I previously wrote about the fundamental issue in the Peikoff/McCaskey controversy; namely that McCaskey’s viewpoint is inconsistent with the principles of Objectivist epistemology and therefore Dr. Peikoff was right in demanding McCaskey be removed from the board of ARI. This addendum discusses another issue that deserves attention as well. For reference, [...]]]> ©2011 by Glenn Jorgensen

I previously wrote about the fundamental issue in the Peikoff/McCaskey controversy; namely that McCaskey’s viewpoint is inconsistent with the principles of Objectivist epistemology and therefore Dr. Peikoff was right in demanding McCaskey be removed from the board of ARI. This addendum discusses another issue that deserves attention as well. For reference, see Peikoff’s private email to Arline Mann of the Ayn Rand Institute that was subsequently made public.[1] The issue is a premise underlying the attacks leveled against Peikoff for making the statement “…I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism….” The premise in these attacks is altruism and, by implication, a lack of understanding what objectivity is.

As Objectivists know, justice demands judging a man’s character and actions objectively and granting to each that which he deserves. What Peikoff’s detractors don’t understand is that this principle applies equally in judging oneself. These detractors are demanding that Dr. Peikoff deny his own achievements. It is objectively verifiable that he is the pre-eminent living Objectivist scholar. Peikoff’s lifelong commitment to learning, teaching and writing about Objectivism has earned him this status. To validate this, one can listen to his lecture courses and read his works, including; The Ominous Parallels, The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy, Fact and Value, and most importantly Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. These works (and many others) make it clear that he understands Objectivism down to the root. And, as further evidence, he was considered by Ayn Rand as the person most knowledgeable of her philosophy and so she chose him as her intellectual heir.

Now let’s turn to the email referenced above. It is clear that Peikoff and some board members of ARI (I do not know who, or how many) had prior discussions over McCaskey’s continued presence as an ARI board member. The details of these discussions are not known, however, the evidence indicates the issue was not resolved in a timely manner. Whether the board’s inaction was a result of outright disagreement with Peikoff, an indifference to the issue, or pragmatism on the part of some members, or something else, is not known. What is known is that a resolution was needed on a very important issue, and one was not forthcoming.

Peikoff identified a fundamental philosophical disagreement between McCaskey’s position and Objectivism. In addition, while advancing Objectivism as a board member of ARI, McCaskey disagreed with the essence of Objectivist epistemology, thereby endorsing a breach between thought and action. This shows a lack of integrity and is an instance of the mind/body dichotomy; a dichotomy that Objectivism emphatically rejects.

Knowing that McCaskey’s position was inconsistent with Objectivism and that allowing him to remain would be equally inconsistent, what should Peikoff have done when faced with reluctance on the part of the board to removing McCaskey? For a clue to the answer, I refer to the following quote from Ayn Rand’s article The Age Envy:

As a rule, a man of achievement does not flaunt his achievements…If, however, he encounters an envious hater who gets huffy, trying to ignore, deny or insult his achievements, he asserts them proudly. [2]

While I’m not suggesting the board members of ARI were “envious haters” this quote does identify an important principle; one must stand up for oneself and proudly assert one’s achievements when appropriate. Note that Peikoff gave ARI an ultimatum; choose either him or McCaskey. Peikoff, like everyone else, has a right to remove support from an organization if he thinks that organization is inconsistent with the ideals he upholds. Think about how much more important this is for Peikoff when the organization in question is one he founded, and one that has a mandate to spread the ideas of a philosophy that he is more familiar with than anyone else. A decision had to be made regarding McCaskey and when agreement could not be reached, Leonard Peikoff had every right to assert his status as the pre-eminent Objectivist scholar.

To suggest that Peikoff not assert his status when it is appropriate to do so, is to demand self-denial, self-abnegation, and self-sacrifice on his part i.e. altruism. If Peikoff had acquiesced on this issue, as many of his detractors are suggesting he should have, he would have been inconsistent with the virtues of justice, integrity, and pride as defined by the Objectivist ethics. And, as noted by Peikoff in his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, when a person abandons even one virtue, this would lead to a compromise on all the Objectivist virtues, and to the eventual loss of the values one is trying to gain. In the midst of this entire controversy and all the criticisms of Peikoff, it is he who has been the most consistently objective.

This whole McCaskey incident has been disturbing to many Objectivists, but to a large extent for the wrong reasons. What is disturbing to me is that the attacks on Leonard Peikoff show that some very prominent Objectivists lack a thorough understanding of epistemology and ethics. It is interesting that these two areas are where the lack of understanding is, because there is a common concept uniting the two. Just as concepts in epistemology are objective, so too are values and the virtues required to attain them. Objectivity pertains to the relationship between existence and consciousness. It means adhering to reality and accepting reason as one’s only means of acquiring knowledge of reality. If one understands and accepts objectivity, one’s concepts are tied to reality and are formed in accordance with the requirements of man’s conceptual faculty; one chooses values and practices virtues with man’s life as the standard; and one judge’s people according to whether or not their ideas and actions promote man’s life. Objectivity leaves no room for dogma or whim when acquiring knowledge, choosing values, or judging people.

