Unknown's avatar

About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

Liberty for Senior Citizens, Part I

Dr. Gresham, President Emeritus and Distinguished Professor, Bethany College, Bethany, West Virginia, here reveals, in part, his plans for those busy years ahead.

Older Americans are in a serious identity crisis. Many of the norms for aging are not appropriate for bright and active older people. The norms are changing which adds to the problems of identity. The acceptable role for “grandparents,” “senior citizens,” and “older Americans” is anything but clear; but even when it is clarified, it turns out to be objectionable to any person who has a mind of his own. One cannot fit the stereotypes that have accumulated through years of misunderstanding.

Old people are regarded as a sort of nuisance. The prevailing attitude seems to be, “Get out of the labor force and leave room for the young,” “get off the highway and let the young people who wish to go somewhere, go,” “these things cannot possibly mean anything to you so get out of the way and let us enjoy them.”

I have noticed a look of irritation and contempt when I must ask some mumbling young person to repeat a sentence because I do not clearly understand what he is saying. When a young person spills his coffee, it is just a mistake; but when I spill mine, it is because I am shaky and the person at hand may be irritated. The doctors say, “At your age you should not undertake this kind of treatment,” or an onlooker will say, “Just look at the old fool trying to be romantic.” Once it was said of children, “they should be seen and not heard.” This same attitude of contempt has now been transferred to older people. The attitude seems to be, “Shut up, Dad. Things have changed since you had anything to do with them.”

This attitude does not always have a hostile edge. It may be a benign compassion which increases the intensity of the sting. It is easier to face contempt than such an attitude as, “Oh, there, there now; of course you feel that way because you are old.” A person who is pitied is diminished in self-respect far more than a person who is scorned. Members of one’s own family may be swept up in the conventional attitudes toward aging to the extent that they feel a condescending attitude of pity toward anyone past sixty-five. What could be more infuriating to a highly competent septuagenarian than to have one say, “How remarkable. You still drive a car?” or “You are in your seventies. Do you still give lectures?”

There are times when those of us who are old need sympathy and pity and we do well to accept it with grace and gratitude; but there are other times when we deserve respect and we resent being exposed to the so-called “compassion for the old” which is about the most obnoxious attitude anyone could hold for us. When we are capable and qualified people, we should be regarded as equals where this is appropriate, superiors where we deserve it, as inferiors when the appraisal is just; but in every case, we have the right to stand on our own feet and be honorable, respected people.

The young people I know, of course, reflect none of these attitudes, but this is a personal matter. My students regard me as a contemporary. The contempt appears only in impersonal relationships.

A little bit of common sense will tell any reflective person that many people have a whole new surge of vitality, interest and ability in their sixties. This is particularly true for people in public life, people in business, professions and in finance. The stereotype of the spent old person at sixty is about one hundred per cent wrong. Yet older people face major discrimination when they attempt to market their talents. I have been shocked by my contemporaries in law and medicine who are still active in their professions who say to me, “Oh, at your age, I do not think you should take on anything else.” Here are intelligent people who would not give up their own responsibilities for anything, advising their patients and clients to live by the distorted norms.

These norms, however, are changing. Once the old people in America were few, but now we are many. With the increase in life expectancy and the interesting configuration of population growth, old people have come to be a powerful political force. Now eleven per cent of the American people are past sixty-five. As the numbers have been increasing, so have the skills and methods of political clout. Many old people have come to be self-conscious exponents of a minority seeking a voice in public affairs. The large associations of people in their sixties or older are as numerous and active as any associations in America.

Certainly I cannot speak for other people who have lived six or seven decades; but I can speak for myself and, by conversation, insight and study, reflect the attitudes and opinions as well as the needs and interests of many contemporaries. Some of the points that I make here may be widely disputed, as I find myself disputing some of the most vigorous attempts of some aging activists to get special interest legislation approved by the Congress. The privilege of differing viewpoints is certainly an earned prerogative of the mature. When I say we want these things, I really mean that these are the things that seem to me paramount for those of us who have reached the sixties and beyond.

Part 2 tomorrow. A/D

Elon Musk is Driving the Left Insane—And It’s a Beautiful Thing

Leftist reaction to Elon Musk’s possible buyout of Twitter reveals a lot. Snowflake Twitter employees and executives, and other leftists, actually say open speech on Twitter is a DENIAL of free speech. How can they say this? THEY are the ones who censor right now. Musk proposes allowing every point-of-view on Twitter.

