New Project: The Objectivist Voice

The two people who read Thomas Time may have noticed that I did not post anything here in the last month. Those two people may also have noticed that at the top of the blog there is a feed from The Objectivist Voice, which is my new web project.

Since the majority of my recent posts here at Thomas Time have tended to be less personal and more along the theme of Objectivism. The main concern of my writing these days is philosophy, and related issues of politics, social matters, etc.

I'll keep Thomas Time here, and post to it when something of more personal interest goes on (like travel photos and the like). Otherwise, the bulk of my more serious writing will be going on over at The Objectivist Voice.

Here are my 3 favorite posts that I've written during the first month of The Objectivist Voice being up and running:

1. Palin: "Common Decency" Trumps Rights - Sarah Palin gives me a concrete reason to not like her, which is the same reason I dislike most mainstream politicos: she bases her populist stances not on individual freedom, which an American politician should, but rather on fishy ideas of "common decency."
   
2. Avatar: Pretty Packaging on Faulty Premises - Despite being a feast for the eyes and ears, Avatar serves to perpetuate the faulty popular notion of ambition as something dark and seedy.
   
3. The Universal National Slavery Act - HR 5471, the Universal National Service Act, doesn't even pretend to be anything other than what it is: a declaration by the United States government that your sorry carcass belongs to the collective, not to yourself. Whether you're a citizen or not, the country takes precedence over you -- and you must serve it, individual rights and free choice be damned.

Follow-Up: Secular Humanism

About a week ago, I posted "Deconstructing Secular Humanism," where I picked apart the Secular Humanist statement of "principles." You can read the post to see why I generally give the list of principles a failing grade.

I did receive some interesting feedback on the post, and there were two key points in that feedback which I'd like to address. The general tone was that I was judging Secular Humanism's principles unfairly because...

1. The list was not designed to "pass the test" of rationality.
2. Their "starting value" is not the same as mine.

The two points are interrelated, so I will address them together. It was precisely my point that the majority of Secular Humanism's principles are not rational, which is my starting value. However, they also claim it as their starting value in their very first principle on the list: "We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems."

So, by my standard and theirs (rationality/reason), the majority of the list is a failure. Since they claim to be committed to applying reason and science, I don't see why their own principles should be exempt from "passing that test." If Secular Humanism is for some reason exempt from judgment by rationality, what is it to be judged by? Being "secular" doesn't allow for any other standard than real life, which only offers two choices: rationality or irrationality.

A truly rational approach to human life inevitably produces a value that I hold dear: individual rights. Humans are not granted a free pass by the universe (or God, or whatever) to survive without effort. Humans must either earn their survival through their own effort, or through the efforts of others. The latter can be the relationship of parents supporting their children, loved ones supporting each other, or the alarmingly acceptable relationship of parasites on the productive. Individual rights allow for true freedom -- the freedom to earn one's living, and to keep what one earns. Anything short of that is an irrational system of servitude in the name of church, or God, or society, or community, or whatever false deity you might erect.

Secular Humanism fails on two counts: their own supposed "commitment" to reason and science, and the rational necessity for placing individual liberty first. Add in a bonus failure for the lack of any coherent philosophy holding the random principles together as a whole.

Obama's Never Had to Produce Results

HUMAN EVENTS has an article up called "Why Obama Can't Plug That Damn Hole." There's some really good stuff in this article, and I highly recommend you read the whole thing -- it's pretty short and to the point.

First, the excellent point that Obama's administration (even more so than most political bodies) is made up of what Ayn Rand called "second-handers":

Individuals who have risen to power based on the ability to bring people together for the sole reason of bringing people together. These are people who feed off the success of others. They use any means necessary to give you “Hope” but they can’t “Change” a thing.

This is the insidious disease that produces the most visible symptom: soaring speeches of empty newspeak that are little more than campaign speeches. They make for good sound bites, and may rally some gullible people into misguided efforts at false "change," but that's about it.

Since Obama is the king of empty words that sound great but accomplish nothing positive, it's not at all surprising that...

President Obama cannot plug the hole or clean up the spill or administer reparations to those who have lost work because he has never been in charge of anything that required results.

Please read the rest of the article -- every word of it is solid gold. July 4th is as good a day as any to remember that our Emperor has no clothes. Not only that, but neither do most members of his administration, or even the opposition. As long as we tolerate a two-party system of equally incompetent second-handers, there's not much "hope" for any positive "change" at all.

