Category Archives: Rand

Senate candidate Roy Moore enforces irrational values when refusing to admit his past actions or the nefarious nature of those actions. Moore has been pressured to withdraw from the Alabama race following accusations of making sexual advances towards teenage girls during his thirties. Though Moore initially lost support when the allegations were published, President Donald Trump endorsed him to increase Republican representation, leading to discrete funding reinstatement from the Republican National Convention (RNC) to restore “get-out-the-vote funds,” bolstering the Republican Party in Alabama.

By endorsing Moore, government officials fail to define ethical behavior and the desired consequences of that behavior. Molesting children is prohibited by law, yet Moore cannot reasonably be tried for a decades old alleged crime. The safety of children is a rational value, unshared by predatory Moore and %48 of Alabama voters. Harming children is already a crime, leaving the question of how we as ethical and free individuals will remain steadfast in morality, asking if we will choose not to be represented by those who attack the innocence and safety of children. Moore will maintain irrational values, favoring his own survival as a politician and as a member of society over considerations of good or evil. As Moore must preserve himself, we the nation must preserve our high standards of value and integrity.

Man has no authority over his abilities to feel that something benefits him or is evil. What he will consider joyous or painful, love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standards of value and reality. If he chooses irrational values, as many Alabama voters are, he switches his emotional capacity from protection to destruction. The irrational is the impossible; it contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by desire but can destroy those who desire impossibilities. If Moore wishes to live free as a child molester and represent the American people, he will disintegrate his consciousness; turning his personal life into a dark, morbid war with meaningless conflict (matching the objectivist attitudes of most people today).

Like the President and the RNC, Moore will always alter his ethics and behavior in such a way that benefits himself and his party–for survival, not reality or facts. Choosing to remain complicit amid allegations of harassment upholds objectivism and fails agreed-upon societal standards, such as: rape, murder, and assault, especially of children, are immoral and reprehensible. Because Moore’s victims were teenage girls, aspects of their innocence and naivetë is overlooked and confused with consenting womanhood, which is additionally confused with enticement and feminine virtue. Government sponsors, such as the RNC, would not support Moore if it were morally and socially agreed upon that sexual harassment and assault is undeniably evil, threatening the safety, freedom, and potential happiness of affected victims.

President Trump utilitarianistically claimed that Moore’s alleged crimes should go unpunished so that he can pursue justice as a Senator, ending other crimes and implying that whatever injustice Moore prevents as Senator will be more important to the nation’s security than preventing assault and harassment, despite domestic violence being the leading factor in the premature deaths of women globally and in the United States. Those who have been or may be accused of assault redefine ethics to protect each other. If Moore’s actions are unethical, the President’s and other representatives’ past actions will be so, losing societal protection for their irrational emotions, urges, thoughts, whims, or desires. If the President is surrounded by others with objectivist ideals, he will receive a licence to do as he pleases, altering fact and reality to avoid portraying himself as a selfish brute in the altruists’ image.

The greatest historical Orator, Aristotle, felt ethics and decency were skills that could be practiced and refined, like physical and mental excellency. Because these assaults were sins of Moore’s past, if he were to renounce his candidacy, he could be ethical now. His decision to remain in Alabama’s Senate race is a dismissal of his wrongdoing. Moore has not refined his ethics as Aristotle taught, continuing to uphold objectivism and irrational standards of value.  By funding Moore, the RNC also complies with objectivism, distorting virtue and social morality for political gain, ignoring a social contract with the government to protect us, the people, who adhere to paying taxes and new legislative regulations. The independence of self is important, and should only be mandated in as much as liberty is protected.

The RNC and President are failing to protect children and victims of assault, belittling their roles as government entities and responsible citizens. The RNC is actively redefining ethics in its own interest, and will continuously give ethics new definitions that benefit its party over Americans. Politics is partisan, but maintaining bipartisan codes of ethics would enforce virtuous conduct and prevent candidates like Moore from objectivist behavior. Complicity toward low standard values (by government officials, candidate Moore, and pro-Moore voters in Alabama) supports the ability to change what is considered right and wrong at the expenses of children and liberty.  

Physician-assisted suicide is a debate in the United States that people know of, but not a lot of people talk about. Not to be confused with euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide does not include the physician administering the fatal dose of drugs, but prescribing them to a mentally stable patient. This is legal in several countries, including Canada, and six states in the U.S. allow it when the patient is terminally ill with fewer than six months to live.