Isn’t he the one advocating free speech? He’s not going to shut down leftist views; but leftists already have shut down views they don’t like on Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube and most other places.

You have to understand how a leftist thinks. Actually, you have to understand how a leftist FEELS. Because leftism is based on feeling. When a leftist hears a point-of-view he does not like, it’s a violation of rights, in his mind. A rational person would only feel violated if someone stole his property or initiated physical violence against him. A leftist feels just as violated (if not more so) if someone expresses — or these days, even privately holds — a viewpoint the leftist does not like.

It sends a leftist into a rage when he becomes aware that someone doesn’t agree with him on economics, morality, politics, justice or culture/psychology. The moment the leftist feels that rage, the anxiety becomes unbearable. Leftism is based on subjectivism. Subjectivism is the false belief that feelings and objective reality are one and the same. If you FEEL it, then it must be TRUE. If you FEEL offended when someone suggests that taxes shouldn’t be 95 percent, or fossil fuels should remain legal, that inflation is a bad thing, or that five-year-olds are not able to determine their sexual orientation or gender identity — if you FEEL offended when anyone expresses any of those views, then your feelings are valid. You have a right to shut up the people saying these things and (on the same premise, extended further), you have a right to lock up, haul away or perhaps even kill people who hold views that offend you.

Leftists are unable to tolerate other opinions, because their feelings rule their minds and their lives. And they’re using social/interpersonal pressure combined — increasingly — with brute government force to get their way.

Elon Musk stands in their way. You can expect a wrath unleashed on him even worse than what you saw against Donald Trump.

And really, watching leftists experience unbearable anxiety and melt down in public — it’s a beautiful thing.

A New Era of Objectivism

The Atlas Society stands for an open, benevolent, intellectually tolerant approach to Objectivism in which philosophical disagreements are dealt with through civil discussion and intellectual exchange. We adopted this approach partly in contrast to an approach that has led to many unnecessary conflicts and schisms among adherents of Ayn Rand’s philosophy over the years, as discussed in David Kelley’s book, Truth and Toleration in Objectivism (1990, 2019).

The Ayn Rand Institute recently published a long article addressing this history of schisms—the first official comment on the issue from that wing of the Objectivist movement in many years. The article rehearses selective details of some disagreements among Objectivists in an attempt to vindicate the many bridges ARI has burned over the decades. Yet along the way, it ends up embracing the key ideas The Atlas Society has been advocating all along.

First, ARI acknowledges that it is not the definitive representative or arbiter of the philosophy of Objectivism.

ARI does not regard itself as the leader of an organized Objectivist movement:

ARI…does not pretend to be a spokesman for Ayn Rand or Objectivism…. ARI seeks a “movement” only in the sense that Rand describes above: independent individuals and organizations working on the task of spreading ideas—specifically, on increasing awareness and understanding of Objectivism—who cooperate when they find it mutually beneficial to do so and who otherwise go their separate ways.

Moreover, they concede that after Ayn Rand’s death, “She was no longer there to police the use or misuse of her name or philosophy, to declare who is an authorized representative and who is not. And no one could reasonably regard any existing individual or organization as a spokesman for a person now deceased.”

As to whether this is how ARI has actually conducted itself over the years, those who have been in the movement can consult their own memories of the various past disagreements and decide for themselves. Rather than revive these debates, we choose simply to accept this implicit acknowledgement that the questions of what the philosophy of Objectivism means, what principles are essential to it, and what new ideas are consistent with it are to be evaluated by every individual Objectivist based on his own judgment. No person or organization has a central role or special authority. To which we can only say: “Amen.”

Second, ARI acknowledges that ideological disagreement within a movement, even sometimes deep and bitter disagreement, is normal and natural.

It is entirely normal for a movement that is engaged in bringing important new knowledge to the world to have leaders who disagree, often vehemently, about the meaning and application of that knowledge.

If disagreement is normal, it should be treated as such and addressed through the ordinary norms of intellectual debate, not through division into warring camps along with warnings against sanctioning each other’s sanctioners. We are glad to see that such demands have now been conspicuously dropped and ARI has nominally adopted the more benevolent approach of “going our separate ways” as and when we disagree.

That leads us to the final point of interest in this article, which is its repeated use of the phrase “other Objectivists,” including “other Objectivist intellectuals or organizations,” to describe the counter-parties of the various breaks and schisms. It is an implicit recognition that despite our disagreements, we are all advocates of the same philosophy and that there is a multiplicity of Objectivist voices.