But, if one fails to grasp what objectivity is, one falls into the intrinsicist/subjectivist trap. Typically, a person like this embraces Objectivism as dogma, then recognizes conflicts in the two positions, but cannot resolve them objectively. They then swing to the subjectivist side. To such a person, the only alternatives when judging people are either dogmatic authority, or tolerance for all viewpoints. They will view the disagreements between McCaskey and Peikoff/Harriman as merely a “difference of opinion” between scholars. And they will condemn Peikoff as “authoritarian” for his stance against McCaskey. The possibility of an objective condemnation does not occur to them.

And, as Dr. Peikoff states in Fact and Value:

…if you grasp and accept the concept of “objectivity,” in all its implications, then you accept Objectivism, you live by it and you revere Ayn Rand for defining it. If you fail fully to grasp and accept the concept, whether your failure is deliberate or otherwise, you eventually drift away from Ayn Rand’s orbit, or rewrite her viewpoint or turn openly into her enemy.[3]

If Objectivism is to have a future, anyone who admires Ayn Rand and wants to promote her philosophy must fully understand objectivity and apply it consistently. This includes passing judgment objectively, and never granting equal status to truth and falsehood. But if they don’t grasp what objectivity is, they will either abandon the movement, or, in their attempts to rewrite Ayn Rand’s viewpoint, they will empower the enemies of Objectivism. This can only lead to failure in their goal of trying to gain a world wide influence for Objectivism.

(Thanks to Brian Phillips for very valuable suggestions in writing this article)

References:
1) http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html
2) The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, page 152
3) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv

Many Objectivists are aware of the fact that John McCaskey has resigned from the board of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). This article assumes familiarity with the events that have occurred in this controversy. Briefly, McCaskey criticized a major ARI project – David Harriman’s book The Logical Leap. Leonard Peikoff issued [...]]]> ©2011 by Glenn Jorgensen

Many Objectivists are aware of the fact that John McCaskey has resigned from the board of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). This article assumes familiarity with the events that have occurred in this controversy. Briefly, McCaskey criticized a major ARI project – David Harriman’s book The Logical Leap. Leonard Peikoff issued an ultimatum to ARI demanding McCaskey’s removal from the board, or Peikoff would end his support for ARI. A flurry of internet activity ensued on various blogs (such as a site run by Paul and Diana Hsieh), [1] podcasts, and by newsletter editors, including Craig Biddle (editor of The Objective Standard).[2]

Leonard Peikoff has been denounced as unjust for publicly condemning McCaskey and non-objective for offering no evidence to support that condemnation, yet those making these accusations have ignored the fundamental issue in this controversy, focused on non-essentials, and failed to consider all of the available evidence.

In an email to ARI Peikoff stated that McCaskey’s “disagreements … often go the heart of the philosophic principles at issue.”[3] An enquiring Objectivist might ask “what are these philosophic principles, and are they identifiable from the evidence available?” This is the fundamental issue in this controversy and there is very clear evidence that Leonard Peikoff is right. Yet virtually all of the commentary has focused on non-essentials such as Peikoff’s phrase “…I hope you still know who I am?”, or his comment about a “higher rung of Hell,” or the fact that Peikoff did not give details of the reason for his position and therefore was being non-objective and unjust.
For evidence of the philosophic principles Leonard Peikoff is referring to, one need only go to McCaskey’s review on Amazon.com,[4] and to a series of emails he sent to David Harriman (which are posted on McCaskey’s website).[5] The salient statement in his Amazon.com review is:

Galileo’s concept of resistance is not the same as our concept of friction but an immature concept that one would expect Harriman to call a “red light” to scientific progress. The remarkable thing is how much progress Galileo actually made using a concept that conflated two (or three) very different things.

(Harriman calls the development of a needed concept as a “green light” to induction, and the lack of a needed concept as a “red light” to induction. In other words, a valid concept is required for the inductive process to proceed.)

However, Galileo was not conflating “two (or three) very different things.” His experiments of dropping different objects through various media enabled him to abstract away the drag (or resistance) imposed on the objects by the media. He then omitted the measurements of the drag to form the concept “friction.” As Harriman states in The Logical Leap, this led to Galileo’s discovery that all free bodies fall to earth at the same rate, regardless of material and weight. (“Free” in this context means not impeded by friction.)

But McCaskey insists that inductive generalizations can proceed without the requisite concepts in place. More evidence of this is provided in a quote from McCaskey’s website when he discusses his emails to David Harriman:

I express reservations about the principle that an inchoate concept provides a “red light” to induction and sympathize with William Whewell’s view that a concept’s final formation completes rather than begins an induction.

David Harriman sums up McCaskey’s position very succinctly in a letter to Diana Hsieh (this can be found on the Hsieh’s website):

In effect, scientists stumble around in the dark and somehow discover laws of nature before they grasp the constituent concepts.

Is McCaskey’s viewpoint consistent with the Objectivist theory of concepts, or as Peikoff puts it, “the heart of the philosophical principles at issue”? As Ayn Rand states, “The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction.”[6] Briefly, concept formation begins with perception of concretes in reality. We mentally isolate essential similarities among these concretes, omit the measurements, and group similar concretes into a single mental unit – a concept. First level concepts are those where the similarities among referents are directly perceivable (e.g. “table”, “chair”, etc.), and higher level concepts are then formed by observing essential similarities among the lower level concepts (e.g. “furniture” is formed from “table”, “chair”, etc.). The first level concepts have similarities that allow integration into the next higher level concepts, and so on up the conceptual ladder. Thus concepts are developed in a hierarchy, with higher level concepts based on the earlier formed lower level concepts.

