“Burnt” (2015)

A plotline mostly centered around redemption. Other themes included learning to live in the moment, and not being so obsessed with your ambitions to the point that you let it destroy your contentment and capacity to form meaningful relationships with others.

The protagonist is a gourmet chef who let his life spiral out of control with drugs and alcohol, and is now trying to rebuild his career. He finds new friends and forms new relationships along the way. I enjoyed seeing a movie with a leading man who is not a cop/fighter/military guy.

As an American, I found the London setting exotic and interesting.

The biggest problem I had with the movie was it moved at a pace that was far too clipped. It felt like scenes had been removed to reduce the overall length of the movie, but, in the process, they didn’t develop the relationships between the characters well enough.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2503944/

Election Day Angst For An Advocate of Freedom

November 8, 2022 is election day in the United States, and I must again make decisions that are like choosing between death by drowning and death by falling. At the Federal level, this election is particularly difficult. There are two major factors that would motivate me to vote in mutually contradictory ways. My level of ambivalence is so high that I am paralyzed by indecision at this point.

The first important issue is the Roe v. Wade overrule by the US Supreme Court. This decision effectively eliminated any Federal court protection of abortion freedom, leaving the issue up to the Federal Congress, state legislatures, and state courts to decide. This decision does not just return the issue to the state level. If it did, I’d be far less concerned about it. Furthermore, the theocratic base of the Republican Party, that is the wing of the Republican party that is driven primarily by a religious dogma they want to impose on the rest of the nation by force, will not be satisfied with leaving the issue up to the states to decide.

Former Vice President Mike Pence speaks for the theocratic wing of the Republican party on this issue:

“‘I welcome any and all efforts to advance the cause of life in state capitals or in the nation’s capital,’ Pence said of federal legislation to institute a national abortion ban.” https://www.yahoo.com/video/mike-pence-says-passing-abortion-141514707.html

Mike Pence, and his fellow theocratic Republicans will not rest until there is a nationwide-abortion ban, enforced by the FBI and other Federal law enforcement authorities.

Senator Lindsey Grahm, another major player within the theocratic branch of the Republican party also does not want to leave the issue up to the states. He has already introduced a bill in Congress to ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.  I’m sure that in time, 15 weeks would be whittled down by subsequent Republican legislation.

If the Republicans ever gain sufficient control of both Houses of Congress and the White House, I believe they will move to enact Federal legislation banning abortion. I would be perfectly happy to let abortion be fought out on the state level. Some states would always have legalized abortion, and over time, I think we could educate the people of the more conservative states, and convince them to liberalize their abortion laws. But, the hardcore religious base of the Republican Party will never be satisfied with this, as revealed by Mike Pence  and Lindsey Grahm.

I believe the right to abortion is a fundamental right.  Until a Constitutional Amendment is passed guaranteeing that Congress will not interfere with state law when it comes to abortion, this issue has moved to the top of my priorities when I vote. I will be very hesitant to vote Republican at the Federal level if I think it will give them control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time.

If abortion were the only issue, my decision would be clear, but it is not the only issue. Inflation has come roaring back to life for the first time since the early 1980’s driven by profligate Federal government spending, and, most importantly, by extremely reckless monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/peter-schiff-nowhere-near-peak-inflation

However, general, across the board, rising prices is primarily a monetary phenomena, largely controlled by the Federal Reserve’s policies.  Biden and the Democrats are somewhat to blame for this by re-nominating Jerome Powell to the Federal Reserve Chairmanship, but I doubt Trump and the Republicans would have done any better.

Biden and the Democrats are not helping the situation with increased government spending, such as stimulus checks and student loan forgiveness, which is just, implicitly, more stimulus checks. Again, I don’t know that a Republican President and Congress would have done much different, though.

The one thing that a Republican Congress would do right now is act as a check on Biden. I concede that Republicans tend to forget about fiscal restraint when there is a Republican in the White House, but they do suddenly remember their principles when the President is a Democrat.

A Republican House and Senate will be very dangerous two to three years from now, however. Joe Biden’s age concerns me a great deal. I do not think Biden will have a second term as President. I think he will decline to run again based on his age, or he will simply die of natural causes between now and 2024. This means there will be no incumbent Democrat the Republicans have to run against in the 2024 Presidential elections. If Mike Pence, or someone like him, were to become President, and we had a Republican Congress going into the 2024 to 2026 legislative cycle, we could very well see a nationwide abortion ban by, say, 2025.

Based on these considerations, I am likely not going to vote at the Federal level in these midterm elections. I will not vote for people who will quite probably be involved in instituting a nationwide abortion ban a few years from now. Furthermore, when 2024 rolls around, if there is in fact a Republican majority in Congress, I will probably have to make some very hard decisions. That means voting for a Democratic presidential candidate. Even if that means I have to vote for Kamala Harris or (shudder) Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren.

Sex and Romance in “We The Living”

The sexual relationships in We The Living primarily revolve around those between Kira and Leo and Kira and Andrei. (Although there are subplots concerning sexual relationships with other characters, such as that between Irina and Sasha and Pavel Syerov and Comrade Sonia.) Here I will go over those two major relationships in the novel.

Kira meets Leo randomly after she left her cousin Victor on a park bench. Victor had made his own sexual advance on Kira in the park, which she had rebuffed. I’m assuming first cousin marriage was not considered incest or taboo in this time and place. Being from the Southern United States, this is also not unheard of in my own culture, although the science seems to indicate this is not a good idea. http://gap.med.miami.edu/learn-about-genetics/have-questions-about-genetics/if-cousins-get-married-are-they-at-risk-of-having-children-with-genetic-con

For no good reason that I can discern, Kira had gone on a carriage ride with Victor, even though she clearly dislikes him. I found this a little perplexing, since I don’t know what would motivate Kira to do this. She clearly doesn’t care about pleasing her family. All I can guess is that she went out of sheer boredom at spending another evening with her family. Kira and Victor eventually end up at a park.

Kira is making her way home after Victor’s failed romantic overture at the park when she accidentally wanders through the section of town where women in the local sex industry are on the street looking for customers. Leo has gone there looking to hire a sex worker, and mistakes Kira for one. Kira experiences “love at first sight” when she sees Leo. She goes with him, apparently intending to have sex with Leo:

“’Why are you looking at me like that?’ he asked. But she did not answer. He said: ‘I’m afraid I’m not a very cheerful companion tonight.’

‘Can I help you?’

‘Well, that’s what you’re here for.’ He stopped suddenly. ‘What’s the price?’ he asked. ‘I haven’t much.’

Kira looked at him and understood why he had approached her. She stood looking silently into his eyes. When she spoke, her voice had lost its tremulous reverence; it was calm and firm. She said: ‘It won’t be much.’

‘Where do we go?’

‘I passed a little garden around the corner. Let’s go there first -for a while.’” (Pg. 61)

Sex for money, or for other reasons besides sexual pleasure, comes up several times in the novel. Later in the story, Kira offers herself to a random wealthy man for money to get Leo medical care. When she tells him how much she needs, he tells her other sex workers don’t make that much in an entire career. (Pg. 226) In the end, Leo becomes a gigolo. A major subplot is the relationship of Kira’s cousin Victor to Marisha, Kira’s communist neighbor. Marisha is in love with Victor because she was a lower-class person before the civil war, but remembers how her mother used to clean the house of an aristocrat with a good looking son that she fell in love with. Victor reminds her of that good looking aristocratic son. Victor pretends to be in love with Marisha so that he can marry her for status in the communist party. This is a sort of parallel to Kira pretending to love Andrei. In the case of Kira, her actions would generally be regarded as noble, or at least, excusable under the circumstances. In the case of Victor, his actions would generally be seen as ignoble.

Leo eventually realizes Kira is not a sex worker, but he is as fascinated by her as she is by him. They agree to meet again at the same location in a month. The month passes and they meet for the second time. Leo kisses the palm of her hand, and they agree to another meeting in a month. Leo then unexpectedly shows up at Kira’s school a few days or weeks later, and they have a more intimate encounter under a bridge, by a river. They agree to meet in a week, and when that rendezvous occurs, Leo tells Kira he is leaving the country by boat. Kira agrees to go with him, and they have sex for the first time on the boat. The boat is stopped by a military patrol led by Stepan Timoshenko, one of the good communists in the novel. Timoshenko lets Kira go, and also manages to get Leo released a few days later. Soon after that, Kira’s family finds out she’s been sleeping with a man out of wedlock and kicks her out of the house. (Although Kira intended to live with Leo, regardless.)

Around that time in the novel, background is given on Leo’s childhood and adolescence. We learn that his first sexual encounter was at sixteen with an older, married woman. Leo had numerous other sexual relations with women in his late teenage years. The end of the flashback to Leo’s backstory ends with what I thought was a rather curious description of him:

The revolution found Admiral Kovalensky [Leo’s father] with black glasses over his unseeing eyes and St. George’s ribbon in his lapel; it found Leo Kovalensky with a slow, contemptuous smile, and a swift gait, and in his hand a lost whip he had been born to carry.”(Pg. 139)

In my previous blog entry on We The Living, I noted this “rulers and ruled” idea running through the novel, and this is another example of it. Rand does not seem to present this attitude of Leo in a negative light. She seems to present it as desirable or virtuous, which, again, seems incongruous  in comparison to her later works. Also note that this aspect of Leo’s personality plays into Kira’s earlier interest in a fictional young overseer in a play who is whipping the serfs. (Pg. 47-48) Kira likes men who use a certain level of physical force on others, and Leo is the type who likes to use that physical force.

At this point I will note my own evaluation of Leo, which is that I do not care for him. He sounds like he was a womanizer before he met Kira. He never asks Kira to marry him, while Andrei asks her to marry him the first time they have sex. In the end, he becomes a gigolo and gives up Kira for a life of being a male sex worker. The whole point of “We The Living” is that life is unbearable under Communism, but I don’t consider Leo’s way out of a corrupt system to be particularly noble. Andrei had the right idea when he put a bullet in his own brain.