Might Defines Right?

Jackie Gingrich Cushman, daughter of Newt Gingrich, has an article up at Townhall.com called "Freedom and Responsibility -- People Have the Power." This is your typical news/op-ed piece running in every newspaper across the country, in the run up to July 4th this weekend. Despite its cookie-cutter nature and the eye-rolling injection of "God" in every paragraph to appeal to the religious majority, it is worth looking at because it focuses on some key ideas.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," [The Declaration of Independence] states. It also notes that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."

It is important to note that while government power does indeed come from the consent of the governed (you and I), this idea can be twisted in dangerous ways -- and is twisted in dangerous ways every day by Democrats and Republicans alike. Just because government is meant to act with the consent of the governed doesn't mean that the governed have a blank check for what they direct the government to do. In a system that respects individual rights, the government is simultaneously empowered to protect people's rights from infringement and restricted from infringing those rights itself.

So, the government has a legitimate role in stopping you from killing/kidnapping/attacking me, which is a violation of my right to life -- but the government does not have any other legitimate role in restraining or killing you, even if doing so is in line with "the consent of the governed." Consent of the governed does not mean suiting the whims of whatever gang is in power or in fashion at the moment.

Every now and then when I'm at the library or a bookstore, I will flip through various left-leaning books that catch my fancy. One of the disturbing things I see frequently is the notion that the Bush administration (or any right-leaning government) acted immorally and abusively -- not because it used government power in illegitimate ways, but because it used government power in ways that did not suit the agenda on the left.

It's "immoral" by this standard, for example, if the government colludes with oil companies. But the reason the left claims it is immoral is not because it's collusion, but because it's collusion with a declared enemy of the left. It is perfectly acceptable, in this view, to do the exact same thing with "green energy" companies, because collusion and misused power is okay when it's "for the greater good." Of course, the greater good varies depending on which mob you're talking to, and by definition it never prioritizes the rights of individuals. I used the example of left-wing books, but honestly, most right-wingers disgust me for the same reason.

Back to my point -- the morality or immorality of a government action is not defined by whose cause it supports or ignores. It is defined by how closely the action matches the legitimate role of government: defending individual rights to freedom of action. We tell our children that "might doesn't make right," but if our present political situation is any indication, it seems that might defines right. Whichever gang is most numerous and can grab power for some time will define what is right -- objective standards and individual rights be damned.

Back to Cushman's article:

There is great importance in the self-evident truths. First, all men are created equal. That means that we all have equal value at birth. However, it does not say that all men, regardless of whether they work, shall end up equal.

The overall sentiment of this quote is very good, although I have a few nitpicks. I would not say that all men have "equal value" at birth -- all humans have potential, which may or may not be equal, depending on time, place, parenting, schooling, etc. The important distinction is that all people should be born equal in terms of their freedoms, their individual rights, and the protection of those rights. Whatever use they make (or not!) of those equal freedoms is their choice.

The last part of that quote is very important, and cannot be stressed enough. All are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there are no guarantees of any specific kind of life or any particular kind of happiness. The only guarantee, really, is the liberty to pursue those values -- and if you choose not to do so, nobody owes anything to you beyond allowing you that freedom. End of story.

We have the responsibility to remind our government that we, the people, have the power to elect a government that listens to us and responds to us.

Remember, folks, that that responsibility does not mean we can morally use our power over government to violate other people's rights. That includes creating phony "rights" like the right to health care, which are little more than a mob-sanctioned looting of Peter to give to Paul. When exercising your right and responsibility to influence your government, remember that in reality you are directing the only service government actually offers: force. Please use it wisely in defense of real individual rights, not for the creation entitlements or collectivism.

Deconstructing Secular Humanism

I'm interested in any philosophy that promotes rationality and a reasoned approach to human existence. Secular Humanism, which declares itself "beyond atheism," caught my attention and I decided to look at it more closely. After all, a great first step toward rationality is to stop basing your ethics/morality on supernatural deities and scriptures.

I figured the best way to evaluate Secular Humanism was to go straight to the source, and read through their "Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles." Unfortunately, as is the case with almost every "platform" that people put together like this, the Secular Humanism principles fall far short of rationality. There's no obvious, consistent base to the principles. Some of them are not even principles at all, but random statements of fact that don't seem to relate to any overarching philosophical issues of human existence. And worst of all in my book, there are some dark undercurrents running through many of these principles.

Let's take a look at them one by one:

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
  Okay, a great start: using reason to understand and solve problems.
  
  
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
  This makes sense, following on from the first point of using reason to understand the universe. They don't say why they deplore the denigration of human intelligence, but we'll let that slide for now.
  
  
• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
  Again, this makes sense based on the preceding principles.
  
  
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
  A few ambiguous words are creeping in here. What does "open" mean, and why is it something good? I'm not saying it isn't good, I'm just wondering what meaning they intend for this word, and what philosophical basis they have for believing in it. Similarly, why is a "pluralistic" society good?
  
  
• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
  I personally think this is a great principle although, again, no effort is made to explain why this is a good thing. As with many great principles, I know the rational reasons for why they are great -- but Secular Humanism doesn't seem to give any hint about that. This also muddies the list of principles; is it a list of philosophical principles, political ones, social ones, economic ones? It appears to just be a mishmash so far.
  
  
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
  Leaving aside the vague notion of "the arts of negotiation," wouldn't it be nice to know why "mutual understanding" is a good thing? Like "open and pluralistic," these words just hang in the philosophical void, with no effort made to ground them and explain why they are valuable.
  
  
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
  This is potentially a good principle, although "justice" and "fairness" are very vague words that tend to be misused/abused when not strictly defined. Are we talking about "justice" in the sense that everyone stands equal before the law? Or something else? And is "fairness" the equal application of reason and judgment to people, places, and things, or is it something "secured" by forced redistribution of wealth, power, etc. a la socialism and communism? There are a lot of potential weasel words in this one sentence.
  
  
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
  Leaving aside the issue of how to "support" them without unfairly infringing on others, there's no explanation of why this principle is here -- or how it at all relates to issues of rationality and science, which were so proudly trumpeted in the beginning of this list.
  
  
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
  This principle starts out very strong -- racism and discrimination based on class, group identity, etc. is anti-rational. But then they jam "for the common good" in there -- what about the good of individuals? Here they try to promote the idea of not judging people based on group membership, and yet they do so for the benefit of a larger group that may or may not have your interests at heart. Hmm...
  
  
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
  Protecting the earth so that we can continue to enjoy and make use of its resources is a pretty rational thing, given that human survival depends on it. I personally try not to inflict needless suffering on other species, but this principle doesn't explain how/if/why this idea is so valuable. Is it? It may be, but the Secular Humanists don't bother to justify it.
  
  
• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
  This may or may not be a good principle. Certainly, enjoying life is valuable to most people, and developing talent aids in our ability to survive. As principles go, I could take this or leave it.
  
  
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
  Whatever that means! Thanks for just randomly throwing this into the middle of the list, without bothering to even vaguely define what it means or how to go about it. Moral excellence! Hope! Change! Empty words often sound good, but they're still empty.
  
  
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
  The bulk of this is sensible and rational; surely reproductive freedom comes with the territory of being a free individual, although please note that the word individual never appears anywhere in these principles. Also, how do the Secular Humanists propose to "have access to comprehensive and informed health-care"? Will this come about through free markets bringing these treasures to fruition at low cost, or will it come about through government force that provides "access" to these things as some fundamental right? There's no indication, sadly. My hunch is it's the latter.
  
  
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
  Altruism is a moral decency? There's a laugh. Yes, people, throw away your happiness to sacrifice it for the greater good! Altruism is not about "being nice" or helping people -- it is about sacrificing yourself and your values. That is neither rational nor moral, if you place any value on your own life.
  
  
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
  Nourish reason, please. The world definitely needs more of that. Compassion? It certainly lubricates the social gears, but there's no explanation why this is some fundamental principle that Secular Humanists must support. "Compassion" is often used as a less-controversial mask for the philosophy of altruism, which is not a good code to live by.
  
  
• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
  This sounds more descriptive than prescriptive -- is this a principle, or a random fact just dropped in for no reason? Regardless, I don't see how "engagement" with the arts is of any rational or philosophical significance. Why is this even on this list?
  
  
• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
  What the hell does it mean to be a "citizen of the universe"? The only conclusion I can draw is that, since this is largely a list of shared beliefs and behaviors, this is an echo of one (or both) of two dangerous philosophies: the extreme environmentalist attitude that wants to sacrifice human achievement and survival, or the extreme "world citizen" political attitude that wants to sacrifice individual/state/national autonomy to large bureaucracies. Either way, count me out.
  