Notice that one cannot perceive “furniture” directly; one perceives “tables,” “chairs,” etc. For a higher level concept to be valid it must be reducible down through the hierarchy to the directly observable first level concepts. And to understand a concept one must be able to perform this reduction. As Ayn Rand states, “The meaning of furniture cannot be grasped unless one has first grasped the meaning of its constituent concepts; these are its link to reality.”[7] One must be able to trace the link from the concept “furniture” down to the observable concretes of “tables” and “chairs”. Reduction is the means of connecting concepts to the perceptual level – i.e. reality.

Once concepts are formed they are used to acquire knowledge. Quoting Harriman:

Concepts are tools of knowledge … but are not by themselves claims to knowledge (although they presuppose knowledge)… If we are to gain knowledge with these tools, they must be used to create a cognitive product, such as a generalization which either does or does not correspond to reality.[8]

He then goes on to explain that generalizations are hierarchical, just as concepts are. The generalizations discovered by scientists rest on a large number of preceding generalizations. And throughout the entire process of observation and experiment, new concepts are formed that aid scientists in discovering further knowledge. Galileo’s discovery of the law of free fall, after forming the concept friction is an example of this.

How does one know that this advanced scientific knowledge corresponds to reality? By the same process that higher level concepts are validated – reduction. Again, reduction is the means of connecting higher level generalizations to reality.

Now consider McCaskey’s viewpoint that progress can be made using “a concept that conflate[s] two (or three) very different things.” How could a valid concept be formed if it tried to integrate concretes that are essentially different? A “concept” like this could not be reduced to the perceptual level. And how valid would an inductive generalization be if it used a “concept” that was not tied to reality? Just like the “concept that conflated two (or three) very different things,” this generalization also could not be reduced to the perceptual level. McCaskey provides more evidence for this same viewpoint when he states “a concept’s final formation completes rather than begins an induction.”

McCaskey denies the Objectivist view of what a concept is: he claims that a concept can be formed that “conflates[s]… very different things.” In other words, concepts are formed on the basis of loose similarities – a matter of convenience –rather than on the basis of the essential characteristics of the constituent concretes. This amounts to the subjectivist view of concepts that says “anything goes” when it comes to forming a concept, and therefore denies the objectivity of concepts that is the essence of the Objectivist theory of concepts.

And what of McCaskey’s view that Galileo could discover the law of free fall while simultaneously claiming “friction” was an “immature” concept at the time? This denies the hierarchical nature of knowledge. It ignores the requirement that higher level generalizations of reality be reducible to the perceptual level. In effect, he claims knowledge of reality is possible without reference to reality. And, while it is outside the scope of this article to discuss the details of scientific history, analyzing McCaskey’s own discussion of Galileo’s concept of friction (on his website) demonstrates that Galileo did have the proper concept, which supports Harriman’s viewpoint in The Logical Leap, not McCaskey’s non-Objectivist view of concepts.
Whether one is talking of Newton’s identification that force is the product of mass and acceleration, or a first level generalization like “pushing a ball causes it to roll,” the constituent concepts must be understood to draw a valid conclusion. Can you imagine a child understanding that a ball will roll when pushed, without understanding “ball” or “roll” or “push”? The principle is the same regardless of the level of knowledge.

So, how should we evaluate John McCaskey? Should he be evaluated based on Craig Biddle’s claim that he was always “thoughtful, professional, and polite”? Should we take the stance, as Biddle has done, that “… even if McCaskey did issue criticisms amounting to such claims [that Peikoff and Harriman are misguided or that Objectivism is inadequate on this issue], unless he did so in a dishonest, unjust, or baseless manner, such criticisms would not warrant moral condemnation”? Should he be evaluated based on his “…remarkable achievements with the Anthem Foundation” or that “In every interaction, Dr. McCaskey has always been the consummate gentleman — unfailingly polite and even-keeled. He’s a scholar in the best sense — concerned to draw the proper conclusions…” as the Hsieh’s state on their website? Some of these statements may be true, but they are irrelevant to the issue raised by Peikoff – an issue that has been ignored by his detractors. It should be noted that the Hsieh’s softened their stance somewhat in a later post, though their view of McCaskey apparently has not changed.

For the answer to how McCaskey should be evaluated, I suggest reviewing Leonard Peikoff’s excellent article “Fact and Value”, which is available for viewing on the ARI website.[9] Discussing Ayn Rand’s evaluation of Kant in that article, Leonard Peikoff states:

In the final issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand described Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history.” She said it knowing full well that, apart from his ideas, Kant’s actions were unexceptionable, even exemplary. Like Ellsworth Toohey, he was a peaceful citizen, a witty lecturer, a popular dinner guest, a prolific writer. She said it because of what Kant wrote—and why—and what it would have to do to mankind. [bold added]

In summary, ideas require an evaluation with man’s life as the standard of value. McCaskey should be evaluated for what he said about scientific induction, and what it would mean for science. He should be evaluated for a viewpoint that denies the fundamental principles of Objectivist epistemology, and for the consequences of what that viewpoint would lead to. The results of such a viewpoint can be seen today with notions such as “the big bang theory” and “string theory.” These theories float with no connection to reality (see The Logical Leap for details). Science cannot advance with a method that severs concepts from reality because the generalizations that are based on such “concepts” are equally severed from reality. How could science aid man’s life, if it does not deal with reality? And wider, what are the implications if one were to try to defend egoism, individual rights, or capitalism using this epistemological method? How could you defend a statement such as “Capitalism is the only moral social system” with the epistemological method underlying McCaskey’s view? This is precisely what conservatives do when they argue capitalism “works” while advocating altruism; it is what Libertarians do when they advocate “freedom” divorced from ethics.