If I knew a woman in real life who was in love with a guy like Leo, I’d have to ask the question: “Why?” What did he have going for him, other than his looks? He’s a womanizer, an alcoholic, and believes he has a right to order his social inferiors around. I have to think Leo would end up cheating on Kira under capitalism, as much as communism. Kira seemed to think she could “save” Leo, like he was her “project boyfriend”. Near the end, when it is clear that Leo is dead in spirit, if not in his actual physical body, Kira has the following thoughts:

He had left home often and she had never asked him where he went. He had been drinking too often and too much, and she had not said whether she noticed it. When they had been alone together, they had sat silently, and the silence had spoken to her, louder than any words, of something which was an end. He had been spending the last of their money and she had not questioned him about the future. She had not questioned him about anything, for she had been afraid of the answer she knew: that her fight was lost.” (Pg 439)

Soon after that, during their breakup scene, Kira says the following:

She turned and looked at him calmly, and answered: ‘Only this, Leo: it was I against a hundred and fifty million people. I lost.” (Pg. 443)

These scenes present strong evidence that Kira believed that her love could save Leo. The desire to fix men is a common attitude of women, especially young women. I also think it’s a mistake.  With that said, a reader needs to keep in mind that both of these people are about eighteen years old, so there is possibly a “maturity factor” at play here, for both of them. Although, even at eighteen, I was not a hard-drinking, womanizer with a desire to dominate others, so is it just a matter of immaturity?

The other major sexual relationship in the novel is between Kira and Andrei. With one exception, I like everything about Andrei, on a personal level. He lives in spartan living quarters. (I’m a fan of minimalism and living on as little money as possible.) He’s studying to be an engineer. He tries to eliminate “sentiment” and just be his work. (That can be taken too far, but it’s better than the hordes of teenagers who sit around playing X-Box and smoking pot all day.) To me, this character is a sort of “proto-Hank Reardon”.   Even though he has a somewhat “monkish” exterior, when Andrei falls for Kira, he falls hard. Unlike Leo, Andrei knows how much he loves Kira, and isn’t afraid to say it:

“‘Because, no matter what happens, I still have you. Because, no matter what human wreckage I see around me, I still have you. And -in you- I still know what a human being can be.’

‘Andrei,’ she whispered, ‘are you sure you know me?’

He whispered, his lips in her hand so that she heard the words as if she were gathering them, one by one, in the hollow of her palm: ‘Kira, the highest thing in a man is not his god. It’s that in him which knows the reverence due a god. And you, Kira, are my highest reverence…’” (Pg. 335)

This scene happens in the last third of the novel, when Andrei is beginning to doubt what he has believed. The doubt comes from what he sees as the corruption of the other communists around him, like Pavel Syerov, but it also comes from his affair with Kira. For the first time in his life, he is in love with a woman, and it is someone that he knows opposes communism. He is honest enough to express a level of vulnerability and doubt that most people would lack the self-confidence to do. Like I said, there is a lot to like here, but he’s also a communist and a member of the secret police. (That’s a pretty big “but”.)

Ayn Rand did everything she could to make this character sympathetic, and she succeeded for me. At one point, Rand describes the following scene, soon after Andrei and Kira have sex for the first time:

The street light beyond the window made a white square and a black cross on the wall above the bed. Against the white square, she could see his [Andrei’s] face on the pillow; he did not move. Her arm, stretched limply against his naked body, felt no movement but the beating of his heart.” (Pg 233)

For Rand, nothing is an accident. The symbol of a cross on the wall above the bed seems like a reference to the crucifixion story in the Bible. Andrei is almost “Christ-like”. When I say that, I mean in the sense of total devotion to someone or something, even at great cost, which is what I think the story in the Bible means to the modern mind. Near the end, after Andrei learns why Kira was really with him, and he has saved Leo from being shot as an illegal speculator, Leo says he isn’t happy that Andrei saved him. Andrei asks “Why?”, and Leo says the following to Andrei:

Do you suppose Lazarus was grateful when Christ brought him back from the grave -if He did? No more than I am to you, I think.” (Pg. 421)

Again, an explicit reference to Andrei as Christ in the Bible.

Andrei gives every penny he earns to Kira after they start their affair. (He believes she’s using it to support her family, but she’s actually using it for medical treatments for Leo. This is why Kira is pretending to be in love with Andrei.) Later in the novel, after Andrei learns the truth, he risks everything to save Leo out of love for Kira. This is reminiscent of Sydney Carton from “A Tale of Two Cities”, who goes to the guillotine during the French Revolution to save the husband of the woman he loves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Carton

Kira’s relationship with Andrei is interesting. She initially encounters him at her engineering school, where Andrei is a student, and also an officer of the branch of the GPU at the  university.  She is at a meeting of students to elect student council members. During the course of that, the “Internationale” is sung:

For the first time in Petrograd, Kira heard the ‘Internationale.’ She tried not to listen to its words. The words spoke of the damned, the hungry, the slaves, of those who had been nothing and shall be all; in the magnificent goblet of the music, the words were not intoxicating as wine; they were not terrifying as blood; they were gray as dish water.

But the music was like the marching of thousands of feet measured and steady, like drums beaten by unvarying, unhurried hands. The music was like the feet of soldiers marching into the dawn that is to see their battle and their victory; as if the song rose from under the soldiers’ feet, with the dust of the road, as if the soldiers’ feet played it upon the earth.

The tune sang of a promise, calmly, with the calm of an immeasurable strength, and then, tense with a restrained, but uncontrollable ecstasy, the notes rose, trembling, repeating themselves, too rapt to be held still, like arms raised and waiving in the sweep of banners.

It was a hymn with the force of a march, a march with the majesty of a hymn. It was the song of soldiers bearing sacred banners and of priests carrying swords. It was an anthem to the sanctity of strength.

Everyone had to rise when the ‘Internationale’ was played.

Kira stood smiling at the music. ‘This is the first beautiful thing I’ve noticed about the revolution.’ she said to her neighbor.

‘Be careful,’ the freckled girl whispered, glancing around nervously, ‘someone will hear you.’

‘When this is all over,’ said Kira. ‘when the traces of their republic are disinfected from history -what a glorious funeral march this will make!’

‘You little fool! What are you talking about?’

A young man’s hand grasped Kira’s wrist and wheeled her around.

She stared up into two gray eyes that looked like the eyes of a tamed tiger; but she was not quite sure whether it was tamed or not. There were four straight lines on his face: two eyebrows, a mouth, and a scar on his right temple.

For one short second, they looked at each other, silent, hostile, startled by each other’s eyes.

‘How much,’ asked Kira, ‘are you paid for snooping around?’

She tried to disengage her wrist. He held it: ‘Do you know the place for little girls like you?’

‘Yes -where men like you wouldn’t be let in through the back door.’

‘You must be new here. I’d advise you to be careful.’

‘Our stairs are slippery and there are four floors to climb, so be careful when you come to arrest me.’

He dropped her wrist. She looked at his silent mouth; it spoke of many past battles louder than the scar on his forehead; it also spoke of many more to come.

The ‘Internationale’ rang like soldiers’ feet beating the earth.

‘Are you exceedingly brave?’ he asked. ‘Or just stupid?’

‘I’ll let you find that out.’

He shrugged, turned and walked away. He was tall and young. He wore a cap and a leather jacket. He walked like a soldier, his steps deliberate and very confident.

Students sang the ‘Internationale,’ its ecstatic notes rising, trembling, repeating themselves.

‘Comrade,’ the freckled girl whispered, ‘what have you done?’” (Pg. 73-75)

Through the course of the novel, their friendship grows, then Andrei suddenly starts avoiding Kira, and she cannot figure out why. As she grows more desperate to obtain medical care for Leo, she eventually seeks out Andrei, with the intention of asking him for money for Leo. (Andrei is unaware of Kira’s involvement with Leo.) When she goes to his apartment, Andrei confesses his love for her, and tells her he had to stop seeing her because he knew he had the power to force her to have sex against her will. As a member of the secret police, Andrei knew he could go to Kira’s house with his men, take her away, and rape her with impunity.

This actually happened in the Soviet Union. Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin’s Secret Police, would pick up women against their will, drive them to his house, and rape them. Women who refused were arrested and imprisoned. Women would also agree to sex to free family members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria

Andrei also knew that Kira would despise him after that, which he couldn’t stand the thought of. To avoid the temptation, he decided to stop seeing her, and avoid her altogether. Andrei tells Kira he’d give her everything he has if he thought it would make Kira love him, but he knows she doesn’t because she hates everything he stands for. Kira realizes that if she pretends to be in love with Andrei she can get the money she needs to save Leo, so she lies and tells Andrei she is, in fact, in love with him, and they sleep together:

“’I can! I love you.’

She wondered how strange it was to feel a man’s lips that were not Leo’s.

She was saying: ‘Yes…for a long time…but I didn’t know that you, too…’ and she felt his hands and his mouth, and she wondered whether this was joy or torture to him and how strong his arms were. She hoped it would be quick.”(Pg. 233)

The exact nature of the relationship between Kira and Andrei eludes me in certain respects. She did feel affection and friendship for Andrei before she pretended to be in love with him. For instance, she worries about his welfare when he tells her he just got back from putting down a peasant rebellion in the countryside. Andrei says three Communists were killed by peasants, and Kira says:

“‘Andrei! I hope you got them!’

He could not restrain a smile: ‘Why, Kira! Are you saying that about men who fight Communism?’

‘But… but they could have done it to you.’” (Pg. 165)

It makes me wonder about how much she enjoyed sex with Andrei? Did she have orgasms with Andrei? There are scenes that seem to indicate she does not:

His [Andrei’s] hands closed slowly, softly over her shoulders, so softly that she could not feel his hands, only their strength, their will holding her, bending her backward; but his lips on hers were brutal, uncontrollable. His eyes were closed; hers were open, looking indifferently up at the ceiling.” (Pg. 244)

But, later, when Kira is going to see Andrei, there is the implication that she likes the sex with him:

“…Her body felt pure and hallowed: her feet were slowing down to retard her progress toward that which seemed a sacrilege because she did desire it and did not wish to desire it tonight.” (Pg. 381)

What I got from this passage was that Kira did have orgasms from sex with Andrei, and even looked forward to it on occasion, but she felt guilty about it.

Also mixed in with Kira’s feelings towards Andrei appears to be a desire to punish him, or make him a sort of “stand-in” for the whole communist system that Kira, and those she loves, have suffered under. For instance, the first time Kira takes money from Andrei she seems to feel a bit of guilt:

She wondered dimly how simple and easy it was to lie.

To Andrei, she had mentioned her starving family. She did not have to ask: he gave her his whole monthly salary and told her to leave him only what she could spare. She had expected it, but it was not an easy moment when she saw the bills in her hand…” (Pg. 235)

But, that moment of guilt quickly passes, as this passage goes on to say:

“…;then, she remembered the comrade commissar and why one aristocrat could die in the face of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics -and she kept most of the money, with a hard, bright smile.” (Pg. 235)

(The comrade commissar was an official in an earlier scene who refused to give Leo medical treatment, and mentioned something about how so many had died, so what was one aristocrat to the Soviet Union.)