Objectivism is and should be a movement of “independent individuals and organizations…who cooperate when they find it mutually beneficial to do.” We agree and are glad to see the Ayn Rand Institute endorsing the same idea. There is still a great deal that needs to be done to make this happen, rationally and benevolently, in practice. But we are happy to see it acknowledged in theory.

The Atlas Society has been putting these principles into practice for many years, and to the extent others choose to follow that lead, we can all move forward into a new and more productive era in the Objectivist movement.

The Atlas Institute

“I Wanted to Watch them Die Right in Front of my Fu***ng Face”–Frank James

“Person of interest” Frank James. Image provided by the New York City Police Department.

Yesterday, someone opened fire on the occupants of a New York City subway. The shooter injured ten people (none fatally) and another 13 people were injured in the rush to get out of harm’s way.

The prime suspect is Frank R. James because the key to a U-Haul Mr. James rented was found at the scene of the crime, along with a Glock, ammunition, gasoline, a hatchet, and smoke grenades.

Police at a nearby street after a shooting took place at a subway station in Brooklyn, New York, the United States, on April 12, 2022. (Credit Image: © Wang Ying / Xinhua via ZUMA Press)

Keechant Sewell, NYC’s black Police Commissioner, noted that Mr. James has “made some concerning posts” without going into much detail. The “concerning posts” show that Mr. James is a black radical unopposed to violence. In a YouTube video (since removed) uploaded a day before the shooting, he said:

I’ve been through a lot of shit, where I can say I wanted to kill people. I wanted to watch them die right in front of my fucking face immediately. But I thought about the fact, ‘Hey, I don’t want to go to no fucking prison. Fuck that! I’m not going to no fucking prison. I’m just not.’

In another video (also since removed), he seemed to imply that the Russo-Ukrainian War was a kind of test run for whites hoping to exterminate blacks:

They’re white, you’re not. They’re doing that to each other? What do they think they’re going to do to you? It’s just a matter of time before these white motherf—ers say, ‘Hey listen, enough is enough, these n—–s gotta go.’ What’re you going to do? You gonna fight. And guess what? You gonna die.

Other posts criticized NYC Mayor Eric Adams in broad terms, and Ketanji Brown Jackson for marrying a white man.

March 23, 2022: Ketanji Brown Jackson is embraced by her husband Patrick Jackson following the third and final day of her Senate nomination hearings. (Credit Image: © Rod Lamkey / CNP via ZUMA Press Wire)

Information about the race of the ten people shot is unavailable. However, if Mr. James really did the deed, he was almost certainly copying Colin Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson, a black Jamaican, opened fire on passengers of a NYC subway in 1993. His motive was vengeance against the white man, and all of his victims were white or Asian. It will be interesting to see how the media spins this story as more information becomes available.

Chris Roberts

America is in its Second Civil War

Republicans are usually worthless, except for DeSantis. Now the governor of Texas has found his inner DeSantis. He is holding the Biden regime accountable for the impeachable offense of refusing to enforce America’s borders under existing law. He has shipped illegal immigrants to the Imperial City.

We know the tactic had an effect. How? The leftists occupying the capital of the former American republic are really, really mad.

Texas’ action isn’t just symbolic. It’s an exercise of state power over federal power in defense of the American Constitution, and — more fundamentally — the U.S. Bill of Rights. Enforcing the border is an individual rights issue. The Biden regime is letting anyone and everyone into the country, creating a state of lawlessness and anarchy so that it may hook millions of people on government programs, ensuring a DemCom majority forever. And the tactic may well work. But states like Texas have other options. They can do what their present governor did — ship illegal aliens to annoy the corrupt elite in the Imperial City.

And, worst case, Texas can secede once it becomes clear — as it will, on our present course — that the unaccountable leftist regime in D.C. is an enemy of individual rights, the U.S. Constitution and — therefore — an enemy of Texas too.

Other states and localities will have to follow suit, at some point. Not just with immigration, but with vax mandates, permanent mask mandates, deliberate inflation and decisive destruction of the American economy. Otherwise, the occupying forces in D.C. are going to swallow all of us up. Like it or not, we’re already in a civil war. The only choice is how soon you accept it.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Biden is Making Fools out of Progressive Democrats

Like a lepidopteran Charlie Brown drawn to Lucy van Pelt’s flaming football, congressional progressives keep falling for corporate Democrats’ pathetically predictable, and transparently self-serving, pleas for unity. Support our priorities, the centrists keep urging, and we’ll get around to your stuff later.