The Logical Leap is a great book. David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff should be commended for the work they have done to produce this ground breaking theory on induction. McCaskey has done more than just question the validity of that theory. He has attacked its epistemological foundation – the Objectivist theory of concepts.

Should McCaskey be excused for condemning the book? Should he be a board member of ARI, which is dedicated to spreading Objectivism, when he denies the foundation of Objectivism? I think the answers are obvious. Contrary to the claims of many, this controversy is not about McCaskey’s accusation of historical inaccuracy. This is, to quote Leonard Peikoff, a disagreement that goes “to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue.”
Leonard Peikoff was not being “authoritarian” in issuing an ultimatum, nor was he unjust in his evaluation of McCaskey. It should also be pointed out that he never intended his condemnation of McCaskey to be made public. The condemnation was made public by McCaskey himself, when he posted Leonard Peikoff’s private email to ARI on his website (with the permission of Peikoff and ARI).

The sign of a great philosopher is his or her ability to get to the essence of an issue and understand its implications. Ayn Rand was the pre-eminent expert at this – for example, see her reviews of Kant and Aristotle. When the essence of an issue is not identified, however, volumes of words are written on irrelevancies, non-essentials, and minutiae that cloud the intellectual horizon and distract people from the truth. And in the process the people who do not see the essence of a given issue level non-objective accusations against those who do. This is what has occurred in this controversy.
Leonard Peikoff was able to identify the essence of McCaskey’s viewpoint and properly condemned him as being inconsistent with Objectivism. Peikoff should be commended and admired for having the courage to take a firm stance towards ARI.  He should be given the justice he deserves.

(Thanks to Brian Phillips for many valuable suggestions in writing this article.)

References:
1) http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/10/resignation-of-john-mccaskey-facts.html
2) http://www.craigbiddle.com/misc/mccaskey.htm
3) http://www.johnmccaskey.com/resignation.html
4) http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Leap-Induction-Physics/dp/0451230051/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295833047&sr=8-1
5) http://www.johnmccaskey.com/emails.html
6) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, page 28
7) Ibid, page 22
The Logical Leap, page 14
9) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv

Addendum

In her essay “What Can One Do?” Ayn Rand writes:

Speak on any scale open to you, large or small–to your friends, your associates, your professional organizations, or any legitimate public forum. You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time.

HOS member Joe Reed [...]]]> by Brian Phillips

In her essay “What Can One Do?” Ayn Rand writes:

Speak on any scale open to you, large or small–to your friends, your associates, your professional organizations, or any legitimate public forum. You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time.

HOS member Joe Reed recently demonstrated this in a simple, but effective way. League City, where Joe lives, has zoning. Home owners in his neighborhood were protesting a variance request by a nearby property owner. Joe wrote the following letter to a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission:

I am a homeowner in the Oak Creek subdivision. It has come to my attention that the owner of a piece of commercial property adjacent to my neighborhood, Mr. Tim Wood, is requesting a zoning variance (case number BP09-01R).

The purpose of the city government and its various departments should be the protection of property rights. Based on the information I have received on the matter, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission is failing to perform this function. I believe that the property rights of Mr. Wood are being violated. Here’s why:

(1) Although I was not in attendance at the first hearing, I was told that the planning board received over 30 emails from homeowners in my subdivision, and that between 10-15 homeowners spoke to the commissioners at the meeting. According to the map I’ve seen, the property in question backs up to only two or three houses at the front of the Oak Creek subdivision. Assuming their argument was that they did not want to look over their back fence and see a warehouse (which I’ve been told is what Mr. Wood is building), I think it is wrong to allow homeowners who would not be directly affected to have a voice in the matter. For example, I received a flyer on my door requesting support against Mr. Wood’s plans (in addition to several emails), even though I live several blocks away from the property. Why should I (and the other 150 or so homeowners in the neighborhood) be able to keep Mr. Wood from building on his own land, when I wouldn’t even be able to see what he’s built? The opinions of those who are not even directly impacted by the variance request should be thrown out as irrelevant- no matter how many there are. The basic principle in question is property rights, and these should not be up for a vote.

(2) As for the two or three homeowners whose property is directly adjacent to the property in question, they should not be able to dictate what Mr. Wood can and cannot build on his own land, either. There is no inalienable right to an unobstructed view from one’s back door. They built houses at the edge of the neighborhood, next door to (at the time) undeveloped land. They cannot demand that the land remain untouched forever more. If they want to control what happens on the adjacent property, then they could/should purchase it. The true meaning of property rights is the right to use your own property as you see fit, and not to dictate to others how they should be allowed to use theirs.

(3) I learned (independently of the flyer and emails I received) that there is a potential issue with sewage service for the property in question. Apparently the property does not currently have access to a sewage system. As I understand the situation, this means that Mr. Wood would need to either build an on-site septic system, or tie into a nearby sewage system (i.e., Oak Creek’s). I’ve been told that these options are unacceptable to the various parties.