In this scene, its like Kira felt momentary remorse at taking Andrei’s money under false pretenses, then she remembers that he has helped to bring about that system under which Leo and others would die, and she takes almost all of his money, as a sort of passive-aggressive punishment against him, as representative of the whole system.

It seems that Kira enjoys making Andrei suffer a little, as punishment, but it is a sort of cruelty, with occasional bursts of compassion. In one scene, Andrei is complaining about not being able to see Kira much. She has also told him never to come to her parent’s house, where he thinks that she lives, ostensibly because her family is uncomfortable with communists, but really so that he will not discover Leo:

But he was smiling again: ‘Why don’t you want me to think of you? Remember last time you were here, you told me about that book you read with a hero called Andrei and you said you thought of me? I’ve been repeating it to myself ever since, and I bought the book. I know it isn’t much, Kira, but…well…you don’t say them often, things like that.’

She leaned back, her hands crossed behind her head, mocking and irresistible: ‘Oh, I think of you so seldom I’ve forgotten your last name. Hope I read it in a book. Why, I’ve even forgotten that scar, right there, over your eye.’ Her finger was following the line of the scar, sliding down his forehead, erasing his frown; she was laughing, ignoring the plea she had understood.

Later in the same scene, Kira explains that she has come to see Andrei early because she cannot see him that night, as initially promised. Andrei is unhappy about it, thinking he will not get to have sex with her:

He was whispering, his lips on her breast: ‘Oh, Kira, Kira, I wanted you -here- tonight…’

She leaned back, her face dark, challenging, pitiless, her voice low: ‘I’m here -now.’

‘But…’

‘Why not?’

‘If you don’t…’

‘I do. That’s why I came.’

And as he tried to rise, her arms pulled him down imperiously. She whispered: ‘Don’t bother to undress. I haven’t the time.’” (Pg. 249)

A woman punishing a man with this sort of “passive aggressive behavior”, and/or cruel words that she knows will hurt him is fairly common in life. Women don’t typically use violence to get vengeance. They use manipulation combined with male sexual desire to give a man his comeuppance (real or perceived). For most men, there’s nothing more painful than a woman you’re in love with not responding to your love, or spurning your signs of affection with cruel words or actions. This behavior also shows up in a later novel of Ayn Rand’s very prominently. In “The Fountainhead”, the character of Dominique Francon pretty much makes a career out of using her beauty and the power of her sexuality to make men miserable, namely Peter Keeting and Gail Wynand, although they’ve both done things that merit disapproval. https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/character/dominique-francon/

Andrei and Kira’s sexual relationship is one of the few times I can think of that Rand shows sex from a male perspective. There are only two times that I can think of where she “gets in inside the head” of a male character, concerning sex. One time is Reardon in “Atlas Shrugged”. Reardon thinks about how he wanted to have sex with Dagny Taggart the first time he saw her on the train tracks. I think there were also some other times he thinks about sex with Dagny, but I cannot find the relevant passages now. (Something about how he felt when he would leave her body after an orgasm.) Andrei’s perspective on sex with Kira is also presented:

He could forgive her the words, for he had forgotten them, when he saw her exhausted, breathing jerkily, her eyes closed, her head limp in the curve of his arm. He was grateful to her for the pleasure he had given her.” (Pg. 249)

In response to a papal declaration, “Humanae Vitae”, Rand delivered a speech called “Of Living Death”. The Pope’s encyclical concerned sex and procreation, and how good Catholics should view sex. During the course of the written version of her speech, Rand responded to a portion of the Pope’s encyclical that if a man viewed a woman as a mere instrument of his selfish enjoyment, instead of as a means for reproduction, then he would no longer love and respect her. In response to this, Rand said:

I cannot conceive of a rational woman who does not want to be precisely an instrument of her husband’s selfish enjoyment. I cannot conceive of what would have to be the mental state of a woman who could desire or accept the position of having a husband who does not derive any selfish enjoyment from sleeping with her. I cannot conceive of anyone, male or female, capable of believing that sexual enjoyment would destroy a husband’s love and respect for his wife -but regarding her as a brood mare and himself as a stud, would cause him to love and respect her.” (“Of Living Death”, Ayn Rand, The Voice of Reason: Essays In Objectivist Thought)

I was curious about how Ayn Rand viewed the male perspective on this.  As a woman, it was going to be easier for Rand to present a female perspective, which is why I assume she usually did present sex from the female character’s viewpoint. Did she think that a rational man would want to be an instrument of his wife’s selfish enjoyment? Based on what is presented here about Andrei’s perspective on sex with Kira, specifically, his feeling grateful that he had given Kira pleasure, I think this must be what she thought was the rational male perspective. (This would make sense given her views on the “trader principle” of justice.)

The relationship between Kira and Leo and Kira and Andrei proved to be both entertaining, and enlightening. I recommend that you read the novel yourself, if you haven’t already.

On The Nature of A Shoehorn

Sometimes when reading Ayn Rand, I will read something that seems true, but fairly trivial or unimportant to my particular life. This was generally true when it came to her description of the law of identity. I first read the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon on the law of identity sometime in the 1990’s:

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. …A is A. A thing is itself.” (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, as found in “The Ayn Rand Lexicon”   http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/identity.html)

I didn’t see why saying “A is A” had any importance whatsoever. Of course a thing is itself. So what? How is it useful to go around stating the obvious?

About thirty years later, I have at least some inkling of why this formulation is important. The following true story from my life will hopefully give some concrete evidence for the practical benefits of keeping the law of identity in mind in one’s daily life.

I have three shoehorns. One of which I keep in my car, mainly so that I can change into a pair of wingtips I like to wear when I go dancing. (I also typically keep the wingtips in my car.) The shoes are narrow, and difficult to put on without a shoehorn. (I have narrow heels.)

I try to keep the shoehorn in a specific place in my car, so that I always know where it is, and don’t misplace it. Unfortunately, earlier this summer, my car had to go into the auto repair shop for quite an extended time. I have another, older vehicle,  a Chevy Trailblazer, which I have been driving in the meantime. When my car went in the shop, I put my wingtips in the Trailblazer, along with the shoehorn.

The layout of the Trailblazer is different from my regular car, causing everything to be out of place, including my shoehorn. Back around early to mid-June, I could not find the shoehorn one day. I searched everywhere I could think to look in that old Trailblazer for the shoehorn, but I could not find it.

I finally gave up on my search and was starting to think I’d have to buy another shoehorn. I usually keep two in my regular vehicle, but the other one was still with that car, which was in the shop. I keep my third shoehorn in my home so that I can put my work shoes on. Since I was busy with other things, I never got around to buying another shoehorn. (I just made do with almost completely unlacing my shoes to be able to fit my feet into them, which is rather time consuming and inconvenient.) A couple of weeks later, I looked down in the front passenger side floorboard of the Trailblazer, and there was my shoehorn. I had searched that area, as well as under the passenger seat, even getting out a flashlight to illuminate dark areas. I had not seen the shoehorn, and yet there it was, lying in plain sight.

I joked to myself that this shoehorn was like the “ring of power” from “The Lord of the Rings”.

This reference may take some explanation for those who are not familiar with those books. In the Tolkien series, an evil magical ring that gives people invisibility and various other powers, is described as having a sort of “will of its own”:

Gandalf explains that a Ring of Power is self-serving and can ‘look after itself’: the One Ring in particular, can ‘slip off treacherously’ to return to its master Sauron, betraying its bearer when an opportunity arrives.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Power#Powers

In other words, the ring of power has its own agenda, and you will lose it, and someone else will find it when it so chooses. In the novels, Bilbo Baggins finds the ring after another character, Gollum, loses it. Basically, the ring decided it was time for Gollum to lose it, and for Bilbo to find it.

A few weeks later, I went on a vacation, and packed the same shoehorn in my suitcase. Guess what happened when I got back from my trip? I could not find the shoehorn again. I had only taken one suitcase, so if I had brought it back with me, the shoehorn had to be there. I gave the suitcase what I thought was a pretty thorough search, but I could not find it. Thinking again of the ring of power, I started to give up on my search for the shoehorn. Then I explicitly thought:

Of course, I’m just joking with myself. The shoehorn has a specific nature. It’s not magical, because everything is what it is, and nothing more.”

Explicitly thinking this way led me to the following additional thoughts: “What is the identity of the shoehorn?” I started naming its characteristics or attributes in my mind. I thought: “It’s small, and it’s dark. Both of which make it easily misplaced and easy not to see, given the nature of the human eye.”

I also thought: “What is the identity of my suitcase?” I then started thinking about its attributes. It has one main compartment, and it has two smaller, pouch-like compartments with zippers on the outside. I had checked all three of those locations, and the shoehorn wasn’t there. Then I remembered one other thing about the nature of my suitcase: It has a detachable, somewhat clear, zipper pouch about 10 inches by 5 inches in size. This pouch attaches on the inside main compartment of the suitcase, at the top, by a pair of snaps. I use it to hold toiletries, like my toothbrush. I also keep items in there that I always need, even when I’m not on a trip, like a toothbrush and toothpaste. In other words, there is always some stuff in this small plastic pouch that could obscure something like a shoehorn from my vision on a cursory inspection. I didn’t think I would have put the shoehorn in there because it isn’t a toiletry item. But, I decided I should check it out, and guess what I found?

I believe that this rather mundane example illustrates an important point. Sometimes you have to mentally summon the law of identity, expressly, in order to banish incorrect thinking. In my simple example here, I had “half-jokingly” thought the shoehorn had some magical or mystical properties that made it incapable of being located by me. As a result, I think I started to give up on my search for the shoehorn. It’s like that mystical thinking demotivated me to look for the shoehorn, because I was falling into a pattern of thinking that the shoehorn was somehow intrinsically incapable of being found.

It wasn’t until I willfully re-asserted a “mental framework” that was more rational, with the law of identity, that I was able to think clearly about where the shoehorn could be.

Just like everything else, the human mind has a specific identity, or nature. Part of that identity is that it can develop incorrect thinking patterns or habits, that are detached from reality. In this case, I was falling into the thinking habit of believing my shoehorn was somehow inherently without identity, and therefore unlocatable by me. By mentally summoning the law of identity in my mind, and rededicating my mental attitude to that principle, I was able to develop a specific methodology or plan for locating a lost item. Adhering to the law of identity led to my eventual success in finding the shoehorn.