While some may view this as “unethical,” who really gets to say? The issue should be left up to one person and one person only: the doctor’s mentally stable patient. Nobody should infringe upon an individual’s selfishness and tell them they are not able to act in their own personal interest, even if that interest is their own death. Since right to life is a person’s only true fundamental right, they have the right to do things to keep that life sustained. With that is the right to act on one’s own judgment, without pressure, to achieve one’s own personal goals. When life gets subjectively bad enough, a person may act on their best judgment to achieve their goal, even if that is death.

Everyone agrees that each individual has a right to his or her own life, and that is respected without question. When a person makes a decision, it is based partly on desire. Desire does not mean, in this case, a person wants it or feels like it, it takes a process of reason for a person to decide what he or she truly desires. The person does not decide until they can say they desire it because it is the right thing to do. When a person opts to take his or her own life in a peaceful manner, assisted by a doctor, the decision is based upon their own process of reason in determining what is right.

Finally, a rational person takes a decision-making process very seriously. They do not act on a desire without either being aware of the potential results or making themselves aware of the potential results. If the practice were to exclude mentally unstable patients, a rational person should be trusted to make the decision. Even if the decision is one that ends their own life, that decision was made to achieve the goals made attainable by the individual’s right to life. The rational person will make the rational choice most of the time to do what is necessary to continue their life, but if the choice is to discontinue their life, that right should not be held from them.

Leave it to customers to regulate big businesses until they can get the best deal. The United Kingdom Parliament is passing a Digital Economy Act (2017) that requires companies reveal their use of customer data. Just to be clear this is an incredibly socialist infringement on private businesses’ rights to operate freely. Next parliament will have to force Grandma to publish her secret recipe just because your family wants to make sure cocaine isn’t the magical secret ingredient. But seriously when are people going to learn that if you don’t like the price, you can go somewhere else. This is why competition exists. It is quite the slippery slope to vote in favor of a bill that compromises a private business to the mold of a public interest.

The drama of this bill came about when transport-giant, Uber, was discovered to  have access to data that tells them when a customer’s battery life. Uber admitted that while they know a person is more willing to accept the higher “surge” pricing when their phone is about to run out of battery, they claim that they do not use the information to affect the price. The conversation was raised that tech companies in Silicon Valley have formed a sort of monopoly on data and that that data belongs to the people.

Only it doesn’t. Remember those long terms and agreements pop-ups that you knew deep down you ought to read but definitely didn’t read? Those little guys pretty much caught you red handed relinquishing your rights to such personal data in exchange for use of services. A fair trade most would think—until the price just isn’t right.

It is important to keep in mind that these businesses didn’t become successful for playing it fair. They play it smart and efficient. No one demands a local cookie shop change their prices and reveal their recipes and business plans because their cookies are good but overpriced. People can simply shop somewhere else if that is their prerogative. This is the way a free market works. When governments regulate private enterprises as if they are a public service simply because they are so popular they might as well be, then the market is no longer free. If governments want to redistribute the wealth and services, then they can enter into a trade agreement with those businesses. Everything comes at a cost and that goes for the parliament and its people.

After 14 years of intensive training and studying I finally can pursue my passion of being a doctor. Though I have incurred years of debt and hardship for my family to put me through college and medical school, I shall hopefully be able to pay off loans that have been accumulating interest since I began my undergrad many years ago. I am fairly concerned about  my ability to pay off my debt as soon as I can, however with the reliability in the job market for specialized doctors, I am certain I can pay it off.

However, I am not sure how long it will take for me to pay my debt off. The current tax system works against me in that I must pay a higher rate of tax than my colleagues who make significantly less than me. Though I sacrificed my twenties to be able to attain the highly coveted position of a doctor, I am subject to an unfair tax bracket. Does this equalizer make up for the years I spent studying on Friday nights while my peers were out in the city? Making memories I will never be able to have for myself?

To that my answer is no. I do not regret the profession that I have picked, as I find great happiness in the ability to save someone’s life. However I do believe that the years of hard work I have put in merits the extra income I make.

Today, I have found out that there is this tax reform that is in the process of being passed that serves to correct this taxation imbalance. If this passes, I will be taxed 4% less than what I used to be taxed.

All this time, though I made more money than my peers, the debt and the higher tax bracket I was in negated those benefits. I should not have to suffer so that others have not made the same decisions of me shouldn’t.