  
• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
  Great! But where did your knowledge come from for most of the preceding principles? Did it come from feelings, from an attempt to appeal to as many people as possible, or from rationality? I don't see any evidence of the latter.
  
  
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
  Red alert! Shields up! Here it is, out in the open: "service to others." Remember how the word "individual" did not appear anywhere in this list of principles? And remember all those vague weasel words that seemed to point towards collectivism, altruistic self-sacrifice, etc.? Well here's where it all comes together. You don't need to believe in God to get your "rich personal significance." You can simply believe in "the greater good" and serve your secular deity instead!
  
  
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
  Not to harp on the same point over and over, but... As wonderful as these things sound, why do you believe in them? What is the "application of reason and science" that affirms some of these and not others?
  
  
• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
  I'm smelling a lot of "we" coming off this list. And while I do believe that humans are capable of a great deal that we should be proud of, most of the things I find pride in are not found in these principles. I'm certainly not proud of the vacuous, undefined foundation these "principles" are based on -- because more than a few of them have nothing at all to do with reason, and none of them say anything about individual freedom or rights.

Some key points can be distilled from this deconstruction of the Secular Humanist principles. First, just because it's "secular" doesn't mean it's not about sacrificial service to some "greater" power or thing. Secular Humanism just replaces "God" with "humanity" -- hence the word Humanism. Second, there is no hint of support for individual rights or freedoms. Secular Humanism seems more concerned with humanity as a whole than with individual humans. Third, there's no consistency to these principles; they're just a collection of broad and undefined buzzwords with no obvious philosophical foundation to them.

Whenever you see a platform or list of principles like this, the important thing is to read each one with the mindset of a child, constantly asking why, why, why? Why am I being asked to do this? Why are they trying to convince me to adopt this way of thinking or behaving? And also: If I adopt this platform, what results will it bring about? Are they good, bad, rational, irrational? Why?

But unlike the petulant child, you don't ask "why?" simply to be ornery and stubborn; you ask it because the "why" matters. The answer to "why?" actually does matter -- and in this case with Secular Humanism, the answers trend toward floating, vague, nonsensical platitudes that can only be justified by saying they "feel" right or by relying on supernatural (e.g. non-rational, non-secular) understanding of the world. They certainly don't line up with any strictly rational or scientific understanding of humanity and the problems you and I must solve on a daily basis.

As a proud Objectivist, I'd have to give this list of principles a failing grade in terms of rationality, consistency, and promotion of individual rights. Ayn Rand is probably rolling over in her grave at the mere mention of this muddy mess of pseudophilosophy called Secular Humanism.

Newspeak: "Patients' Bill of Rights"

Investors' Business Daily hits the nail on the head about Obama's shameful "Patients' Bill of Rights":

President Obama issued a set of rules that he says can "finally" be considered "a true patients' bill of rights." Just where these "rights" can be found in the Constitution and how they can be granted without violating real rights — such as an individual's right not to be forced to pay for someone else's affairs — was not immediately explained. [emphasis added]

Two things happen when government decides a service/business is a "right." The first is that you, and I, and everybody else get to pick up the tab for others' "right" to use the service. It doesn't matter if you or I want to pay for it. Our fundamental right to our property gets violated so the feds can loot our resources and give them to somebody else who "has a right" to them. This cannot and does not happen in a system that honestly respects individual rights, by the way.

The second thing that happens:

An army of bureaucrats is toiling presently to determine what constitutes a premium increase that is "unreasonable" and runs afoul of the law. No one else's input or opinion matters but theirs.

Woe unto any industry that finds itself targeted by the government as something crucial to Americans' "rights" (or worse, America's hopes and dreams). Kiss your right to control your resources, your business, your service, etc. goodbye. Though the word "right" properly means a right to freedom of action, government and the Left continue to pervert it to mean an entitlement to the fruit of someone else's effort.

Remember, folks: it is now the government's job to commandeer whole businesses and use them to "achieve" something "for society."

Thinking? Say It Ain't So!

How would one be able to judge or determine the truth? That would entail thinking, which is precisely what the government doesn’t want anyone to do. Just believe, and obey.
~Edward Cline, "The Censors' Cabal"