I would add that adhering to the law of identity doesn’t guarantee success. Sometimes you can do everything right, and factors beyond your control make victory impossible. It might have been the case that I had somehow lost the shoehorn in my hotel room, and left it there. In that case, it would have been unrecoverable. But, by thinking of its specific nature, I was able to better exhaust the possible scenarios under which it was still in my possession in the sense of being lost in some other item of property of mine, like my suitcase. Adhering to the law of identity allowed me to banish any “mystical based” thinking, which thereby maximized my chance of success, even if that chance of success wasn’t 100%.

The law of identity is more than a mere tautology. It can be the difference between victory and defeat. (Or, between putting on my shoes and going barefoot.)

 

First Review Post For Ayn Rand’s “We The Living”

Earlier in 2022, I re-read Ayn Rand’s novel, “We the Living”. I was motivated, in part, by the war in Ukraine. I thought the novel might provide some insight into the Russian mind.

While reading it, I took fairly extensive notes on my phone, and by writing in the margins of the paper-back copy of the novel. Over time, I’d like to write a series of blog posts on various topics about it.

This first blog post is about several things that seemed slightly incongruous with Ayn Rand’s later writing and novels. Whether these can be reconciled with her later writing is an open question in my mind. Certainly, someone can change their mind on various issues, and I do not consider these things to be glaring contradictions with the fundamentals of her philosophy. It’s more like, when I re-read these things in “We The Living” this year, my “eyebrows went up” a bit.

Before I begin the current post, I want to put in a bit of a disclaimer: It’s entirely possible I’m misinterpreting what she is saying in various parts of the novel. In the context of a work of fiction or art, I believe “artistic license” can be proper, and that can explain some, or all, of this.

Any References to page numbers are to The Signet paper back, 1996 edition of “We The Living”, ISBN number 0-451-18784-9

“Rulers and Ruled”

At points in “We The Living”, I got the impression that Rand almost thought that there were “rulers” and “ruled” in the world. In other words, the sort of idea that there are people who are there to initiate physical force in order to keep other people in line. This would certainly be contrary to her later writings, especially in “Atlas Shrugged”, but also in such essays as “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government”.

The best example of this is early in the novel, when some background information about the female protagonist, Kira is being given. There is some narrative and brief flashbacks giving an explanation of how Kira would have reactions to things and situations that her family regarded as “strange” or “abnormal”. For instance, it says that she “…seldom visited museums…” (Pg. 47), but when she would see construction, particularly of bridges she “…was certain to stop and stand watching, for hours…”(Pg. 47) Another such “incongruous feeling” Kira had is the following:

When Galina Petrovna took her children to see a sad play depicting the sorrow of the serfs whom Czar Alexander II had magnanimously freed, Lydia [Kira’s very religious sister] sobbed over the plight of the humble kindly peasants cringing under a whip, while Kira sat tense, erect, eyes dark in ecstasy, watching the whip cracking expertly in the hand of a tall, young overseer.” (Pg. 47-48)

The scene involves Kira going with her family to see a play about the suffering of the serfs. These were people tied to the land, and required to work. They were little better than slaves. The only real difference being that the serfs could not be sold to another master, they belonged to whoever owned the land. Russia was one of the last countries to free the serfs, in 1861 under Tsar Alexander II.  https://www.historytoday.com/archive/emancipation-russian-serfs-1861

Kira seems to have a sexual reaction to seeing this scene in the play. First, it’s noted that the person handling the whip is a “…tall, young overseer…”, who is presumably male. Additionally, Rand uses the word “ecstasy” to describe Kira’s reaction to this scene. Technically, I think “ecstasy” just means great happiness, but the use of that word combined with the fact that we are talking about a teenage girl watching a tall, young man, suggests sexual attraction to me. More specifically, it seems like she is sexually attracted to not just the young man, but his actions -in watching the whip crack expertly.

I think this scene could be interpreted in one of two ways. First, it could be seen as Kira likes the idea that the serfs were being kept in line with physical force, the whip, by a good-looking young man. Second, it could just be that she is sexually attracted to the display of skill by the young man, in using the whip, not necessarily what he is using the whip on. (In this case, people.) This second interpretation takes into account the early scenes described just before it, in which Kira liked to watch road and bridge construction, and (presumably) liked watching the men displaying skill at construction, too. This second interpretation lines up better with Rand’s overall views on the role of productivity in life, as shown in her later writing.  That said, I’m not 100% sure from the context that Ayn Rand didn’t mean my first interpretation: that Kira seems to believe that the serfs were not capable of following rules or law without being kept in line without some physical force being initiated against them, such as a whip. That is, that there are some people who are meant to be ruled.

Another example of this “rulers and ruled” attitude is when Rand describes Kira’s attitude about physical labor:

From somewhere in the aristocratic Middle Ages, Kira had inherited the conviction that labor and effort were ignoble.” (Pg. 49)

First, I thought this was an interesting way to phrase this. How, exactly, does one “inherit” a conviction? Does Rand mean she got this idea from her parents? It doesn’t seem so, because the earlier discussion of Kira’s background seems to show that she is very different from her family, and misunderstood by them. Is Rand speaking of genetic determinism here? Did Kira somehow get this attitude or idea from her genes? Or, is this just a way of saying Kira had, at some point, adopted an attitude from the Middle Ages that was still common, especially in Russia at that time? Second, how, exactly, does Kira think that labor and effort are “ignoble”, and how does that comport with Rand’s later views on productivity? I think what is meant here is that Kira thought that manual labor is ignoble, since the novel goes on from that scene to say that “…she had chosen a future of the hardest work and most demanding effort…” by choosing to be an engineer. (Pg. 50)  Clearly, this idea, as understood by Rand’s later writings, would not be correct. Even very intellectually simplistic labor requires some degree of mental effort.

This attitude on work seems almost “Platonic” to me:

“…the ideally just city outlined in the Republic, Plato proposed a system of labor specialization, according to which individuals are assigned to one of three economic strata, based on their inborn abilities: the laboring or mercantile class, a class of auxiliaries charged with keeping the peace and defending the city, or the ruling class of ‘philosopher-kings’.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/work-labor/

My understanding of Plato, and the Ancient Greeks in general, is they believed that there were some people born to do the manual labor, usually slaves, while there were others who were born to do the thinking. These are Plato’s “philosopher-kings”. Rand clearly and explicitly repudiated this notion in her later writings. See, for instance, the story of Robert Stadler, in Atlas Shrugged.    This is why, like I said earlier, my “eyebrows went up”, metaphorically speaking , when I read this.

Abortion in “We The Living”

Perhaps because of what was going on in the courts and politically in 2022, I noted that the subject of abortion comes up a couple of times in “We The Living”. As far as I can remember, the topic never comes up in either “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged”. The context in which she brought it up in “We The Living” left me wondering why Ayn Rand included this in the novel. For Ayn Rand, nothing in her fiction is an accident:

Since art is a selective re-creation and since events are the building blocks of a novel, a writer who fails to exercise selectivity in regard to events defaults on the most important aspect of his art.

A plot is a purposeful progression of logically connected events leading to the resolution of a climax. The word ‘purposeful’ in this definition has two applications: it applies to the author and to the characters of a novel. It demands that the author devise a logical structure of events….a sequence in which nothing is irrelevant, arbitrary or accidental…” (“Basic Principles of Literature”, The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand)

Operating on the above quote, I assume that having abortion come up in the novel is not “arbitrary” or “accidental” on the part of Rand. She had a purpose there.

There are two ways abortion comes into the novel. (I’m not sure which occurs first now.) First, Kira and Leo get a neighbor living in their house assigned to them. This is a girl about Kira’s age, who is attending another local university. Her name is Marina Lavrova, and she is introduced at Page 177 in the book I was reading. (Signet paperback, 1996 edition of “We The Living”, ISBN number 0-451-18784-9 )

Marina Lavrova’s nickname is “Marisha”, and that is how she is described throughout the rest of the book. She would go on to marry Kira’s cousin, Victor. Marisha is a card-carrying member of the Communist youth group, the Komsomol.   Furthermore, her father has good “working class credentials”, having been a factory worker before the revolution, and having served time in the Tsar’s prison system for political agitation. Victor, Kira’s cousin had noticed that Kira and Leo had two rooms, and had told Marisha about it. At that time, Victor is trying to get into the Communist Party, and uses Marisha as a stepping-stone to that end. (Which is also why he marries her.) Although the law allowed Kira and Leo to have two rooms because they are not married, Marisha uses her Communist party card to overrule the law, and moves into the extra room.

Since they are living in such close proximity to one another, Kira knows some fairly intimate details about Marisha’s life. For instance, Kira notes that young men are staying overnight with Marisha, and that she is presumably sleeping with them. After some time passes, Marisha comes to Kira and asks her about how to get an abortion:

Marisha came in when Kira was alone. Her little pouting mouth was swollen: ‘Citizen Argounova, what do you use to keep from having children?’

Kira looked at her, startled.

‘I’m afraid I’m in trouble,’ Marisha wailed. ‘It’s that damn louse Aleshka Ralenko. Said I’d be bourgeois if I didn’t let him…Said he’d be careful. What am I gonna do? What am I gonna do?’

Kira said she didn’t know.” (Pg. 183)

A couple of pages later, a scene occurs in which Kira tells a sick Marisha to clean the bathroom, indicating that she must have taken some sort of medication to induce abortion, or has otherwise obtained an abortion:

’Citizen Lavrova, will you please clean the bathroom? There’s blood all over the floor.’

‘Leave me alone. I’m sick. Clean it yourself, if you’re so damn bourgeois about your bathroom.’

Marisha slammed the door, then opened it again, cautiously: ‘Citizen Argounova, you won’t tell your cousin [Victor] on me, will you? He doesn’t know about…my trouble. He’s -a gentleman.” (Pg. 185)

The second way abortion is brought up in “We The Living” is through the character of Vava Milovskaia, specifically, her father. Vava is introduced at Page 79, when she comes to visit Kira’s cousins and their parents, Vasili Ivanovich Dunaev and Maria Petrova. (Kira’s Aunt and Uncle, by way of her mother, who is the sister of Maria.) Kira is also visiting the Dunaev’s when Vava arrives to see Victor, who she is in love with. Unlike everyone else, Vava is wearing expensive clothing, and jewelry. Although Vava’s family is not in the Communist Party, her father is a medical doctor. It is explained in the book that, at that time, Doctors were still allowed to operate privately, and make money because a doctor was not viewed as “exploiting labor”. Basically, doctors can do their work without the need of any employees, and they are making money only through their own labor, and not by directing the work of others. (Don’t bother trying to make sense out of Marxist ideas.)