I have heard that some types of septic systems cause odors to the surrounding area that some find offensive. However, at this time, that is merely a potential problem, since no such system has yet been built on the property. Assuming that Mr. Wood builds such a system, and that it turns out to be unacceptable to the nearby neighbors, then there are existing nuisance laws on the books that can be used to deal with the situation if/when it actually exists. The point is that there must exist an actual- not a potential- nuisance before action can/should be taken. To block Mr. Wood’s plans at this time, based only on the potential for some future problem is just morally wrong. He should be perfectly free to build whatever type of septic system he wants to (and can afford). If he chooses now to build a system that will create a nuisance later, then he should be prepared to deal with nuisance law violations later- when they actually occur. If the costs of dealing with the problem later turn out to be unacceptable at that time, then too bad for him- let the fines begin! In any case, he should have the freedom to make those choices, and deal with the consequences. He should not have to beg for permission from the Commission, or the nearby homeowners, ahead of time.

As for the other option (tying into Oak Creek’s sewage line), that should be dealt with by direct negotiations between the property owner and Oak Creek (or whatever the name of the party that represents the actual owner of the land), independently of any zoning commission. Oak Creek owns the land through which the other property owner wants access (to tie into the sewage system). If Oak Creek determines that it does not want to provide access, then the other property owner is out of luck. If the other property owner cannot convince Oak Creek to allow access, then he must find another solution. If he cannot find another alternative solution, then again, too bad for him. He has no right to demand access, just as Oak Creek has no right to keep him from trying. If no agreement between the parties can be reached, so be it. One party or the other may walk away empty-handed, but no property rights have been violated in doing so.

Note that I am not in any way associated with Mr. Wood, and have in fact never met or had any contact with him. My arguments are based strictly on the moral premise that property rights are to be protected, not violated, by the government, and that they should never be determined by popular vote. The property owner has the moral right to use his property as he sees fit.

The Commission should fulfill its obligation to uphold the rights of property owners, and should therefore grant the request to Mr. Wood.

I am happy to report that Mr. Wood’s variance was granted. I suspect that Joe’s letter had more impact than we will ever know. As he told me prior to sending the letter, he was greatly outnumbered by his neighbors. Yet, despite the mass of people opposed to the variance, one rational, principled voice carried the day. Congratulations Joe.

Thirteen members of HOS attended the April 15 Tea Party. We handed out 150 copies of Atlas Shrugged, 150 pamphlets, and collected about 150 email addresses. I have sent an email to those who got a copy of Atlas. I encouraged them to read it, to visit the HOS web site, as [...]]]> by Brian Phillips

Thirteen members of HOS attended the April 15 Tea Party. We handed out 150 copies of Atlas Shrugged, 150 pamphlets, and collected about 150 email addresses. I have sent an email to those who got a copy of Atlas. I encouraged them to read it, to visit the HOS web site, as well as the sites for ARI and ARC. I also solicited donations for purchasing copies of Atlas to distribute at the July 4 Tea Party. My goal is to hand out 500 copies at that party.

The organizers say that 8,500+ people signed in, and they know many who attended didn’t do so (I didn’t). They estimate the crowd at 10,000. That is remarkable, as it demonstrates that many in our culture are unhappy with current trends. But as the signs and speakers at the event made clear, rational ideas are largely missing from the tea parties. And unless rational principles are embraced by the tea party movement, it will wither and die.

Once again, thanks to all who attended the Tea Party, contributed to purchasing copies of Atlas Shrugged, or both.

There are some extraordinary philosophical lessons to learn from hurricane Ike, for those attentive and philosophically astute to learn them. In this dire emergency, caused by the direct hit of a near category 3 hurricane on the fourth largest city in the country, more than two million people were without power, an [...]]]> by Warren Ross

There are some extraordinary philosophical lessons to learn from hurricane Ike, for those attentive and philosophically astute to learn them. In this dire emergency, caused by the direct hit of a near category 3 hurricane on the fourth largest city in the country, more than two million people were without power, an entire nearby resort island (Galveston) was demolished by flood waters, and food, water and power were in short supply for several days to a few weeks. Some observations about the aftermath of Ike are worth cataloging as a preliminary:

• Even the most basic necessity – water – depends on the continuous use of machinery – pumps – to keep the positive pressure to ensure no bacterial intrusion. Clean water also depends on chemistry – chemicals such as chlorine to kill bacteria, plastics to bottle the clean water people must drink when tap water is non-potable; the science of chemistry to identify, test for and understand the medical implications of ingesting a whole host of naturally occurring microorganisms. When for four days Houston had low water pressure and had not completed the myriad of testing required to be rationally certain of purity, Houstonians had to boil water or drink bottled water.
• A lengthy causal sequence is required to supply the potable water and basic food needs of a city. The pumps that keep positive water pressure are driven by electricity, which in turn is generated by the burning of hydrocarbons, and the transmission of the generated electricity to the plant that houses the pumps and cleans the water. Without the transmission means (high tension power lines, connected by a complex network of switches and directed by computers, cumulatively called “the grid”), or without the hydrocarbons, the water cannot be produced for human consumption. The food needs of a city are delivered by those who use the hydrocarbons (fuel for the trucks) to bring the food from the point of original production to the warehouses and ultimately grocery stores that supply them to ultimate consumers. Part of what is needed to complete this process of production is electricity to drive the pumps that pump fuel at fuel stations into trucks, as well as electricity to light and most importantly refrigerate the warehouses and grocery stores. Additionally what is needed is a network of interconnecting roadways from farms to points of distribution.
• The causal sequence is not only lengthy but complexly organized in mutually enhancing circles. For example, electricity is produced from hydrocarbons but electricity is needed to dispense hydrocarbons.
• The mayor of Houston, Mayor White, as well as his counterparts at the county level, have an unusually good grasp of these issues, at least at the economic level. Mayor White admonished the media, who were accusingly asking why the government “points of distribution” – PODs – were not up and running faster, that it makes no sense to deliver food to a location without a means of access by either trucks or the public. He also had to remind the media that a service station may have fuel but it is useless if the service station has no electricity (this in response to accusing questions as to why fuel trucks weren’t bringing gasoline to all service stations). Like ignorant third graders, the media were petulantly demanding everything “now,” and the mayor reviewed for them these basic facts about the logical hierarchy of production.
• Mayor White is an unusual man, a democrat but originally a businessman rather than a career politician. He understands not only these economic issues but some fundamental moral and political issues as well. He praised Houstonians for acting responsibly to assess and remediate their own situation, not waiting for government to do it but doing it on their own (clearing streets, removing trees, checking on neighbors and helping them through the emergency). He used the word “individual” repeatedly, stating that individual responsibility and effort were what set Houstonians apart from others (an oblique but generally well understood reference to the angry mobs of lethargic welfare recipients crying for government aid and egged on by politicians in the New Orleans Katrina debacle). White told one reporter that no one needs government permission to help a neighbor or friend. He told another that the private sector was the ultimate “point of distribution” in the form of grocery stores and fuel stations, not the small number of government PODs. Mayor White also repeatedly stated that the primary agent of restoring power is not the government but a private company – Centerpoint Energy. Although the Mayor was understandably frustrated with the slow pace of restoring power, he never once harangued Centerpoint Energy or tried to threaten or bully it. He never hinted at a “takeover” or accused it of greed or incompetence (nor did he menacingly assert that its management was being overpaid). He let Centerpoint, and encouraged citizens to let it, do its job. I do not agree with a lot of what Mayor White has done in his administration – increased taxes, attacked private property in the form of “land use” restrictions and attacks on sexually oriented businesses – but I am convinced from his actions during this crisis that at some level he is pro-reason, pro-individual, and pro-free market.
• Centerpoint Energy did and is doing an extraordinary job of restoring power, reconnecting half a million customers within two days, then incrementally expanding coverage by about 100,000 per day. This company, with its expertise at maintaining the infrastructure of a complex power grid, has organized skilled workers and machinery in a truly remarkable effort analogous to a military campaign. Bringing in linemen from across the state, the country and even from Canada, staging them in 24-hour-per-day shifts, fueling their trucks, feeding and housing them, organizing their effort in a rationally hierarchy of restoration (attack that part of the problem which affects the most customers first, then the next most customers, etc.), is a truly gargantuan effort of productive achievement.

Here are some of the deeper philosophical lessons to be drawn from the above:

• Man’s life depends on modern industrial civilization, with its complex chain of production, its reliance on machinery and chemicals and oil drilling and roads – all the disruptions to raw “nature” that the environmentalists are continuously complaining about.
• Man’s mind, used rationally to solve the problems of life, is the fundamental means of survival, not welfare handouts. An extraordinary amount can be achieved by individual effort with or without government aid. In fact, comparing Houston to New Orleans (where government at the city, state and national levels was predominantly in the position of responsibility) is a textbook experiment in the differences between the two types of aid, and their consequences. As one concrete illustration, consider that three years after Katrina New Orleans is still not rebuilt and that the media report that 2300 homes that have been rebuilt are built below the physically necessary elevation to survive another flood. Only a welfare-type mentality, confident that government will once again bail him out of the risk taken by rebuilding irrationally, would act in such a way.
• Government aid is quite possibly dispensable, even the short duration emergency type aid everyone has come to expect, if industry with its motive of profit and its knowledge and capability in this complex causal sequence is permitted to act without restrictions.
• The truly gargantuan achievements referred to above with respect to Centerpoint Energy, but equally applicable to the fuel suppliers, the grocery chains, the tree-clearing companies, the roofers, the home-supply stores, the trucking industry, is unusually visible in an emergency like this (although even there, as the media interactions with Mayor White suggest, such visibility requires a conceptual approach, not staring blankly at brute facts without integration). What most people don’t realize is that this is the achievement industry engages in each and every day. This entire complex causal chain is something that is enacted on a daily basis and keeps the food on our tables, the water flowing from the tap, and the cars moving. And it is enacted on a daily basis in every other industry, such as communications, construction, entertainment and finance, to the extent that these industries are left free to operate without government controls.

