God or the concept of God. I do reject most or all organized religions. I believe we are required to study, experience, and conclude (individually and collectively) how we will behave and interact. Most religions require their followers to ACCEPT what others conclude.
I appreciate a collection of conclusions presented by leaders of religions and thinkers of the ages, but don't accept all of anything anyone presents as their conclusions.
I have still to read RR; I will on my return from my travels, promoting my newest book (Oops! The Adventures of Jinx and Philo), relaxing and visiting my friends and family along the way.
Mod
Thank you so much, good friend. My very best regards.
Mod
A:
The Government Did It
Yaron Brook 07.18.08, 11:30 AM ET
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/0...
The financial peril of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the government-sponsored, government-regulated mortgage giants regarded as instrumental in solving the nation's mortgage market problems--has one benefit. It should help expose the lie that today's financial problems are the result of an insufficiently regulated market.
For too long, the refrain has gone, Congress and the administration have been asleep at the wheel when they should have been steering the economy by expanding government control over the housing and financial markets. Economist Paul Krugman slams the administration's "free-market ideology"; he urges Bush to "reverse course now" and "seek expanded regulation."
All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets--including its creation of Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)--leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today.
Consider the low lending standards that were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren't able to pay them off. These decisions have cost lenders, especially leading financial institutions, tens of billions of dollars.
It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers' expense) by multiple government bodies.
The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?
According to one enforcement agency, "discrimination exists when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants." Note that these "arbitrary or outdated criteria" include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history--the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to "promote homeownership," not to apply sound lending standards.
Of course, lenders not only sold billions of dollars in suspect loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their present debacle, they also retained some subprime loans themselves and sold others to Wall Street--leading to the huge banking losses we have been witnessing for months. Is this, then, a free market failure? Again, no.
In a free market, lending large amounts of money to low-income, low-credit borrowers with no down payment would quickly prove disastrous. But the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of artificially low interest rates made investing in subprime loans extraordinarily profitable. Subprime borrowers who would normally not be able to pay off their expensive houses could do so, thanks to payments that plummeted along with Fed rates. And the inflationary housing boom meant homeowners rarely defaulted; so long as housing prices went up, even the worst-credit borrowers could always sell or refinance.
Thus, Fed policy turned dubious investments into fabulous successes. Bankers who made the deals lured investors and were showered with bonuses. Concerns about the possibility of mass defaults and foreclosures were assuaged by an administration whose president declared: "We want everybody in America to own their own home."
Further promoting a sense of security, every major financial institution in America--both commercial banks and investment banks--was implicitly protected by the quasi-official policy of "too big to fail." The "too big to fail" doctrine holds that, when they risk insolvency, large financial institutions (like Countrywide or Bear Stearns) must be bailed out through a network of government bodies including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve.
All of these government factors contributed to creating a situation in which millions of people were buying homes they could not afford, in which the participants experienced the illusion of prosperity, in which billions upon billions of dollars were going into bad investments. Eventually the bubble burst; the rest is history.
Given that our government was behind the wheel, influencing every aspect of the mortgage crisis, it is absurd to call today's situation the result of insufficient regulation.
We do not need more regulation or economic "steering"--laws or bureaucrats dictating to financiers and investors the kind of innovation they may or may not engage in. If that were the solution to economic problems, then Hugo Chavez would preside over the world's healthiest economy in Venezuela. What we need to do is remove the government's power to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out irrational decisions. The unfree market has failed. It's time for a truly free market.
*
Yaron Brook is managing director of BH Equity Research and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
*
The federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was enacted in 1977 - see wikipedia - also: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and GSEs (government sponsored enterprises)
Mod
Reactions to the Lehman bankruptcy:
Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/Amanda...
The presidential candidates’ reaction to the reaction to the meltdown of yet another massive banker strictly adhered to the major themes of their respective campaigns.