At Chapter 12, starting on Page 151, Kira goes to a party thrown by Vava at her parent’s house. During the course of the party, it is noted that Vava lives in (comparative) opulence. How was this possible?

He was a doctor who specialized in gynecology. He had not been successful before the revolution; after the revolution, two facts had helped his rise: the fact that, as a doctor, he belonged to the ‘Free Professions’ and was not considered an exploiter, and the fact that he performed certain not strictly legal operations. Within a couple of years he had found himself suddenly the most prosperous member of his former circle and of many circles above.” (Pg. 158)

Since he’s a gynecologist, I’m certain the “not strictly legal operations” are abortions. Abortions were legalized in 1920 in Russia. The novel starts in 1922, so abortion was legal by then. However, Stalin again made abortion illegal in 1936.  (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-04/stalins-abortion-ban-soviet-union )  I would assume that Rand meant that Vava’s father had performed the “not strictly legal” abortions prior to legalization in 1920. This makes sense in light of the last sentence in the above quote, which implies that at least “a couple of years” had passed since he started performing illegal abortions, and that he had passed other people in wealth, over the years, as a result.

In both of these situations, abortion seems to be presented in a somewhat negative light.

Take the story of Marisha and her abortion. For Rand, all choices in a work of art have a purpose. Nothing is without a reason in a novel. So what was her reason for having Marisha get pregnant accidentally and then have to get an abortion? She didn’t have Kira, the protagonist, get pregnant, although Kira was also living with and having sex with Leo by this point on, presumably, a regular basis.

Was Rand saying here that communism encourages abortion/promiscuity? This seems like a possibility, since Marisha was pressured into having sex when she wasn’t ready. Aleshka Ralenko, the guy Marisha was sleeping with, said she’d be “bourgeois” if she didn’t let him penetrate her vaginally. Maybe Rand just wanted to show how someone uses Marxist rhetoric to rationalize getting what they want, such as convincing a girl to have sex when she isn’t ready?

I would assume the difference between Kira and Marisha is that the former was ready for sex and took responsibility for it. (This also raises another interesting question. There was no birth control pill at that time, so what were Kira and Leo using for birth control? Condoms? Diaphragm? Pull out method?) Marisha, on the other hand, was not ready for sex, and wasn’t using anything to prevent Aleshka from ejaculating into her.

It’s also possible Ayn Rand included the story of Marisha’s abortion to give some background information on her, since she eventually marries Victor, who doesn’t really love her, and she has an unhappy marriage.  I could also see the scene between Kira and Marisha as just a way to have the two women grow closer together. Initially they do not like each other, but after this, Marisha and Kira seem on friendlier terms. By page 250 (Chapter 1 of Part II), the two young women smoke cigarettes together and enjoy friendly chit-chat.  Marisha is one of only three Communists in the novel that Ayn Rand portrays in a fairly sympathetic manner -the other two being Andrei and Stepan Timoshinko. Also, interestingly, all three are either dead or miserable by the end. (Marisha survives, but is in a loveless marriage and very unhappy.)

I cannot help but get the impression that Ayn Rand is saying with the story of Marisha and the story of Vava’s gynecologist father that communism causes abortion. Given her later, express views on abortion, this seems incongruous.   Is it possible Ayn Rand changed her view on abortion from the time that she wrote “We The Living?” The situations in which abortion come up in the novel seem to me, morally ambiguous at best. For instance, Vava’s father seems to take a certain joy in being able to “lord it over” the people who used to be wealthier and of a better social status than him. At the party Kira attends at Vava’s house, the point of view switches to the doctor’s perspective:

“…he relished the feeling of a patron and benefactor to the children of those before whom he had bowed in the old days, the children of the industrial magnate Argounov [Kira’s father], of Admiral Kovalensky [Leo’s father]. He made a mental note to donate some more to the Red Air Fleet in the morning.” (Pg. 158)

These are not good or admirable feelings he is having. (Or, at least, they are very mixed.) He isn’t just enjoying his success. He’s enjoying the fact that people that were once above him are now below him. Furthermore, he is going to donate money to the Soviet state, which he regards as having brought him into his new position and power. He not only benefited from the Bolshevik revolution, but he is glad it happened, and supports the system.

In summary, the way this issue is presented in “We The Living” leaves a “question mark” in my mind, that I do not currently know the answer to.

Kira’s Speech About Andrei, Life, and Atheism

The final “incongruity” that I noted in “We the Living” was Kira’s speech to Andrei about atheism and life:

“Do you believe in God, Andrei?”

“No.”

“Neither do I. But that’s a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they’d never understand what I meant. It’s a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -then, I know they don’t believe in life.”

“Why?”

“Because, you see, God -whatever anyone chooses to call God -is one’s highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It’s a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it.”

“You’re a strange girl.”

“You see, you and I, we believe in life. But you want to fight for it, to kill for it, even to die -for life. I only want to live it.” (Pg. 117)

Most of this quote is “spot on” with the rest of Ayn Rand’s later, express philosophy. The last two sentences seem more difficult to reconcile. Here, Kira is speaking of Andrei, who is the “good communist” in the novel. (Incidentally, Andrei is my favorite character from the novel. I can completely relate to the unrequited love he suffers from, as most men probably can.) Rand thought communism, and the people who preached it, were anti-life:

“‘You who are innocent enough to believe that the forces let loose in your world today are moved by greed for material plunder—the mystics’ scramble for spoils is only a screen to conceal from their mind the nature of their motive. Wealth is a means of human life, and they clamor for wealth in imitation of living beings, to pretend to themselves that they desire to live, but their swinish indulgence in plundered luxury is not enjoyment, it is escape.’ …‘You who’ve never grasped the nature of evil, you who describe them as ‘misguided idealists’—may the God you invented forgive you!—they are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.’… ‘Death is the premise at the root of their theories, death is the goal of their actions in practice….’” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, emphasis added.)

I heard a recording of Ayn Rand where she said there was no such thing as an “honest communist”, and in answering a follow up question, that she “stretched the truth” with Andrei in “We The Living” for purposes of fiction. (I think this is fine, since I believe in “artistic license”, as I said.)  She said something about Andrei growing up poor and in a backwards country, which somewhat excused it, but basically didn’t think such a person could exist in real life.

It’s possible Kira was just talking about Andrei, in particular, and not communists in general, but that could be misconstrued, pretty easily, to seem to say something positive about communism. I will say that in the wider context of the novel, that is not what was meant. For instance, Rand also has the following earlier exchange between Kira and Andrei:

I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say, as so many of our enemies do, that you admire our ideals, but loathe our methods.” (Andrei)

I loathe your ideals.” (Kira) (Pg. 89)

Ayn Rand already had deep, philosophical, disagreements with the fundamental morality of communism, and not just with some of its nastier practices. She clearly already understood that the issue was deeper than politics, and reached down to morality. Nonetheless, given Rand’s staunch anticommunism, I wonder if she ever regretted including a description of a communist as “believing in life”, as Kira claimed in the above quote?

These were the three things that raised questions in my mind because they are not obviously reconcilable, to me, with some things that Rand wrote later. But, keep in mind that I’m just some guy on the Internet, with no special knowledge of literature, Ayn Rand, or of fiction writing, so I’d love to hear from someone else who has thought about any of this.

Excellent Article Connecting Rising Prices to Government Regulation

This Business Insider article is a terrific piece of journalism linking rising prices to governmental interference in the economy.

The article notes that babysitters are in high demand. In some areas of the country they are making as much as $35 per hour.  (To put this in perspective, I’ve seen temporary jobs for attorneys paying less than that.)

The problem? Government shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. These shutdowns included daycare centers, many of which closed for good.

The government shutdown of businesses in 2020, combined with the inflation of the money supply by the Federal Reserve, has resulted in the greatest increase in the Consumer Price Index in over 40 years.

It is good to see journalists who seem to get it, and are recognizing the cause of these price increases.

What Is The Right to Life?

There are two philosophical/political groups in contemporary society that I know of who seem to speak of a “right to life”, more than anyone. The first group are the so-called “conservatives” when they talk about the issue of abortion. They hold themselves out as being proponents of the “right to life”. The other group are those who admire or ascribe to the fundamentals of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, such as myself. How is the conservative position on the “right to life” different from Ayn Rand’s position on the right to life, specifically when it comes to the issue of abortion? What do conservatives mean when they speak of a “right to life”, and is that different from how Ayn Rand speaks of a right to life?

I will explore this issue below. My goal here is to contrast, not to refute, the conservative position with that of Ayn Rand. I am not primarily engaging in a polemical argument here for purposes of debate. This does not mean I am neutral on this topic. My position on this subject will probably be apparent. I have also expressed some of my views regarding this matter before.

Ayn Rand on the Right to Life

A ‘right’ is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)” (“Man’s Rights”, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/life,_right_to.html

Some essential features of the Randian view on the right to life include:

(1) Life is self-sustaining and self-generated action

In other words, individuals are required, by the nature of reality, to take action to produce the values necessary for their survival. The values needed to live, like food, clothing and shelter, do not generally exist in nature. They must be produced by someone.

(2) Rights are about freedom of action in a social context. What is meant by a “social context”?

Some dictionary definitions of “society” are:

“…companionship or association with one’s fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse…”

“…a voluntary association of individuals for common ends especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession…”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society

So, “society” is a group of individuals interacting with each other. For Rand, social interaction is about the gain derived from doing so, for each individual. Society is not an end in itself. “Society” has no existence apart from the individuals that comprise it. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/society.html

For Rand, “freedom of action in a social context” means the individual ability to act without certain types of force being used, either directly or through threats, to stop that action, by others in society.

What kinds action must individuals be free to take in a social context? They must be free to “…engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action…”

(3) Can some people have the right deprive others of their lives, in order to sustain their own existence?

Since each human being must be free to take the actions necessary to sustain his own life, and it is his right to do so, there can be no “welfare rights”. In other words, there can be no right for others to provide food, clothing, shelter, or the other necessities of life.