Were these the lessons grasped by the intellectuals and media spokesmen? Initially, it was difficult to know what the rest of the country was saying about Houston because we were under a storm-imposed blackout in which only the three local stations were broadcasting. However, even comparing these three stations and their broadcasts shows important differences in interpretation and philosophical perspective. By far the best station is KHOU channel 11. This station repeatedly emphasized the issues of production and the causal sequence, admiringly broadcasting stories about the complex organizational chain to bring necessities to Houstonians, and the men and women who were engaged in this process. The other two stations were starkly different. At the bottom of the list is KTRK channel 13, which broadcast stories in “investigative reporter” mode, attempting to uncover conspiracies in what government and others were doing that caused them to not get Houston on its feet fast enough according to the station’s timetable. Its main investigative reporter, Wayne Dolcefino, asked “what don’t they want us to know” when officials understandably blocked reporters (along with everyone else) from going to the Bolivar Peninsula, a hard-hit area of Galveston Island that needed to be kept clear while search and rescue crews combed the area for survivors. In the middle of the heap but not particularly higher than channel 13 was KPRC channel 2, which didn’t stoop as low as channel 13 but spent a good bit of its air coverage emphasizing a few glitches (which did exist) in the setting up of the PODs, calling them “huge disconnects.” Neither of these other two stations came close to the level of understanding of the production chain as did channel 11.

At the national level, the interpretations could be seen once the blackout was lifted by the return of power and internet connectivity. At first it was a shock to see that Houston was not at the very top of every national report, in fact it had a very small place. We had been immersed in the emergency so fully for so many days that it took a little reorientation to realize that it isn’t the only thing going on in the world. In fact, this is perfectly appropriate approach to reporting. Emergencies aren’t the essence of life. They are temporary life-threatening situations that at worst threaten a small segment of any country’s population. After the initial shock, it was refreshing to read about what was going on in sports, financial markets, the election and foreign affairs (not that the news in any of these areas was particularly good, with the possible exception of sports, depending on which teams you support). The reports, from the New York Times, Reuters, and others, were factual and sometimes alluded to the points identified above, in a limited way. On the other hand, after the first few days when the emergency was acute, the national media coverage faded to an almost insignificant amount considering that the fourth largest city in the country was still struggling to get back on its feet. The normal recovery of a city of rational individuals and industrial workers, laboring to restore their lives, loses its luster to those in the media who want the drama of chanting crowds, with scenes of homeless people asleep on cots in large stadiums. One cannot but speculate that at least part of the reason the national media coverage is so limited and matter of fact (especially compared to their unending, monotonous coverage of the New Orleans Katrina aftermath) is that Houston is just not helpless enough for their world view. Certainly, the plentiful material for philosophical implications was barely reported in the national media. Nor were any such implications drawn. An emergency, which highlighted the fundamental issues in human survival, and which afforded a richly outfitted laboratory for philosophical insight, became just another 2nd page story, and hence a missed opportunity.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, along with [...]]]> In Houston on Friday, July 18th, a congressional hearing took place on a bill that would dramatically change health care as we know it in the United States for every single citizen, yet Saturday’s edition of the Houston Chronicle didn’t even mention the fact that this hearing took place.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, along with Congressman John Conyers, Jr., conducted a congressional hearing at The Health Museum on H.R. 676, “The United States National Health Insurance Act.” This bill would “expand the already existing Medicare program to all U.S. residents. . .” (quoting from handout provided at the hearing). This bill would require every citizen to apply for and receive a United States National Health Insurance Card. It sets up a “program [that] would cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs. . .mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment.” Private insurers would not be allowed to “duplicate the benefits” of this program. They would only be allowed to “provide coverage for cosmetic surgery and other non-medically necessary treatments.” All for-profit hospitals and medical facilities would have to convert to private, non-profit institutions within fifteen years. Basically, H.R. 676 is a bill that would nationalize all healthcare in the United States.

At first glance, some may think that providing health insurance for all Americans would improve the health of all concerned. Instead, this plan would destroy the very health care system on which we all rely. Our health care system is the best and most innovative in the world because doctors, hospitals, and other health related industries still have the freedom to operate their businesses for a profit. This motivates them to provide the best care, best services, and best innovations. Not only do they receive the rewards of their hard work in terms of gaining a profit, but the patient is also the beneficiary.

Why should every American be concerned for their very lives under H.R. 676? This bill is a blatant violation of the individual rights of all citizens. It violates the rights of doctors to determine the price of their services, to create “for profit” practices, to decide what insurance plans they will accept or what patients they will see and what treatments to offer. It violates the rights of all health insurance company owners and workers because this bill will essentially put that entire industry out of business. It also violates the rights of every citizen where it counts most: their health. U.S. citizens will no longer be able to choose their insurance providers or coverage plans. We will no longer be able to consult with our doctors and choose the best treatments for us because the government will control what services will be provided. We will no longer have a choice as to how much we want to pay for health insurance because all productive citizens and businesses will be forced to pay a new tax, which will no doubt increase over time.

What this bill will do is effectively ruin the healthcare system for everybody. Would doctors be motivated to provide the best care possible if they aren’t allowed to own their own practices, to decide the insurance or patients they will accept, or to determine the cost of their services? Will hospitals be motivated to provide the best care if they aren’t allowed to make a profit or to decide the cost of their services? Would other medical technology companies and pharmaceutical companies be motivated to invest in research and development if they know that the use of their products will depend upon pleasing some government bureaucrat? Think of healthcare as run like the post office, public schools, or the DMV office: incompetent and ineffective service, long lines, unhappy workers, and little choice. That’s exactly what politicians like Sheila Jackson Lee and John Conyers, Jr. want to do to our healthcare system. These bad effects can already be seen with the ever expanding Medicare and Medicaid programs. Just last week, the Houston Chronicle ran a story pointing out that a large number of doctors in Texas are refusing to take on more Medicaid or Medicare patients because of the red tape and low pay they have to endure. What happens when our entire system becomes one big Medicare program?