Democrats used the occasion to blame President Bush and the Republicans promised reform.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said the GOP’s style of government led to the collapse of Lehman brothers, suggesting the economy couldn’t handle another Republican White House. “Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression." Barack Obama told supporters in Golden, Colorado. "I certainly don't fault Sen. McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to.”
Obama’s vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was stronger in his criticisms, calling a future McCain administration a “sequel” to President Bush’s administration. "Folks, we've seen this movie before and we know the sequel is always worse than the original," Biden said while campaigning solo in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. "If we forget this history, we are doomed to repeat it, we'll get four more years of the past eight."
Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin, on the other hand, called for robust market reform, ruling out any government bailouts for the bank.
McCain, who has been roundly criticized by the Democrats for his thoughts on economics said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but there are very, very difficult times.”
"And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will re-reform government,” he said at a campaign stop in Jacksonville, Florida.
At a separate stop in Golden, Colorado Palin said she was “glad to see the Federal Reserve and Treasury have said no to bailing out another” bank.”
"We are going to put and end to mismanagement and abuses on Wall Street that have resulted in this financial crisis," Palin said. "Our regulatory system is outdated and needs a complete overhaul. Washington has ignored this."
Mod
"When I say "capitalism", I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism - with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
*
"There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept "just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government's unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement."
Mod
By Harry Binswanger, as published in Why Businessmen Need Philosophy, pages 153–166
This article was first published in the Objectivist Forum in 1983
To advocates of capitalism, the following scenario is all too familiar.
You are in a conversation with an acquaintance. The conversation turns to politics. You make it clear you are for capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism. Eloquently, you explain the case for capitalism in terms of man’s rights, the banning of physical force and the limitation of government to the function of protecting individual freedom. It seems clear, simple, unanswerable.
But instead of seeing the “light-bulb look” on the face of your acquaintance, you see shock, bewilderment, antagonism. At the first opportunity, he rushes to object:
“But government has to protect helpless consumers from the power wielded by huge multinational corporations.”
Or: “Freedom is impossible under strict capitalism: people must have jobs in order to live, and they are therefore forced to accept the employer’s terms.”
Or: “In a complex industrial society such as ours, government planning must replace the anarchy of the marketplace.”
These apparently diverse objections all commit the same logical fallacy, a fallacy grounded in the deepest philosophical premises of those who commit it. To defend capitalism effectively, one must be able to recognize and combat this fallacy in whatever form it may appear.
The fallacy is equivocation—the equivocation between economic power and political power.
“Political power” refers to the power of government. The special nature of that power is what differentiates government from all other social institutions. That which makes government government, its essential attribute, is its monopoly on the use of physical force. Only a government can make laws—i.e., rules of social conduct backed up by physical force. A “government” lacking the power to use force is not a government at all, but some sort of ugly pretense, like the United Nations.
A non-governmental organization can make rules, pass resolutions, etc., but these are not laws precisely because they cannot be enforced on those who choose not to deal with that organization. The penalty for breaking the rules of e.g., a fraternal organization is expulsion from the association. The penalty for breaking the law is fines, imprisonment, and ultimately, death. The symbol of political power is a gun.
A proper government points that gun only at those who violate individual rights, to answer the physical force they have initiated, but it is a gun nonetheless.
Economic power, on the other hand, is the ability to produce material values and offer them for sale. E.g., the power of Big Oil is the power to discover, drill and bring to market a large amount of oil. Economic power lies in assets—i.e., the factors of production, the inventory and the cash possessed by businesses. The symbol of economic power is the dollar.
A business can only make you an offer, thereby expanding the possibilities open to you. The alternative a business presents you with in a free market is: “Increase your well-being by trading with us, or go your own way.” The alternative a government, or any force-user, presents you with is: “Do as we order, or forfeit your liberty, property or life.”
As Ayn Rand wrote, “economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 48)
Economic power stems from and depends upon the voluntary choices of the buying public. We are the ones who make big businesses big. One grants economic power to a company whenever one buys its products. And the reason one buys is to profit by the purchase: one values the product more than the money it costs—otherwise, one would not buy it. (The savage polemics against the profits of business are demands that the entire gain should go to one side—that “the little guy” should get all of the gain and businesses none, rather than both profiting from the transaction.)