“The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.”  (“Man’s Rights”, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, emphasis added.) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/life,_right_to.html

The “Conservative” Position on the “Right to Life”

There is a certain amount of difficulty in understanding and explaining the conservative position on this issue. There is no single “conservative voice” that speaks for everyone calling their self a conservative on this or any other issue. I will therefore highlight three different positions, taken by individuals or institutions, that I think will be widely regarded as representative. These are: Ronald Reagan, the Catholic Church, and Billy Graham.

(1) Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan spoke of the fetal “right to life” in a Presidential Proclamation in 1988:

One of those unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America’s unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and unspeakable results in the past decade and a half have been the loss of life of 22 million infants before birth; the pressure and anguish of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a cheapening of our respect for the human person and the sanctity of human life.”  (Proclamation 5761 — National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 1988) https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/proclamation-5761-national-sanctity-human-life-day-1988

Reagan references the Declaration of Independence, which says:

“…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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Declaration of Independence)

Rand’s position is similar to that of the Founding Fathers: “The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

Since Reagan believes that a fetus has the same “right to life” as a biologically distinct human being, he must have believed that government must take action to protect that right. (The contradiction will become apparent when we discuss what a “fetal right to life” would have to entail, below.)

(2) The Catholic Church

The Catholic church, and various Popes, have spoken on the issue of abortion many times. The Catholic church’s positions on issues like abortion is often very philosophical, and well thought-out. As such, their pronouncements are often very revealing of the institution’s fundamental philosophy and governing principles.

For instance, Pope John Paul II wrote the following on the subject of abortion:

Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase…. At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual’s earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an ‘ultimate’ but a ‘penultimate’ reality…” (IOANNES PAULUS PP. II, EVANGELIUM VITAE “To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life”)  https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Here, the Pope said that human life is not primarily its “temporal phase”, i.e., our actual biological existence, and the sum-total of our experiences, emotions, thoughts, goals, desires, and happiness. In fact, so says the Pope, our “life on earth” is not an “ultimate” but a “penultimate” reality. In other words, the life that you actually live is nothing but a mere means to the end of your “spiritual life” after you die. (Who determines what is best for that “spiritual life”? The Pope, of course.)

It is rare to see such an express contrast to Ayn Rand’s philosophy laid bare like this. Rand said:

Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life.” (“The Objectivist Ethics”, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, emphasis added.) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/standard_of_value.html

By way of contrast, the Pope is saying that this life is “penultimate”, which means “…last but one in a series of things; second last…”. In other words, your actual life that you are living is merely a means to the end of your “spiritual life”, which is the “ultimate value” according to the Catholic church. The Pope says you are to sacrifice this life for a (non-existent) afterlife.

Pope John Paul II went on to say that the “threat” of abortion is the same as the threat of things like poverty, hunger, and disease:

Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenceless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.” (IOANNES PAULUS PP. II, EVANGELIUM VITAE “To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life”) https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

An earlier Pope said that the right to life comes not from the fetus’s parent’s but directly from God:

Besides, every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no ‘indication’ at all—whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral—that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a disposal which aims at its destruction, whether as an end in itself or as a means to achieve the end, perhaps in no way at all illicit. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a very noble act; but the direct killing of the child as a means to such an end is illicit.”  (Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession Pope Pius XII – 1951) https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

No “human authority” has the right to sanction abortion, which means the Pope has the right to impose his will over that of any democratically elected government. (So much for governments being instituted among Men.)

Given this authoritarian premise, it is no wonder that some Catholic Bishops are seeking to influence the American political system by denying communion to prominent pro-choice Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/article261652522.html )

(3) Billy Graham

Protestant Evangelicals tend to follow a similar line of reasoning as the Pope and the Catholic church:

Q: Where in the Bible does it say that abortion is wrong, even murder?  A: From the writings of the Rev. Billy Graham Abortion has divided our nation like no other issue in recent times. The Bible places the highest value on human life. It is sacred and of inestimable worth to God, who created it ‘in His own image.’ The Bible recognizes the unborn as being fully human…. We must never think that we can solve one moral crisis by condoning another, especially the crime of murder, for unrestrained abortion is nothing less than that…. The issue of abortion is not whether people have the right to terminate the life of a child; the real issue is whether or not people will insist on running their own lives according to worldly standards that oppose God’s law.https://billygraham.org/answer/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-that-abortion-is-wrong-even-murder/

The only likely difference from the Catholics is that Protestants believe the information can all be obtained from the Bible. One doesn’t need an “intermediary” with god, like the Pope, to explain what God wants -you’re supposed to waste your life on nothing all by yourself.

Billy Graham believed that abortion was murder, and that the primary issue is not whether people have the right to an abortion, but whether or not people will insist on running their own lives according to “…worldly standards that oppose God’s law”.

Just as Pope John Paul II indicated, our lives, for Protestant Evangelicals, are not of ultimate importance. Our lives serve some “spiritual life” that we have after we die. We are to live not for our own sake, but for when we die. In practice, this means we are supposed to listen to people like the Pope and Billy Graham, and renounce our happiness in the here and now to the extent they say it is necessary to keep from “opposing God’s law”.

A Common Theme Amongst Conservative Voices On This Issue

All three of these conservative positions rely on the following assumption: The mere fact that a fetus is reflexively and biologically attached to the mother’s uterus, means that the mother has an obligation to allow the fetus to remain biologically attached to her uterus for nine months.  The conservative position on the right to life is not just that a fetus has a right to exist on its own, like an actual person, since it cannot. It has a right to be provided with nutrition, sustenance and biological protection from the elements while it develops.

It is undoubtable that even if the fetus could somehow be medically removed from the mother’s uterus surgically without damaging it, this would still be considered murder by the “conservative right to lifers”. (Since a very undeveloped fetus outside the uterus, say within the first few months of development, would die within seconds or minutes.)

To illustrate the conservative position with a more extreme example, if a woman told her doctor to surgically remove her uterus, along with the fetus inside, this would certainly be considered no different than an abortion by the conservative institutions and individuals listed above. They would consider it murder, even though the woman is in no way damaging the fetus itself. (She has simply withdrawn biological sustenance from the fetus.)

This is why the most consistent and philosophical of the three “groups” of conservatives above, the Catholic Church, see their view of the “right to life” as no different than the supposed “right” of poor people to receive free food, medical care, and other welfare benefits from the state:

“”Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed.https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

Here, the Pope is saying that not only is abortion a sin, but so is free market capitalism. Employers and employees don’t set the terms of working conditions in accordance with their own self-interest. Furthermore, it is an “infamy” to let people live in “subhuman living conditions”, implying that the poor must be provided with housing even if they have chosen not to work to earn the money necessary to obtain shelter.

Later in the same article, the Pope makes his desire to redistribute wealth more explicit. The Catholic church is often criticized for causing hardship amongst poor Catholics by discouraging birth control. As a result, traditional Catholic families are often too large in the poorer countries of Latin America, resulting in real hardship, and even starvation, for those large families. The Pope’s solution to this problem? Don’t blame the Church’s birth control policies. Blame capitalism and the failure to redistribute wealth from wealthy countries to poor countries:

In the face of over- population in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global intervention at the international level-serious family and social policies, programmes of cultural development and of fair production and distribution of resources-anti-birth policies continue to be enacted.” https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

The Conservative “Right to Life” Position Is Really A “Right To Receive Welfare Benefits Provided By Others” Stance

Unlike the Randian position, which says each individual is free to take action to sustain his or her own life, the conservative position on the “right to life” is the “right” of a fetus to receive biological sustenance for nine months, just like the “workers” supposedly have a right to a “fair wage”, that is not set by free competition and freedom of contract in a free market. The fetus has the same “right to life” as is claimed by socialists when it comes to providing cradle to the grave welfare benefits to those who did not produce anything. It has the same internal contradiction, too. It ignores the question: Provided by whom?

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.” (“Man’s Rights” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights.http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/welfare_state.html

At least with the socialists’ “worker’s rights” we are referring to actual, biologically distinct, human beings. In the case of the “rights of the unborn”, we’re talking about enslaving women to imaginary people.

 

 

Cryptocurrency: Is It Money?

When I was still in college, I read “Principles of Economics” by Carl Menger, and probably learned more about Economics than I did in my four years as an Econ major. (The book was a hell of a lot cheaper than my college degree, too.) Today, you don’t even have to pay for the book, as it’s available for free online, as an out of copyright work. https://competitionandappropriation.econ.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2020/12/Mengerprinciples.pdf

By the end of Menger’s book, you will understand the basic nature of money, and much more.

It is Menger’s book that has served as my touchstone when it comes to studying cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. Before I will believe that Bitcoin is money, I would need an explanation of it that fits within the framework of Menger’s theory of money.

My goal here is to explain what I currently believe “money” to be, and then to explain what I would need to see as a feature of Bitcoin before I could believe it was money. (Or, I’d need to be shown how Menger’s theory of money is wrong, or in need of modification.) I will also provide reference to an article that seems to do just that, but the technical/engineering aspects of cryptocurrencies are outside my knowledge base, so I cannot say if the article is right or not.

What is money?

To understand what money is, you need to understand four concepts discussed in Carl Meger’s book: (1) Value, (2) The Marginal Theory of Value, (3) Use Value, and (4) Exchange Value.

Value

All goods where the requirements for their use and enjoyment are greater than the available supply have what Carl Menger called “value”.

If the good existed in amounts greater than the requirements of all the human beings that have access to those goods, then they would have no “value”.

For instance, a single person living in a forest that has thousands upon thousands of acres would likely view no particular tree as having any “value”. This is because there is so much timber available to him, that he needs only a small fraction of it.

Another example would be a small tribe living near a freshwater spring that produces many more gallons of water per day than the entire tribe can use. The “value” of any particular gallon of water for the members of that tribe is zero.

Marginal Theory of Value

The example of the tribe living near a freshwater stream points to another interesting aspect of “value”, which Carl Menger identified. This is the fact that any given unit of a good only has the “value” of the least important use it will be put to by a person.

For instance, a person living in a forest might first build a log cabin with a dozen trees, because shelter is very important to him. He might then use another tree for heat and cooking food. There might be just one tree left, which he can use for building a canoe. This last use of the last tree is the least important to him, since having shelter, heat, and cooked food are more important. But, the value of any one tree to him is the value of that canoe. This is because the canoe is what he would be giving up if he were to lose a tree for some reason.