Though I am aware of the negative impacts this tax reform could have on others, I know that the bracket system by nature is made to give a helping hand to those who do not make as much. While I agree with the idea of this tax-based assistance, I am happy that this reform will slightly restore the balance because I know that people like me are the beneficiary of the act.

I can use this extra income to pay off my student loans and focus more on enjoying the life I now have. I come back from work less stressed now that I have a more flexible budget and can choose how I want to relax, whether it be staying at home or going out to a fancy dinner to treat myself.

A lifetime of hard work merits this lifestyle, for I have sacrificed more than early financial liberation to get here.

It is interesting and disappointing to imagine what the current atmosphere of race relations in this country could have been had society continued on the course of capitalism as it had in the past two centuries. But instead the rise of collectivism and the fall of individualism reversed man’s achievements regarding equality and instead thrust to the forefront the differences between races, as irrelevant as they may be. During the civil rights era, the African American leadership had a shift in priorities that has had lasting influence on race relations today. It’s no coincidence that with the rise of collectivism, came demands for affirmative action.

Affirmative action is the process of giving priority to minorities, over equal or greater candidates, opportunities for education and work. In short, affirmative action is racism. In order to understand the relationship of affirmative action and the evil it means to combat we must first understand what is racism. Racism is the belief that a man’s morals are defined not by his actions or by his character, but instead by his genetic lineage. It is crucial to note that racism suggests that a man can be judged by the actions or character of his ancestors simply due to a common genetic source, regardless of environmental factors.  A result of this line of thinking is “common racial guilt” where a racist makes an individual feel responsible for the actions his ancestor, or simply a member of the same skin color may have committed. This is where we can draw the connection to affirmative action. In a situation where two individuals are equally qualified, but one is a minority and one is white, affirmative action requires that the opportunity be given to the minority because of a history of discrimination to that persons race. Not to that individual minority, but to his ancestors. The implications of this line of thinking condemns the white individual for not having ancestors discriminated against, so the solution becomes to discriminate against him? This a gross injustice that further promotes racism as it brings to light the importance of genetics in individual opportunity. Most importantly this process takes away the individual rights of people not fitting the parameters required of affirmative action. African American’s argument towards equality rested on their rights as individuals but as soon as they started demanding the rights of others, especially ones not responsible for the discrimination of African Americans, they lose all basis of their ethical and moral demands.

Universities are some of the biggest proponents of affirmative action. I would not like to debate the benefits of affirmative action on the individuals that are selected as there is little doubt they receive great benefit. Instead I think it is important to address the risk of supporting such a system on the code of ethics of men. I believe that any system that encourages the idea that a group has more rights than an individual is evil and immoral. I believe that only through supporting individual rights, capitalism and prioritizing our own values over the actions of our ancestors can everyone benefit from a competitive society.

It is no surprise that in our altruistic society, where our elected officials are overly concerned with goals of padding societies productivity, government is given power beyond its purpose. The only ethical function of government is to protect man’s rights, and far too frequently the government interferes with individual’s ability to prosper and pursue their values. The government has no place influencing the processes by which individuals or corporations trade, except to protect people’s rights to the property being manufactured and traded. Trade is the most ethical form of relationships that individuals develop, but only when it is uncoerced and unburdensome to both parties.

President-elect Trump has plans to enact tariffs on many of the United States trading partners, a protectionist, collectivist and reactionary approach to the economic woes of the country.  It is a gross transgression that tariff enforcement falls under executive privilege in a capitalist society, and is a product of excessive government presence in our lives. Before even considering the rights violations imparted upon free trading individuals, Trump’s tariffs can be rejected from the stance of rational self-interest. These policies are simply collectivist appeasement disguised as strength. The hope is that through higher import taxes, either more jobs are created in America or American manufactures receive more business over the more competitive international market. The individual consumer is being sacrificed for the benefit of outdated workers and firms that can’t compete in the market. Instead of being forced to think and adapt, they are being handed the means to survival.