To the extent a business fails at producing things people choose to buy, it is powerless. The mightiest Big Multinational Conglomerate which devoted its power to producing items of no value would achieve no effect other than its own bankruptcy.
Economic power, then, is purely benevolent. It does not include the power to harm people, enslave them, exploit them or “rip them off.” Marx to the contrary notwithstanding, the only means of exploiting someone is by using physical force—i.e., by employing the principle of political power.
- continued in the next post
Mod
On the other hand, the equivocation whitewashes the interventionist actions of government by equating them with the benevolent, productive actions of businesses and private individuals. For example, when the government attempts to substitute arbitrary bureaucratic edicts for the intricately coordinated plans of individuals and businesses, this is referred to as “planning.” The systematic destruction of your savings through legalized counterfeiting is styled “managing” the money supply. Antitrust laws, which make it illegal to become too effective a competitor, are held necessary to preserve “free competition.” Socialist dictatorship is spoken of as “economic democracy.”
Americans have always held individual rights and freedom to be sacred and have looked with proper suspicion upon the power of government. The opponents of freedom have flopped grandly whenever their true colors have been perceived by the American public (e.g., the McGovern campaign). The victories of the statists have required camouflage. The equivocation between economic and political power, by reversing the meaning of all the crucial political concepts, has been essential to the spread of anticapitalism in this country.
The demagogic, rabble-rousing attacks on “Big Business” are the most direct example of the equivocation in practice. Whether it is multinational corporations or conglomerates or monopolies or “oligopolies,” the fear of “concentrations of economic power” is the theme played upon in endless variations by the left. The anti-bigness theme often appeals to the “conservatives” as well; the first serious breach of American capitalism, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, was and is supported by conservatives. Senator Sherman’s rationale for the Act is a classic case of the equivocation: “If the concerted powers of [a business:] combination are intrusted to a single man, it is a kingly prerogative inconsistent with our form of government.” (emphasis added)
In today’s depressed economy where “obscene profits” have turned into (lovely?) losses, the anti-business theme is being played in a new key: the target has shifted to foreign businesses. The equation of the dollar and the gun remains, however. To wit: “Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Massachusetts) believes that the hightechnology challenge from Japan is as serious to the United States’ long-term security as the defense threat posed by the Soviet Union.” (Infoworld, May 30, 1983)
The Soviet Union threatens us with nuclear annihilation. The Japanese “threaten” us with the opportunity to buy cheap, reliable computer parts.
One could point out that the law of comparative advantage, a cornerstone of economic science, dictates that one country’s superior productive ability can only benefit all those with whom it trades; that if Japanese firms can produce computer parts at lower cost than U.S. firms can, then our firms will necessarily have a comparative advantage in some other area of production; that any government intervention to protect some U.S. firms from foreign competition sacrifices other U.S. firms and the public at large to inefficiency, lowering our standard of living. But all this would be lost on the kind of mentality that equates imports with bombs.
Anti-capitalists go through the most elaborate intellectual contortions to obscure the difference between economic power and political power. For example, George Will, a popular columnist often mistaken for a pro-capitalist, announces that we must abandon the distinction because “any economic arrangement is, by definition, a political arrangement.” He attacks the idea that “only people produce wealth; government does not” on the grounds that “Government produces the infrastructure of society—legal, physical, educational—. . . that is a precondition for the production of wealth.” (The New Republic, May 9, 1983)
It is true that laws protecting rights are a precondition for the production of wealth, but a precondition of production is not production. In enforcing proper laws, the government does not produce anything—it merely protects the productive activities performed by private individuals. Guns cannot create wealth. When a policeman prevents a mugger from stealing your wallet, no value is created; you are left intact, but no better off.