In Economics, this is what is known as the “marginal theory of value”. It explains why, for instance, gold has a higher price per pound than water, in most contexts. Although water is overall more necessary for living than gold, in most  normal situations, any given pound of water can be dispensed with more easily because water is so much more abundant than gold. (However, there could be a situation in which a pound of water is more valuable, such as to a person dying of thirst in the desert.)

Value Can Be Ornamental

Note that “value” can be entirely ornamental. Menger takes this as a given, but I think it would take a robust understanding of the requirements of human life to really see this.  Seeing things of beauty has some sort of psychological effect on the human mind. We admire pretty paintings and statues because they are aesthetically pleasing to us.

Most men would rather gaze on a beautiful woman than an ugly one. Women wear makeup because it gives them a pleasing appearance. People wear jewelry because it makes them look better. Gold has been used to make jewelry for a very long time. Much of its value derives from this ornamental use.

This is still “value”, just as much as the painting of the Mona Lisa or the statue of David has value. It’s the psychological enjoyment that they seem to engender in people’s minds when they look at them.

“Use Value” and “Exchange Value”

Menger notes that certain goods can have value even when a person is alone. The hypothetical man living alone in a deserted forest might, for instance, have greater requirements for deer than the number of deer available to him, due to a scarcity of the animals. He might want more deer meat to eat, or more deer skins to turn into clothing, than he is able to obtain.

When people enter into trading relationships with one another, a good can have a different type of value. This is the value that the good has for obtaining other things that one might want.

For instance,  the man living alone in the forest might encounter someone who lives near the ocean, and has fish. He might be willing to trade some of his deer meat for fish, in order to have a greater variety in his diet.

Based on these facts, Menger divides the concept of value into two sub-categories: “use value” and “exchange value”

In the case of the man who trades some of his deer meat for fish, it has “exchange value”:

Value, we saw, is the importance a good acquires for us when we are aware of being dependent on command of it for the satisfaction of one of our needs—that is, when we are conscious that a satisfaction would not take place if we did not have command of the good in question. Without the fulfillment of this condition, the existence of value is inconceivable. But value is not tied to the condition of a direct, to the exclusion of an indirect, assurance of our requirements. To have value, a good must assure the satisfaction of needs that would not be provided for if we did not have it at our command. But whether it does so in a direct or in an indirect manner is quite irrelevant when the existence of value in the general sense of the term is in question. The skin of a bear that he has killed has value to an isolated hunter only to the extent to which he would have to forgo the satisfaction of some need if he did not have the skin at his disposal. After he enters into trading relations, the skin has value to him for exactly the same reason…. What lends a special character, in each of the two cases, to the phenomenon of value is the fact that goods acquire the importance, to the economizing individuals commanding them, that we call value by being employed directly in the first case and indirectly in the second. This difference is nevertheless of sufficient importance both in ordinary life and in our science in particular to require specific terms for each of the two forms of the one general value phenomenon. Thus we call value in the first case use value, and in the second case we call it exchange value.” https://competitionandappropriation.econ.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2020/12/Mengerprinciples.pdf

Goods that directly satisfy our needs have use value. Goods that indirectly satisfy our needs by means of trade for the goods that directly satisfy our needs have exchange value.

A Definition of Money Based On These Concepts

Something takes on the properties of money when it’s “exchange value” exceeds its “use value”.

From these concepts of “use value” and “exchange value”, Menger develops a theory of money that does not depend on any pre-existing social convention or governmental institution, above and beyond a government that protects private property rights and enforces contracts.

Economizing individuals engaged in barter will find that they are often unable to obtain the goods that they have direct, use value for through trade.

Menger gives the example of a Bronze Age blacksmith who has fashioned a suit of armor and would like to exchange it for raw materials for producing more armor, and also for the purchase of food to eat.

At that particular time, the people who sell copper and food might have no need of armor. But, perhaps there is someone selling some good that wants his armor. In that situation, if he believes he can trade whatever that good is for the food and copper he wants, then it would make sense for him to trade the armor for that good.

What matters to the blacksmith is that the good he obtains for his armor has greater “marketability” than his armor.

In real life, there are certain goods that are almost always in demand. Menger notes that in ancient times, cattle were often that good. A cow does not perish, as long as you can feed and water it. Eventually everyone needs the meat and milk of a cow. So, if the Bronze Age blacksmith trades his suit of armor for a cow, then he is closer to getting the food and copper he needs:

Even if the armorer is already sufficiently provided with cattle for his direct requirements, he would be acting very uneconomically if he did not give his armor for a number of additional cattle. By so doing, he is of course not exchanging his commodities for consumption goods (in the narrow sense in which this term is opposed to “commodities”) but only for goods that also have commodity-character to him. But for his less saleable commodities he is obtaining others of greater marketability. Possession of these more saleable goods clearly multiplies his chances of finding persons on the market who will offer to sell him the goods that he needs. If our armorer correctly recognizes his individual interest, therefore, he will be led naturally, without compulsion or any special agreement, to give his armor for a corresponding number of cattle.”

https://competitionandappropriation.econ.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2020/12/Mengerprinciples.pdf

Menger notes that during ancient agricultural times, cattle and other domestic animals often served as money. As civilization progressed, and we became more urban, the materials of skilled artisans, specifically, copper, silver, and gold came to have money character:

But rising civilization, and above all the division of labor and its natural consequence, the gradual formation of cities inhabited by a population devoted primarily to industry, must everywhere have had the result of simultaneously diminishing the marketability of cattle and increasing the marketability of many other commodities, especially the metals then in use. The artisan who began to trade with the farmer was seldom in a position to accept cattle as money; for a city dweller, the temporary possession of cattle necessarily involved, not only discomforts, but also considerable economic sacrifices; and the keeping and feeding of cattle imposed no significant economic sacrifice upon the farmer only as long as he had unlimited pasture and was accustomed to keep his cattle in an open field. With the progress of civilization, therefore, cattle lost to
a great extent the broad range of marketability they had previously had with respect to the number of persons to whom, and with respect to the time period within which, they could be sold economically.”

https://competitionandappropriation.econ.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2020/12/Mengerprinciples.pdf

What is important to take away from this is that money can be any good whose “exchange value” comes to exceed its “use value” for a given group of people in society. A consumption good can also be money, so long as some portion of a person’s total stock of the item has greater exchange value than use value. For instance, cigarettes in certain WWII POW camps, and in prisons, can serve as money. Even the prisoners who smoke, may acquire some cigarettes not for personal consumption, but for exchange -to serve as money.

Carl Menger On “Imaginary Value”

Carl Menger recognized that things could be regarded by people as valuable despite the fact that they did not, in reality, satisfy any human want or need:

A special situation can be observed whenever things that are incapable of being placed in any kind of causal connection with the satisfaction of human needs are nevertheless treated by men as goods. This occurs (1) when attributes, and therefore capacities, are erroneously ascribed to things that do not really possess them, or (2) when non-existent human needs are mistakenly assumed to exist. In both cases we have to deal with things that do not, in reality, stand in the relationship already described as determining the goods-character of things, but do so only in the opinions of people.” https://competitionandappropriation.econ.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/95/2020/12/Mengerprinciples.pdf

For Menger, the first category included things like: “…most cosmetics, all charms, the majority of medicines administered to the sick by peoples of early civilizations and by primitives even today, divining rods, love potions, etc.”

(I’d note that I don’t necessarily agree with some of the things Menger placed in this category. As noted, cosmetics make women more sexually attractive because they mimic sexual vitality. They serve a useful purpose for women looking to find and keep a husband.)

The second category included: “…medicines for diseases that do not actually exist, the implements, statues, buildings, etc., used by pagan people for the worship of idols, instruments of torture, and the like.”

For Menger: “Such things, therefore, as derive their goods-character merely from properties they are imagined to possess or from needs merely imagined by men may appropriately be called imaginary goods.”

It is possible that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fall into the category of “imaginary goods”, and are nothing but a group delusion.

Can Cryptocurrency Like Bitcoin be Money?

Inherent in Carl Menger’s definition of money is that it must have some “use value” to someone. This is because a good only has “exchange value” to someone if it can ultimately be used by some other person willing to trade for it. For instance, cattle, in ancient times were ultimately used for meat and milk. If everyone became vegan overnight, then cows would have no use value. With the loss of that use value, they would lose all exchange value, because those who have no use value for the cattle themselves would not have a market to sell them into. The cattle would lose all marketability, and therefore have no exchange value.

This aspect of the Austrian theory of money means that if Bitcoin is to continue having exchange value over the long run, it must have some use value. (Otherwise, it is an imaginary value, and eventually, people will likely stop wanting to hold it as they realize this fact.)

So, what is the use value of Bitcoin?

I don’t have enough Engineering and Computer Science knowledge to understand Bitcoin, so I have not been able to answer this question to my own satisfaction.

Possible Use Value of Cryptocurrency

The only time I’ve seen anyone try to explain Bitcoin in terms of the Austrian theory of money is this article:

https://seanking.substack.com/p/bitcoin-does-have-intrinsic-value?s=r

I discovered it after I watched this debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxzqMNuvHCI

Essentially, as I understand it, the article says that possessing bitcoin gives you the ability to write to a distributed database, which is held on all computers that participate in the blockchain.  (Basically, all the computers engaged in bitcoin mining.)

If that is true, then bitcoin does have some use value. It gives you the ability to store some data on a distributed database of some sort.

But, this article doesn’t explain how bitcoin does this in terms that I can easily understand, so I am still not sure if this is right.

I would like someone who both understands the technology and the Austrian Theory of money to explain this to me in terms that a six-year-old can understand.

Conclusion

I think one of three things is true: (1) Either the Austrian Theory of Money is Wrong, (2) Bitcoin has some use value, or (3) Bitcoin is a group delusion, and will eventually go to zero market value.

I don’t know which is right at this point. I am uncertain.

Objectivism Conference: Day 7

September 1, 2021

The first lecture I attended was about the writing of Dostoevsky. I’ve never read any Dostoevsky, and the lecture seemed to depend on having a working knowledge of the author. As a result, my notes were not very good.

I gather from it that Ayn Rand liked Dostoevsky, which is somewhat incongruous, given her own philosophy and viewpoint on fiction writing. Rand is regarded in most Objectivist circles as focusing on heroes, rather than villains. The hero doesn’t necessarily always win in Ayn Rand’s writing. Kira Argounova in We The Living can’t be said to “win”. She is the sort of hero who is “destroyed but not defeated”. But, the focus for Rand is on the hero.

