Many questions have been answered, and some haven't. There are absolute truths, but there are some things that I may never master. I will endeavor to do so nonetheless.

Certainly society's premises are mixed, but my premises are mixed as well, as a couple of Objectivists are ready to remind me. They get closer to those of Objectivism periodically, but steadily.

Jackson, like all presidents, are not perfect. Your point is well taken.

Rights do not originate or depend on "sentience", potential human beings don't have rights, a woman already has a right to her own body and does not require "being given coercive control over a potential human being", rights are not "arbitrary"or "subjective", and a woman's right to her own body has nothing to do with "eugenicism"or "racial cleansing".

A=A and Existence exists.

No argument.

Cat, check your premises. ;) Saying all questions are not answered is not saying some haven't been answered. :)

I disagree with being forced to pay for what Planned Parenthood is doing (as pointed out in the recent videos). You either agree to subsidize the harvesting and marketing of human baby parts or you are a criminal. Where do we draw the line, anymore? At what point does one say, "Ah...you know...I don't feel as patriotic today."? Argh...

Here is the actual statement and the full context:

"The professional intellectual is the field agent of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher. The intellectual carries the application of philosophical principles to every field of human endeavor. He sets a society's course by transmitting ideas from the "ivory tower" of the philosopher to the university professor—to the writer—to the artist—to the newspaperman—to the politician—to the movie maker—to the night-club singer—to the man in the street. The intellectual's specific professions are in the field of the sciences that study man, the so-called "humanities," but for that very reason his influence extends to all other professions. Those who deal with the sciences studying nature have to rely on the intellectual for philosophical guidance and information: for moral values, for social theories, for political premises, for psychological tenets and, above all, for the principles of epistemology, that crucial branch of philosophy which studies man's means of knowledge sad makes an other sciences possible, The intellectual is the eyes, ears and voice of a free society: it is his job to observe the events of the world, to evaluate their meaning and to inform the men in all the other fields. A free society has to be an informed society..." [italics in original, bold added].

Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, title essay.

There can be no question that government should not be subsidizing PP, but despite the hue and cry (including an attempted bill in Congress) over the funding, that is not what is driving the current hysteria, just it was not the root of Bush's religious policy against funding of stem cell research. The hype and inflammatory rhetoric is based on religious opposition to abortion http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts..., with demands that government conform and enforce it.

The left is not lacking an ethics, it is driven by a false ethics. It operates from the altruism and tribalism inherited from very old and very wrong philosophy and religion.

Even the Pragmatism of the progressives, while denying principles on principle, is a parasitic philosophy relying on implicit, often unadmitted ideology in choosing goals and the standard of what "works".

jbrenner, I think you are being honest in asking these questions. As to me, I think that once a fetus gets brain waves, it has become a human be-
ing, even if it wasn't one at conception. Besides, the proper function of government is to protect
man from force (including fraud) and violence,(and to punish same)
and how do government-provided abortions come under that category? So why should the
government subsidize it? (Unless it were to re-
move a fetus that was there as a result of rape,
which rape the government had failed in its duty
to prevent). Ayn Rand, who was in favor of the
right to have an abortion, in "The Age
of Envy" denounced the idea of a woman being
"liberated" from the consequences of her own
chosen sex life, "such consequences to be born
by others..." and mentioned government-fin-
anced abortions.

Hello Jbrenner,
I would call this page, anatomy of a great blog. :)
Some excellent comments here. We must always check our premises as we acquire new input... lest we be nothing more than blind ideologues.
Regards,
O.A.

With regards to abortion, if one accepts it, one is admitting a caucus of slippery slope arguments.

One: the definition of sentience or personhood. The policy of abortion necessitates that a point in time be designated as the point at which sentience is achieved by a human being. That no definitive point can be arrived at should trouble any policy maker. This is critical because if we assert the existence of "basic" or "fundamental" human rights, we must establish a criteria under which those rights may be exercised, recognized, and protected.

Two: the rights of the mother. The policy of abortion necessitates that the mother be given coercive control to the point of termination of life over another potential human being based on above.

Three: the subjective nature of One (above). If we only value life which has reached some arbitrary point, can we really say that life itself has value? This leads directly into the notion of eugenicism, racial cleansing, etc.

For the New Intellectual: P. 26.

This is heartening, jbrenner. I too use the Gulch to test my premises - one of the major advantages of being here.

Specifically addressing your initial post: I find that you are not clearly delineating the difference between 'a tool' and 'the use to which the tool is put'. Like a knife, the military can be used properly or misused abysmally. I have a lot of respect for the military per se, but the threshold for disobeying commands is specific for ethics - it does not extend to policy.

Jan

What no objective principles? No absolute truths? How about the laws of thermodynamics or "Life is a process of self sustained self generated action." Everything just a probability waiting on an unknown next bit of information to extend the infinite regress to ignorance? Lordy how the skeptics do roam. If you think about it you will see that even using language between Gulcher's requires principles such as the theory of information transfer. IT doesn't control the content but if you want to be understood you will need principles both philosophic and scientific.

Please cite this quote..it would make sense if it was reversed "A free society is an informed society."

One, Barbarian is the ancient Greek term for anyone who did not speak Greek
Two: As a veteran I can tell you each member swears an oath to defend the US against its enemies and to defend the US Constitution. After that we just take orders all issued directly by or in the name of the CIC commander in chief. So we are an arm of the policy of the POTUS subject to the Will of Congress as permitted by statute and th Constitution. We are not for freeing individuals from tyrants. That is the task of the oppressed if they can achieve that level of defense of their sovereignty. A strong military is to be used as Colin Powel expressed and as General Sherman made clear only when you are prepared to smash and grind the opposition to death. The reason is we soldiers do not like to be used casually by pragmatic presidents for political gains.

Finally let it be obvious that without a consistent strong moral code in the mind of POTUS the military and our lives and sacred oath will be misused. The solution is not in policy but in a morality of self interest far beyond pragmatism and altruism.

We who volunteer to defend you deserve that you clean up your pragmatic irrational lives and get a moral code of reason, we deserve nothing less for defending your right to be irrational.
Semper Fi

JB: I once had a brief conversation with Branden. I started by thanking him. I did so because, while Rand awakened me at 19 to much of "life," of which I had remained cynically oblivious, he had awakened me to "me."

What I was referring to was when I picked up The Fountainhead, after finishing Atlas Shrugged, my newly-awakened enthusiasm and passion became tempered. It then quickly turned to despondency. For you see, while I professed to admire the character of Roark, I found myself emotionally identifying with Keating. Shortly after that realization, I began an, at times, an agonizing process of self-awareness and discovery, wherein I struggled to align my emotions to my professed values.

It has been quite a journey - one in which Branden's "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," was instrumental.

We then morphed into a few brief exchanges about NBI and related subjects. I was then motivated to comment to him as follows: Isn't it sad that Ayn never found anyone in life of sufficient capability to motivate her to question her premises, much as she incessantly admonished others to do? He gazed at me intently and asked "what do you mean?" I then asked; "surely, knowing what you now understand, you would have responded differently than you did when presented with her behavior in the early fifties? He then curtly responded, "did you read my book?! I indicated that I had read all of his books. His look and manner indicated that the conversation was now over! I thanked him again and returned to my business.

My life has been, tentatively at first, but over the years now automatic, one in which I am constantly checking my premises. I do so because of one of Rand's cardinal tenets in her epistemology. Specifically, Reason is man's only absolute. All others are contextual absolutes. When understanding such a perspective, all rational questions become relevant, all answers tentative - respectful of the only absolute, that of reason's remorseless status as such.

Always enjoy your posts.

Dave

Your original premises are quite correct. The problem is that you once lived in a country that at the very least, embraced those same premises. However, during my lifetime and possibly yours, the country you now live in is no longer the same. It espouses all those things that caused you to need to check your premises. In the current political situation it could cause a rational person to think he/she's going mad. So many times I, and I think you also, have said, "Are they crazy? That can't possibly work." So obvious, yet to the brain-blind, not obvious at all.

The absence of morality is pretty much how the left "means to an end" often operates.

Those videos of PPH negotiating the sale of parts don't bother me in the least. My money supporting this activity does! Get the government out of the abortion business and let them be privately funded and I will have no involvement at all. I highly prefer to just mind my own business on issues I have no control over.

The US military still does protect against totalitarians, to the extent it is allowed to. Like the rest of the government it is very mixed. There was nothing wrong with attacking Hussein in Iraq. There was a lot wrong with doing nothing about Iran and turning the Iraq war into "nation building" and the rest of the 'turn the other cheek' strategy. But fighting with one hand behind our back didn't start there, it was practiced on a large scale in Vietnam and also in Korea. WWII was the last war really fought. None of this is a criticism of the soldiers trying to defend the country and it isn't a reason to turn against the military; they don't like it either (other than some political generals).

There is no inherent drive for evil, even in Sopwith Camels. Evil is the absence of morality. You discover what it is and have the integrity to follow it or you don't. The primary evil is refusing to focus one's mind as circumstances require.