The absence of a loss is not a gain. Ignoring that simple fact is involved in the attempt to portray the government’s gun as a positive, creative factor. For instance, tax relief is viewed as if it were government encouragement. In reality, tax breaks for schools, churches, homeowners, etc., are reduced penalties, not support. But socialist Michael Harrington writes:
The Internal Revenue Code is a perverse welfare system that hands out $77 billion a year, primarily to the rich. The special treatment accorded to capital gains results in an annual government benefit of $14 billion for high rollers on the stock exchange. (Saturday Review, November 1972)
Harrington equates being forced to surrender to the IRS one quarter of your earnings (the tax rate for capital gains), with being given a positive benefit by the government. After all, the IRS could have taken it all.
Just as the absence of a loss is not a gain, so the absence of a gain is not a loss. When government handouts are reduced, that is not “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor”—it is a reduction in the extent to which the poor are balanced on the backs of the rest of us.
- continued in the next post
Mod
1. that wealth is produced by individual thought and effort, and
2. that man is an end in himself.
From the standpoint of today’s philosophy, which denies both premises, the equation of economic power and political power is not a fallacy but a logically necessary conclusion.
In regard to the first premise, the dominant view today is that “the goods are here.” This attitude comes in several variants, and most people switch freely among them, but in every case the result is the idea that economic power is not earned.
In one variant, the production of wealth is evaded altogether; wealth is viewed as a static quantity, which can only change hands. On this view, one man’s enrichment is inevitably at the price of another’s impoverishment, and economic power is necessarily obtained at others’ expense.
For example: in a full-page advertisement run last year in the New York Times, a pornographic magazine promoted its series of articles on “Big Oil: The Rape of Free Enterprise.” The ad charged “the oil companies have a vise-like grip on the production and distribution of oil and natural gas—and set the market prices. These giants also own vast holdings of coal and uranium. . . . we’re over a barrel—and it’s an oil barrel.” (January 25, 1982)
Despite the ad’s use of the word “production,” the language conveys the impression that barrels of oil, stockpiles of gas, coal and uranium are not produced, that they were just lying around until—somehow—those demonic giants seized them in their “vise-like grip.” The truth is that finding, extracting, refining, delivering and storing oil and other energy sources is such an enormous undertaking that companies too small to be known to the general public spend more than $100 million each on these tasks annually.
The notion that wealth is a static quantity overlooks one telling detail: the whole of human history. If wealth only shifted hands, if one man’s gain were always at the price of another’s loss, then man could never have risen from the cave.
In other moods, people acknowledge that wealth is produced, but, following Marx, view production as exclusively a matter of using physical labor to transform natural resources into finished products. In the midst of the “computer revolution,” when technological discoveries are shrinking yesterday’s multi-milliondollar room-sized computer down to the size of a briefcase and making it available for the cost of a used car, people cling to the notion that the mind is irrelevant to production.
On the premise that muscles are the source of wealth, the accumulation of wealth by corporations is a sign of the exploitation of the workers: the economic power of those who do not sweat and toil can have been gained only by preying upon those who do.
In a final variant, people do not deny entirely the role of intelligence in production, but view wealth as an anonymous social product unrelated to individual choice, effort, ambition and ability. If today’s standard of living is due equally to the work of Thomas Edison, any random factory worker, and the corner panhandler, then everyone has a right to an equal “share of the pie.” Again, the conclusion is that any man’s possession of aboveaverage wealth means that he has exercised some magical power of diverting the “fair share” of others into his own pocket.
In any variant, the immortal refutation of “the goods are here” approach to wealth is provided by Atlas Shrugged. As Galt says in explaining the meaning of the strike he leads, “We’ve heard it shouted that the industrialist is a parasite, that his workers support him, create his wealth, make his luxury possible—and what would happen to him if they walked out? Very well. I propose to show to the world who depends on whom, who supports whom, who is the source of wealth, who makes whose livelihood possible and what happens to whom when who walks out.”