Ayn Rand explicitly said that she didn’t care to write fiction focused on the “bad guys”. Whether she thought all fiction that focused on the bad guys was “inherently bad”, I’m less sure on. The way I’ve interpreted her writing on this subject, she simply didn’t personally care to focus on villains.

I have written a couple of novelettes and short stories focused on a “bad guy”, by which I mean someone I would not care to emulate, and that I consider to have made wrong choices. ( http://comeandreadit.com/index.php/2018/05/21/resentment/ http://dwcookfiction.com/index.php/2018/11/13/impunity/ )  For me, writing these characters is an attempt to understand the nature of evil. I am, in that process, “focusing on evil”, but it’s with an eye towards understanding.

The lecturer said that Rand liked the writing of Dostoevsky that focused on demons, devils, or the possessed. The lecturer said that the actual demons of Dostoevsky are the ideas the lurk in the shadows of their spirt. Other writers portray a Garden of Eden, while Dostoevsky portrays a “Garden of Evil”.

The lecturer warned that while reading Dostoevsky, you should keep several things in mind: (1) He’s an artist, and the characters do not necessarily represent him, unlike Ayn Rand, whose primary characters are people she considers to be like herself in important respects. Dostoevsky is “creating, not confessing”. (2) Some of his ideas are, in fact, dangerous and wrong. The lecturer said Ayn Rand said it was like entering a chamber of horrors with a powerful guide. (3) Dostoevsky aspired to be the poet of the good, but the good for him wasn’t efficacious.  (The lecturer had additional things to say on this last point, but I missed it.)

The lecturer then went over the Brothers Karamazov, with one brother described as wanting justice in this world, now, and the other brother wanting religious justice. (I assume that means justice for bad people when they die.) I haven’t read the novel, so I didn’t get that much from her description. She also spoke of a short story called “Dream of a Ridiculous Man”, and discussed something about the character of Gail Wynand from “The Fountainhead”, but I haven’t read the former short story either, so I didn’t get much from it.

###

The next lecture I attended that day concerned the environmentalist movement. I try to be very careful about what I say regarding this issue. I do not understand the science involved, and don’t have enough time to study it in great detail. I am skeptical that the news media presents what the scientific establishment is saying in its full context. I think that the news media is more likely to report on a scientific study that shows average global temperatures going up than they are a study that does not.

I also think that there is so much government funding of science at this point, that it has become captured by ideology. What I mean by “ideology” here is this: There is an “issue of fact” as to whether, for instance, average global temperatures are going up, and that it is an inadvertent result of human activity. This is purely a matter of developing measurements and scientific experiments that are accurate enough to make this determination. This is the science side of things. However, assuming this fact was established, it would say nothing about the value judgment we should draw from it. Maybe it’s not bad enough to do anything about? Maybe some people benefit, and other people don’t? How do we weigh these benefits and losses? Why do we assume that some given average global temperature is better, just because it is “natural” (not a result of human activity)? These questions are a question of values, and therefore ideology comes into play. I think that government-funded scientists who promote the notion that the “ideal state” is zero effect on the ecology by human beings tend to get the funding, while those who do not, tend not to get jobs.

The lecturer was attempting to show how philosophy shapes he we look at policy on energy. His analysis consisted of showing how the “dominant narrative” on energy policy sort of “filters down” to the masses in our society.

He moved fairly quickly, so my notes get pretty sketchy at points, but I think he presented a system in which energy policy starts out with the Researchers, who do the original work on energy policy. Next come the “Synthesizers” who put together the best works of the Researchers. Next are the “Disseminators”, who communicate the ideas to the media. From there the ideas go to the “Evaluators”, who are the people who say “What do we do about what’s true?” For instance, this would be the editors at the New York Times.

The lecturer said that the dominant narrative is that we should eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as possible. I wonder if it isn’t the case that the media is simply “cherry picking” the research that supports this narrative, and that there is an enormous amount of research that would oppose it or present other alternative approaches to the problem. (This is mere suspicion/supposition on my part. I do not know for sure.)

The lecturer also said there are “designated experts” who are basically “hybrid disseminators/evaluators”. They are people regarded as speaking for the best experts on what is true, and to do about it. This includes: spokespersons for the UN, Al Gore, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Amory Lovins, and Bill McKibben. I was only familiar with some of these names.

With this context in mind, of how the dominant ideas on energy policy are filtering down to the masses, which is our society’s “knowledge system”, the lecturer made some observations. First, our “knowledge system” supports the elimination of fossil fuels and other forms of cost-effective energy, while ignoring the costs. The relevant facts are these: (1) Fossil fuels can provide cost effective energy. (2) We need cost-effective energy to flourish as individuals and as a race. (3) Billions of people around the world lack cost-effective energy, and suffer because of it. He noted a woman in Gambia who had no access to an incubator for her newborn, which died as a result.

Second, our knowledge system supports the elimination of nuclear energy. Most of the anti-fossil fuel movement is also anti-nuclear. Nuclear power is typically excluded from renewable mandates from governments.

Third, our knowledge system opposes “big hydro-power”. The Sierra Club fights hydro-power and pays no price for this in terms of support or contributions:

“Sierra Club Opposes Large Scale Hydro”

https://www.sierraclub.org/maine/hydropower

Fourth, our knowledge system is unconcerned about mass opposition to solar and wind power. I think what he means here is that there is a lot of opposition to the need to mine the resources to build large scale solar and wind power generation. There is opposition to the construction of the transmission facilities it would take to move the power from the wind farms and solar farms to the cities. There is opposition to building large-scale wind farms and solar farms because it will damage animal habitat:

“These large projects are increasingly drawing opposition from environmental activists and local residents who say they are ardent supporters of clean energy. Their objections range from a desire to keep the land unspoiled to protection for endangered species to concerns that their views would no longer be as beautiful.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-powers-land-grab-hits-a-snag-environmentalists-11622816381

Despite this opposition, there is no outcry by our experts over the irrationality of saying that we cannot have any fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, or even large-scale solar/wind farms, which basically means we cannot have electrical power.

There were other issues touched on in the lecture, but it felt a little like I was trying to drink from a firehose. The amount of information the lecturer was attempting to convey in an hour and a half was too much for me to take good notes. I think the lecture would have been better if it were broken down into about three one-hour lectures.

###

The last lecture I have concerned the nature of evil. I don’t have much to say on this lecture for two reasons. First, I ran out of pages in my composition notebook about this time, so my notes are incomplete.  Second, I thought the lecture contained some good points, but didn’t seem sufficiently concrete for me to really grasp what the lecturer was trying to convey. It seemed like he was just sharing his thoughts on the topic somewhat extemporaneously.

I’ll share some of my own thoughts on the nature of evil, as I think it relates to Ayn Rand’s philosophy here.

Ayn Rand defined the good as that which is pro-life. In other words, that which promotes or enhances man’s life. On a concrete level, penicillin is good because it cures disease. Clothing is good because it keeps you warm and protects you from the elements. Food is good because it nourishes and sustains your body. Shelter is good because it protects you from the elements. Sex is good because it is a source of pleasure and of having children. Reading fiction is good because it lets you imagine other people and other ways of living. Friendship is good because it lets you learn about things you enjoy from other people, and to have companionship concerning what is important to you in your life. Knowledge is good because it allows you to create the things that you need in order to live. Happiness is good because it provides you with the emotional incentive to live. Self-knowledge and introspection is good because it lets you correct character defects to better live your life. A long-range perspective of what you need will help you to live beyond the range of the moment. From these concrete things that are good, you can generalize to that which all people must act to gain and or keep, because they are fundamentally important to their lives. Reason is important because an ordered mind connected to reality enhances your life with knowledge and understanding. Self-esteem is important because it provides the individual with the confidence that he is worthy of living and of happiness. Purpose is important because it provides you with a long-range perspective on your life, and acts as a measuring stick in gauging your choices over a lifetime.

“Evil” for Rand’s philosophy is that which is the anti-life. That which negates, opposes or destroys that which is necessary for living is the evil. Fundamentally, evil is the refusal to think:

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict ‘It is.’” (Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evil.html )

For me, it has always been difficult to believe that someone would deliberately unfocus their mind. Since I cannot get inside other people’s heads to see what is going on first-hand, I can only look into my own mind, and also observe what other people say and do, in order to try to infer what is going on inside their heads. I have never been fully convinced that Ayn Rand’s description of evil is actually happening in some other people’s minds.

I try to be on the lookout for it in my own mind, which is the only one I can ultimately perceive directly, and the only one that I can control.

Rationalization certainly seems like something real that matches Ayn Rand’s definition of evil. I try to be on the lookout for this, in myself and in others. I define rationalization as giving a fake explanation for an action or behavior that really has nothing to do with your explanation. Examples might include the following: You might tell yourself that you are in love with a girl one night, even though you really just want to have sex. An alcoholic might say they normally wouldn’t drink anymore, but it’s their friend’s bachelor party, so they’ll drink just this one time. A smoker might say they are too stressed to stop smoking this week.

A more vicious example of rationalization might be the rapist who tells himself his victim was dressed too provocatively, or she shouldn’t have been out walking alone late at night, so she got what she deserved.

There was a story back in 2020 about someone in Portland Oregon who murdered another man in cold blood, because he was on the political right. The murderer, Michael Reinoehl, was a Black Lives Matter and Antifa supporter.  He claimed he was protecting his black friend, although the video footage of the murder showed him lying in wait for his victim, stalking him, and then shooting him:

Reinoehl is seen hiding in an alcove of the garage and reaching into a pouch or waistband as Danielson and a friend, Chandler Pappas, walk south on Third Avenue.

Homicide Detective Rico Beniga wrote that Reinoehl ‘conceals himself, waits and watches’ as Danielson and Pappas pass him.

After the two men go by, Reinoehl followed them, walking west across the street moments before the gunshots were fired, police said.” https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/09/arrest-warrant-against-michael-reinoehl-for-2nd-degree-murder-unlawful-use-of-a-firearm-unsealed.html

In an interview, Reinoehl’s sister described him as:

“…an ‘impulsive’ person who let his ‘worst emotions guide his actions’ — and then tried to rationalize them afterward.https://nypost.com/2020/09/04/michael-reinoehls-sister-relieved-feds-killed-him/

An essential feature of rationalization is the evasion of your true motives or reasons for taking some action. In the case of Michael Reinoehl, it sounds like he simply let his emotions guide him, and then justified his reasons with left-wing rhetoric after the fact.