Enacting tariffs may not seem radical since they have been done before, but the President-elect has threatened to start trade wars with other nations and these tariffs are just one weapon in his arsenal. Trump’s rhetoric suggests he has no interest in free trade, and would rather force partners into deals that might benefit the United States but likely risk sacrificing the freedom of the American people. While individuals’ economic rights are not as clear cut as their property rights, there is a clear risk to the freedoms that give people the ability to achieve satisfaction in trade, and may compromise their values. This is not the same compromise of negotiating a price among traders that meets the demand of the good, but instead unjust limitations on the goods available and as a result their competitive price. A tariff aims to promote trade with certain parties and restrict it with others, often encouraging manufacturing and trade within a country. This drives up prices either because: imported goods are heavily taxed and their consumer prices rise to reflect that, or increased manufacturing in the U.S. increases demand for labor, driving up wages upon already higher labor costs which also increases prices. To an individual, these policies simply limit his access to competitive pricing and it does not benefit him to purchase his goods from an American over a foreigner. If the individual must compromise between a fair deal, one of their choosing without inflated prices, or an unfair deal, there is no good in such a compromise.

The answer is both. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, it doesn’t mean everyone is always good, or always evil.

“When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?”

“I don’t see color” is what people say when asked about racism. The Black Lives Matter movement aims to bring attention to the issues surrounding racism and violence towards people of color. Specifically today, the issue is police violence specifically towards people of color. In “The Virtue of Selfishness” and more specifically in “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?” The concept of moral judgement and how it plays a role in the issue of Black v. Blue lives matter affect the outcome of the movement.

So the dividing line is that people support the men in blue, who in some cases, have performed acts of evil in the form of violence towards people of color. The other side, is the Black Lives Matter movement, which in some cases has prompted people to act in violence in the name of the movement, although not always in the name of good.

Neither side is right or wrong, but both are attempting to bring peace and good into the world. “Moral values are the motive power of a man’s actions. By pronouncing moral judgment, one protects the clarity of one’s own perception and the rationality of the course one chooses to pursue. It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors of knowledge or with human evil.” I say this because there should not be an issue between Black v. Blue because to pass moral judgement is “that one must know clearly, in full, verbally identified form, one’s own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly” and yet we put men in uniform in one box based on the actions of a few, and we place blacks in another box, based on the actions of a few.

So lets say you don’t get involved in all this because it “doesn’t directly affect you”. You have just then encouraged the evil within the groups, and not stood up for the goodness. You let policemen get away with murdering the innocent, and you refuse to acknowledge that racism occurs and it is still very present. “You dont see color” has just condemned an entire race, congrats.

The issue of Black v. Blue is that it is very black an white. It is an argument for which one is right and which one is wrong. However neither are, but should be judged on a case to case basis, not as a whole.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/29/black-lives-matter-and-blue-lives-matter-at-odds/

This article provides evidence about the polarization between Black v. Blue and efforts to make one prosper over the other. This shows the inability on the part of each individual to not pass moral judgement because they refuse to see both sides. “To declare that “everybody is white” or “everybody is black” or “everybody is neither white nor black, but gray,” is not a moral judgment, but an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment.”

“It is forgotten that the right of free speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement with others, opposition, unpopularity and lack of support.” In light of the controversy surrounding the action of burning the American flag, I believe the legality of it is not to be subjected for discussion.

In “The Virtue of Selfishness” specifically “Mans Rights”  I lay out what I believe to be individual rights that should not be tampered with or distorted by the government. The issue surrounding the action of burning the American Flag is that the flag represents patriotism. Because it is a patriotic symbol it can be seen as a sign of disrespect towards our soldiers in uniform who fight so hard for our country. So in summary, its an unpopular action, that can be offensive towards others.

Regardless of the meaning of the flag, the government has no authority to say whether or not the action of burning the flag should be illegal. I clearly state that the role of the government is to protect the individual rights of every person. By attempting to suppress views and actions you are in fact taking away individual rights.

The photo below shows the overstep of the government in their role. I stated that “To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force.” This photo proves that the government, in the form of president-elect Donald Trump, is prepared to do what I have just said, use force to achieve their goal.

So I guess someone needs to inform him that his powers are limited right? Oh wait, our country consistently faces issues with the government barging in on our individual rights. How you may ask? Same-sex marriage, congress trying to bring back religion (that not everyone practices, I might add) back into schools, and the ever so popular legalization of marijuana, which has actually been proven to improve certain illnesses.

So although its already been decided that burning the flag is legal, why do I bring it up? I bring it up because the fact that the action of burning the American flag is even a question shows the overreach the government already has. I stress individual rights because society can not take those away and the government sets laws and regulations so that people’s individual rights are protected. But clearly some have been misinformed on their role in society.

Concluding, although there is controversy around the burning of the American Flag, the over arching issue is that the legality of doing so is brought up. Individual rights cannot be taken away from someone regardless of how unpopular an opinion or action might be.