Once it is admitted that wealth is the product of individual thought and effort, the question arises: who should own that product? On an ethics of rational egoism, the answer is: he who created it. On the moral premise of altruism, however, the answer is: anyone who needs it. Altruism specializes in the separation of creator and his creation, of agent and beneficiary, of action and consequences.
According to altruism, if you create a good and I do not, that very fact deprives you of the right to that good and makes me its rightful owner, on the principle, “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.”
On that premise, anyone who possesses a good needed by another must surrender it or be guilty of theft. Thus altruism turns businessmen into extortionists, since they charge money for relinquishing possession of the goods rightfully belonging to others. A government whose political power is directed to protecting business’s control over their product is, from the altruist standpoint, initiating physical force against the rightful owners of those goods. By this moral code, the economic power of business is political power, since the wealth of businesses is protected by government, instead of being turned over to the needy.
Altruism engenders an inverted, death-dealing version of property rights: ownership by right of non-production.
Is this an exaggeration? Look at the statements of those who take altruism seriously—for example, George Will, who lauds the “willingness to sacrifice private desires for public ends.”
Urging “conservatives” to embrace the welfare state, Will quotes approvingly from the 1877 Supreme Court case of Munn v. Illinois, in which the Court ruled that a State could regulate the prices of private businesses: “When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.” (emphasis added)
One must submit to be controlled — why? Because he created a value. Controlled—by whom? By “the public”—i.e., by all those who have not created that value.
- continued in the next post
Mod
The second-hander feels that the distinction between the dollar and the gun is “purely theoretical.” He has long ago granted the smiles and frowns of others the power to dictate his values and control his behavior. Feeling himself to be metaphysically incompetent and society to be omnipotent, he believes that having to rely on himself would mean putting his life in jeopardy. A society of freedom, he feels, is a society in which he could be deprived of the support on which his life depends.
When you talk to him in your terms, telling him that we are all separate, independent equals who can deal with each other either by reason or by force, he literally doesn’t know what you are talking about. Having abandoned his critical faculty, any idea, any offer, any deal is compulsory to him if it is accompanied by social pressure. You may tell him that in order to survive, man must be free to think. But he lacks the concepts of independent survival, independent thought, and even of objective reality; his credo is Erich Fromm’s: “Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence.” (Man for Himself, p. 133)
I will conclude with another scenario. Imagine that you survive a shipwreck and have to steer your lifeboat to one of two desert islands where you will have to remain for several years. On each island there is one inhabitant. The western island is the property of a retired multi-millionaire, who lives there in high luxury, with a mansion, two swimming pools and all the accoutrements of great wealth. The eastern island is inhabited by a propertyless beachcomber who lives in rags and eats whatever fruit and fish he can scrounge up. Let’s add that the millionaire is an egoist and strict capitalist, while the beachcomber is a saint of altruism who will gladly share his mud hut with you. Would you, or anyone, head east to escape being “exploited” by the millionaire’s economic power?
So much for the idea that one is threatened by the economic power of others.
But one doesn’t have to resort to desert-island fables. The same practical demonstration of the life-giving nature of economic power and the fatal nature of unbounded political power is provided by the hundreds of thousands of people—Boat People, they are called—who cling to their pathetic, overloaded vessels, fleeing the lands of the gun and heading toward whatever islands of even semi-capitalism they can find left in the world.
If for every hundred refugees seeking to flee collectivist dictatorships we could exchange one intellectual who urges us to fear the dollar and revere the gun, America might once again become a land of liberty and justice for all.
Mod
A: Bill Gates' idea of a vacation is to study physics, history, literature, biology, and biotechnology.
- From: "The Prime Movers: Traits of the Great Wealth Creators" by Edwin A. Locke
Mod
Ayn Rand is for the complete separation of state and economics, i.e capitalism, because it is the social system that respects individual rights.
From wise and honest President Abe Lincoln: “Property is the fruit of labor... property is desirable... is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
The only moral social system is one that respects individual rights, i.e. Liberty, defined by Presidents Lincoln and Jefferson as: each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor, within limits drawn around him by the equal rights of others.
For decades now, the housing and financial industries are not free. The lending practices that politicians now blame on lenders are mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) enacted in 1977. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communit...
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are GSEs: government sponsored enterprises. Fannie Mae was founded as a government agency in 1938 as part of FDR's New Deal. From 1938 to 1968, the secondary mortgage market in the US was monopolized by Fannie Mae. In 1968, to help balance the federal budget, part of Fannie Mae was converted to a private corporation. To provide competition in the secondary mortgage market, and to end Fannie Mae's monopoly, the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970 created Freddie Mac. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governme...
The housing and financial industries are crumbling because of massive government intervention. Politicians who pity the poor and who force banks to lend to people who have no means to pay them back, are short-sighted and irrational; so are voters who cheer them. Of course, the lenders would eventually go bankrupt.
To those who think government intervention in business is good, ponder why the USSR crumbled, why North Korea isn’t an economic power.
*
The economic power of big business establishments is very different from political power which is the “power to use force”. The government has the monopoly on the latter; it should be used solely to protect individual rights.
Business establishments have no power to force anyone. When customers patronize a company because of inexpensive quality products, and its competitors go bankrupt, this is justice – the triumph of the good. Competitors could endeavor to best the best – this is great for customers: better and cheaper goods/services are produced. If a company invents a cure for cancer, Liberty dictates that the company enjoys a monopoly on that invention.
Ilyn,I don't know if this is an appropriate place for these questions but I am curious about your thinking and how you have reached your conclusions about reason, if ok...
Do you believe in happiness during your lifetime or "heaven on earth"-a utopian society.Being a cynic, to me, the idea of an achievable utopia with humans is impossible but i do love my life including my job.
I am also curious that with your emphasis on reason, how do you deal with emotion and that horrors have been committed in the name of reason? I suspect that you are not as one-sided as your faithfulness to reason only suggests?
Do you equate reason with logic?
thank you,
max
Mod
You have good questions. I will answer them tonight or tomorrow (I have to leave for work in an hour).
My favorite poem is "Thinking" - I posted it in many places; it is also in my profile. I hope you read it when you have the time.
Have a wonderful day Max and everyone.
The question was not adressed to me, "happiness and utopia?" but I wil answer, anyway. As much as we try, we will never have perfection of humanity or society. Humankind has too many flaws built into our character. We can, however, as thinking and reasoning people, improve. We can improve how we deal with the issues we face. If we have the ability to reason for anything, it is to find ways to improve how we deal with our environment, our neighbors, and ourselves.
Example: People are greedy by nature. If we can find ways to fulfill their desire in positive ways, as patents were intended to, we can turn negative tendencies into positive results. If we reward themj for negative acts on society, as Wall Street has done recently, it damages society. It is our job as reasoning people to find ways to adapt to our humanity.
Can and will we ever achieve perfection? No. "Toward a more perfect society" is a good direction, though.
Now, to "heaven on earth": I live in "heaven" on earth each day. Heaven, to me, is where my needs are met, my mind and soul are at peace. I am allowed to love, to think, to ponder and reason, freely--and then express and share those concepts with others. If those others find something positive in those ponderings and conclusions--good; if not--sorry; but it doesn't diminish my pleasure or fulfillment.
Mod
I see man as heroic - competent, efficacious, & benevolent.
Hello everyone. Hi Max. I will answer you fully this weekend.
Reason is the faculty that deals with the perception of reality. We use logic when we use our rational faculty. Logic is non-contradictory identification within the full context of our knowledge. Identification refers to the Law of Identity - Aristotle's A is A.
The use of reason can bear only good things: the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the founding of the USA. Irrationality marked the Dark Ages.
*
From: Why Businessmen Need Philosophy by Ayn Rand, essay by Leonard Peikoff
… There are three fundamental questions central to any philosophy, which every person must answer in some way: What is there? How do you know it? And, what should you do?
The Founding Fathers had answers to these questions.
What is there? “This world,” they answered, “nature”. (Although they believed in God, it was a pale deist shadow of the medieval period. For the Founding Fathers, God was a mere bystander, who had set the world in motion but no longer interfered.)
How did they know? “Reason was the only oracle of man,” they said.
What should you do? “Pursue your own happiness,” said Jefferson.
The result of these answers – i.e. of their philosophy – was capitalism, freedom, and individual rights. This brought about a century of international peace, and the rise of the business mentality, leading to the magnificent growth of industry and of prosperity.
For two centuries since, the enemies of the Founding Fathers have given the exact opposite answers to these three questions. What is there? “Another reality,” they say. How do they know? “On faith.” What should you do? “Sacrifice yourself for society.”
This is the basic philosophy of our culture, and it is responsible for the accelerating collapse of capitalism, and all of its symptoms: runaway government trampling on individual rights, growing economic dislocations, worldwide tribal warfare and international terrorism – with business under constant, systematic attack....
*
From Reason Reigns:
The islanders were all ears as Ron solemnly addressed them.
“Reason is the faculty that deals with the perception of reality, while faith is the claim to a non-sensory means of knowledge. Principles and values derived from faith are often accepted without question even in the face of contrary evidence, while reason deals with facts and employs the method of non-contradictory identification.
Faith has been used to further ignorance, enshrine irrationality, and exploit people. With faith, there is no necessity for justification. Force is its corollary.
But if one's personal faith holds reason as its top value, then, faith and reason are not incompatible. If one's personal faith holds the life, freedom, and happiness of each human being as the most sacred of values, then, reason and faith can coexist, parallel to each other, in the same man.
This man uses reason for everything that can be explained, while his faith holds on to dreams that inspire him to live.
Faith in a God who is all-good and all-loving, who treasures each man, endowing him with a mind capable of understanding man's nature, the Earth, and the universe.
Faith in a God who so loves man that He respects his freedom of choice.
Faith that God shares the most sacrosanct of values: each man's life, his freedom, and his happiness here on Earth. Faith that Heaven and Earth are one and the same.
Faith that human life goes on until eternity, that everything is possible to man. Faith in miracles -
Think of a miracle. Believe that God has given the means to achieve it. Think, and find out the facts. Think, with the clarity of purpose. Let the vision of a miracle be a beacon to guide your actions. Think, and then act. Act with the confidence that miracles do happen to doers who strive to actualize them.
Rejoice! Angels do exist in our midst, though it takes the highest of virtues to recognize them.
Heaven on Earth can be achieved when reason reigns.”
Alisa gazed at Ron adoringly. “A good man,” she thought. “His mind matches his looks.” Ron was six feet and three inches tall. He was proud and joyously confident.
Ron continued, “I respect the freedom of each man to celebrate the holy month, but I do not hold humility as a virtue. I think self-sacrifice is evil, suffering has no value, and one’s own happiness is the purpose of life.”
Hello Will:I am impressed with your thinking. I could see a good inner person in you. I too believe that perfection on earth is utopia. We could,however,try to make society and environment better for everyone. I would rather refer thinking and reason to wisdom and understanding because wisdom and understanding carry with them the virtues of patience and endurance.
I disagree, however, that people are greedy by nature. At the start,everything has been very good. Greed sprouted later on. Henceforth, to me there is hope for perfection.
I was happy to see the wife of one of the members of our Board reading "Reason Reigns". She ordered the book when she was in the U.S.A. She said, it's beautiful.
Regards Will.
Alma
Hi Ed:On your birthday on July 26, I pray that God will keep you, even hereon, and bless you you with long years. Keep it up.
Alma
Happy & Brainy Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Hondsgras, of Het gelazer (other topics)Authors mentioned in this topic
Gao Xingjian (other topics)Xenophon (other topics)
Raymond Queneau (other topics)
Rexhep Qosja (other topics)
Eça de Queirós (other topics)
More...
Ask away.
Ask any member.