At the hearing, time and again the politicians bemoaned the fact that our current healthcare system is “broken.” Did they ever stop to ask why the system is broken? Since the 1960s with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, the government has been slowly encroaching upon the rights of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients. They have continued to pass laws and regulations over the past four decades to try to “fix” the mess that they’ve created. Now some politicians want to finish the job and make the takeover complete.

At the very least, the Houston Chronicle should have informed its readership that a congressional hearing took place over extremely controversial legislation that our very own Congresswoman is supporting. This would give people a chance to consider this very important issue and decide for themselves the ramifications of “Medicare for All.”

Report by the HOS president on the healthcare meeting held by Houston Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and Michigan Representative John Conyers, Jr.

Besides myself, three other members showed up to the healthcare meeting on Friday, July 18th (which actually was a Congressional Hearing).  I had planned my son’s feedings around the meeting, [...]]]> by Janet Westphal

Report by the HOS president on the healthcare meeting held by Houston Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and Michigan Representative John Conyers, Jr.

Besides myself, three other members showed up to the healthcare meeting on Friday, July 18th (which actually was a Congressional Hearing).  I had planned my son’s feedings around the meeting, which was to be from 1:30-3:30.  Those @#$% politicians didn’t show up until 3:00!  Up to that point, I had been amusing my son, but the minute John Conyers started speaking, he started crying.  I was tempted to just stay there and annoy all those bleeding heart liberals (their own description) on stage, but I decided to step outside.  But I was there to hear the first words out of Conyers’ mouth: “This issue isn’t about ideas, or theories, or philosophy, or idealism.  It’s about providing healthcare.”  No wonder my son started crying.  When I stepped back inside, I heard two doctors on stage telling sob stories about patients not receiving the care they need.  The last speaker was a former pres. of the AFL-CIO, who is now on the hospital district’s board.  It’s probably not hard to imagine what he had to say.  It was getting close to 4:00, and I thought that they would finally take questions from the audience.  But, no.  They then introduced a second group of people to go up on stage to talk about the virtues of socialized medicine, no doubt.  By that time I had to leave because my son needed to be fed.  According to the members who stayed, the meeting continued for another hour with more of the same.  Then, around 5:00, Sheila Jackson Lee looked at her watch and said it was time to wrap things up and that they wouldn’t have time to take questions or comments from the audience.  This after at the beginning of the meeting saying that she was eager to hear what members of the audience had to say.  Just one woman had a chance to run up to the microphone and ask a question about the pay for nursing teachers.

That was it.  The other three HOS members left in total disgust.  I’m glad I didn’t waste another hour there.  Two of us did write letters to the editor, which unfortunately weren’t published (see below).  I also sent mine to both Lee and Conyers, as well as my rep. and senators.  The good news: I recently had a meeting with another HOS member, who is also an officer in the Rice Objectivism Club.  She mentioned the possibility of having a speaker from ARI, or perhaps a panel of speakers, come to Rice this fall to give a talk on the healthcare crisis.  With financial support from HOS members and ARI, I think we could make this happen.  I’ll keep you posted.

One editorial and another article by Paul Krugman appeared in Friday’s paper lamenting the fact that the federal and state government don’t provide health care to everyone who needs it.  Both of these pieces assume that if citizens need something, [...]]]> The following letter was written by an HOS member and published in the Houston Chronicle.

One editorial and another article by Paul Krugman appeared in Friday’s paper lamenting the fact that the federal and state government don’t provide health care to everyone who needs it.  Both of these pieces assume that if citizens need something, in this case health insurance, that the government must provide it by way of taking money (i.e. taxes) from responsible, hardworking people and giving it to others who are less well off or irresponsible or just plain lazy.  Just because someone needs something, even if that something is as important as medical care, other people (i.e. taxpayers) shouldn’t be forced to provide for those needs.  People also need clothing and shoes, so does that mean the government should set up a national shoe and clothing program and take a significant portion of everyone’s paycheck in order to fund it?  Obviously not.  In our constitutional republic, one that should recognize and respect individual rights, individuals—doctors and patients—should be left free to make their own medical decisions and to agree upon a price to be paid by that individual patient.  To have a right to something (such as a right to life or property) means that a person should be given the freedom to seek out his or her values without interference from other people or the government.  For example, when our Founding Fathers wrote that Americans have a right to life, they did not mean that others had to provide them with the means to sustain that life.

People who are promoting socialized medicine keep whining that the current system is broke.  Did they ever stop to ask why?  The government “broke” the system in the first place.  It started back in the 1930s with special deals to some insurance companies; then the problems began escalating after the passage of Medicaid and Medicare in the 1960s.  Now some people want the government to finish the job and make our entire health care system one big Medicaid program.  We’ve recently seen how well the government has managed half the mortgage market.  How could anyone want them to do the same thing to health care?  Krugman also points out that every other “advanced nation” provides national health care and disparages the United States because we don’t.  Just because these other nations choose to violate the rights of their citizens doesn’t mean the U.S. should follow suit.  Americans should be proud of the fact that we have the most advanced medical facilities, medicines, and medical technology available in the world today because we still have the remnants of a free market system.  But we won’t for long if concerned citizens don’t speak out against a government takeover of health care.

On April 14 I appeared on a panel to discuss the proposed Ashby High Rise. The event was hosted by the Baker Institute Student Forum at Rice.

The other members of the panel were: