Existents have identity.                                                       E + I
Identity constitutes specific characteristics.             I + S
Infinity denotes unspecifiable characteristics.         N + ~S
If God is infinite, then God has no identity.                 G + N > G + ~I
God is infinite.                                                                          G + N
Therefore, God has no identity.                                        G + ~I
Something has identity or it does not exist.                I v ~E
Therefore, God does not exist.                                          G + ~E

Basically, in her view, God is an invalid concept. He is indefinable, described by what he is not, by way of analogy, unique and therefore not within the conceptual realm (a concept involves reference to two or more concretes in reality). Infinity in the metaphysical or ontological sense used above (as opposed to its epistemological meaning, say in mathematics) is another invalid concept, since something that is infinite would not be limited by anything, would have characteristics that are unspecified; it is everything and therefore nothing (or, the concept omits everything and is therefore nothing); it is not definable.

As the Left is wont to do in lieu of sound argument, US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke recently related what is meant to be a heartrending story:

Recently, I’ve had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy. One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to ‘be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon.’ This just isn’t right.

My first immediate thought was why isn’t it right? Shouldn’t a progressive egalitarian’s own values lead him to be against intellectual property?

“What,” the progressive egalitarian should say, “you do a little work maybe once in your life, work which would be impossible if not for the shared cultural traditions from which it is derived and re-mixed, and get lucky (unearned talent, fortuitously good timing, etc.)…and you think you shouldn’t have to work for society again!?! That’s hardly fair, now is it? To paraphrase Proudhon, intellectual ‘property’ is theft!”

Lest the reader get the wrong impression, I am not as insensitive to the artist’s plight as this hypothetical progressive egalitarian. And I do not share his collectivist values. We come to similar conclusions via different reasons. I do not think that merely having an idea entitles one, legally-speaking, to be monetarily compensated by others or to have the power to prevent others from using their own property as they wish. Ideas are a dime-a-dozen. It is implementing them effectively, and in such a way as to earn a profit, that is hard. Accomplishing this is praiseworthy, but one should not rest on one’s laurels. Life, to say nothing of a flourishing life, requires productive work in order to be maintained and improved. Intellectual property is an attempt to use the coercive power of the state via granted monopoly-privilege to defy this reality as well as economic law and moral principle. The artist Secretary Locke mentioned could have saved (more) for his retirement and/or kept producing art instead of relying upon royalties to see him through his old age.

~*~

Cross-posted at The Libertarian Standard.

I’ll admit I was leery of the current iteration of the project, but I am somewhat reassured to hear that Atlas Shrugged will be made into three movies, not one, which is more doable. I’m also reassured that the director and the actor playing Henry Rearden seem to have a decent handle on Ayn Rand’s vision and characters, though I was a bit disquieted by the director mispronouncing Rand’s first name.

From Reason.com’s Hit & Run blog (video below):

Many actors and producers have talked about adapting Ayn Rand’s classic Atlas Shrugged for the big screen, but 53 years after its publication no one has dared tackle the ambitious project—until now.

Reason.tv heads to the set of Atlas Shrugged Part One to offer viewers a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse of this most anticipated film.

Director Paul Johansson (One Tree Hill) and Grant Bowler (Lost, True Blood, Ugly Betty), who plays Henry Rearden, discuss the perils, pressures, and pleasure involved in telling the epic tale of a society where the “men of the mind” go on strike and refuse to contribute to a collectivist world.

Produced by Ted Balaker and Hawk Jensen. Camera by Austin Bragg and Hawk Jensen. Production support by Sam Corcos.

Music: “Eu Nao Sabia” by Anamar available from Magnatune Records.

Approximately 5.3 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv downloadable HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Cross-posted at The Libertarian Standard.

I actually defended it on December 2nd. My committee approved it under the condition that I make some revisions, which is not an unusual occurrence. They mainly wanted me to flesh out and clarify some things in chapters five and nine. So after some procrastination (a bad habit) over the holidays I got around to doing the revisions. My dissertation advisor quickly approved the revisions and then, for the final step, I mailed off a hard copy to the graduate school editor for approval of formatting and such. She approved my explicitly anti-statist dissertation for uploading to LSU’s database on coronation day. :o) I’ll be graduating in May.

And so, without further ado, you can download a pdf copy of my dissertation from my website (direct link) or LSU’s Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Library.

Abstract

My dissertation builds on the recent work of Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl and Roderick Long in developing an Aristotelian liberalism. It is argued that a neo-Aristotelian form of liberalism has a sounder foundation than others and has the resources to answer traditional left-liberal, postmodern, communitarian and conservative challenges by avoiding certain Enlightenment pitfalls: the charges of atomism, an a-historical and a-contextual view of human nature, license, excessive normative neutrality, the impoverishment of ethics and the trivialization of rights. An Aristotelian theory of virtue ethics and natural rights is developed that allows for a robust conception of the good while fully protecting individual liberty and pluralism. It is further argued that there is an excessive focus on what the State can and should do for us; politics is reconceived as discourse and deliberation between equals in joint pursuit of eudaimonia (flourishing, well-being, happiness) and its focus is shifted to what we as members of society can and should do for ourselves and each other.

• Chapter One: Introduction
• Chapter Two: Eudaimonia and the Right to Liberty: Rights as Metanormative Principles
• Chapter Three: Eudaimonia, Virtue and the Right to Liberty: Rights as Both Metanormative Principles and Interpersonal Normative Principles
• Chapter Four: Eudaimonia and the Basic Goods and Virtues
• Chapter Five: Liberal and Communitarian Conceptions of Society
• Chapter Six: The New Left and Participatory Democracy
• Chapter Seven: Immanent Politics and the Pursuit of Eudaimonia
• Chapter Eight: Free Markets and Free Enterprise: Their Ethical and Cultural Principles and Foundations
• Chapter Nine: Conclusion

My two master’s theses are also available online:

M.A. Thesis in Philosophy (December 2006)

• “Aristotelian-Liberal Autonomy” (It can also be found at LSU’s Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Library.)

M.A. Thesis in Political Science (August 2004)

• “Tyranny, Natural Law, and Secession” (My manifesto!…er, I mean Master’s Thesis. It’s long as theses go, but virtually guaranteed to blow your socks off unless you are already a radical libertarian. Can be found at LSU’s Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Library.)

]]> https://gaplauche.com/blog/2008/09/27/john-c-wrights-austrian-anaylsis-of-the-financial-crisis/ Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:34:00 +0000 http://gaplauche.com/blog/?p=313 At least one science fiction author has a pretty sound grasp of economic theory and history, and of the current financial crisis.

Ludwig von Mises over half a century ago proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a little intervention in one sector of the economy creates an incentive for a lot of intervention in ever larger sections of the economy; and the government must forswear either the goals it has set as policy or the means selected to pursue them to resist, if ever, that incentive, and suffer the humiliation and financial loss of reversing long-standing policy. (A nice summary of his argument can be read here: http://mises.org/midroad.asp. A complete study of the underlying logic and epistemology can be read here: http://mises.org/resources/3250.)

Read the rest. He even mentions Bastiat.

There are two things he says that jumped out at me that I must disagree with, however.

Sadly, one cannot run a free market republic in a land where the citizens are ignorant of the basic scientific laws governing the market relations.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, except for the part about running a republic. We don’t need anyone to be running any kind of republic. The state itself is an evil. We shouldn’t settle for a free market republic. And no free market republic could ever remain free market for long anyway.

The other point of disagreement is that he seems to blame the financial crisis on the wealth-transferring “Dems,” as in Democrats I assume, but the Republicans are guilty of wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street too. Precious few Republican politicians give more than lip service to the free market. McCain is no small government, free market man.

Robbins first came to the attention of libertarians because of his self-published book, Answer to Ayn Rand (1974). He did not object to her defense of the free market. He objected to her epistemology, which rested on atheism.

I can see why he would think that, since for Christians God is at the level of metaphysics and ontology, in a sense prior to epistemology. However, while I can’t speak for Rand herself, for me at least my epistemology does not rest on my atheism. Rather, it is more the other way around. My atheism rests in part on my epistemological views (which inform and are informed by my metaphysical views, to be sure), but I (and I think Rand too) do not first assume God doesn’t exist and then develop my epistemology on that basis.