How much later?

We’ll tell you later.

“Progressives have grown increasingly accustomed to disappointment with the Biden administration,” the Daily Beast reports with the breaking-news tone of “sun rises in east,” “and now a proposed increase in Department of Defense and law enforcement spending are causing them to air their grievances anew with just months left before the 2022 election.” Insanely — remember, we just left Afghanistan, so war spending should drop precipitously — President Joe Biden’s latest budget proposes a record high of $813 billion in military spending, an increase of $30 billion from last year. He just sent $13 billion to Ukraine. Plus, he wants $32 billion for cops.

Refund the police.

Whether working inside a system diametrically opposed to your values has ever been effective is historically debatable. Since Bill Clinton ditched the New Deal coalition of the working class, labor and Black voters in favor of Wall Street banks and other large corporate donors, it certainly has never worked for progressives inside the Democratic Party.

Impotent and hopeless, members of the AOC-led House Squad and left-leaning senators only have one option left to make a strong political statement: leave the Democratic Party and either join the Greens or form a new progressive party. But that would risk ridicule and marginalization by liberal media outlets like The New York Times and MSNBC, not to mention grassroots organizing, which requires hard work like talking to voters and getting rained upon.

So the squeaky mice of the inside-the-Beltway progressive left are reduced to issuing sad little whines in response to once again getting the shaft.

“If budgets are value statements, today’s White House proposal for Pentagon spending shows that we have a lot of work to do,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), Reps. Barbara Lee (D-California) and Mark Pocan (D-Wisconsin) wrote in a statement in response to Biden’s GOP-inspired budget.

“It’s a mistake,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said.

“You know, you want to say ‘fund the police,’ cool. But you also talk about police accountability,” added Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York).

These quotes appeared in an article headlined “Left Seethes at Biden’s Big Defense Budget.”

I know seething. Seething is a friend of mine.

“Work to do” is not seething. “Mistake” is not seething. “Police accountability” is not seething.

“I think this year’s number was too much,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Yes — by about 1,000%.

Biden’s Build Back Better infrastructure package, which incorporated some progressive priorities, died because the White House and its corporate Democratic allies in Congress didn’t go to the mat for it; in particular, they weren’t willing to punish DINO Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema by threatening to strip the traitors of their committee assignments.

Increasing the national minimum wage to $15 an hour, a progressive priority for the last decade, is dead under Biden.

There’s been no movement on another key platform plank of Bernie Sanders’ presidential bids: student loan forgiveness.

About 112 million Americans struggle to afford health care, and we’ve lost nearly 1 million Americans to the COVID-19 pandemic, yet Biden, satisfied with his former running mate’s wobbly Affordable Care Act, hasn’t spent a penny of political capital, or cash capital, on Medicare For All.

Besides lessons in humility and patience, what exactly do congressional progressives gain by working inside the Democratic Party? Mainstream legitimacy. But to paraphrase Lyndon B. Johnson, what the hell else is working inside the Democratic Party for if it never pays off?

While the self-identified progressive congressional Democrats spin their wheels, their constituents get a defense budget that Donald Trump would be proud of, higher taxes to pay for more police and soaring prices chomping away at a $7.25 national minimum wage last increased in 2009. (Adjusted for inflation, that’s $5.48 today.)

At this point, progressive voters can only draw one logical conclusion about the decision of AOC, the Squad and other supposedly left-wing congressmen and senators to remain inside the Democratic Party: Their sole purpose is to legitimize and prop up an institution that’s working against them, their ideas and their supporters.

Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of a new graphic novel about a journalist gone bad, “The Stringer.”

It’s Free !

One of the most misused words in the English language is “free,” as in “it’s free.” Whether it’s the free samples of stuff at Costco, or the free pens and refrigerator magnets they give away at your local bank or car dealership, or the free hip replacement your mother-in-law just received, we use the term freely, so to speak, without ever considering it’s true meaning.  When we say “it’s free,” what we really mean is that someone else is paying for it—voluntarily or involuntarily.  And this is a very important distinction. Because one is morally defensible, while the other is not.  One involves a clear violation of private property rights, enshrined in the Seventh Commandment, while the other does not.  The Seventh Commandment states, “Thou Shalt Not Steal Thy Neighbor’s Goods.” This is the clearest affirmation of private property rights ever handed down.  By The Man Himself.  And it’s etched in stone.  You can’t take someone else’s things, period. And just because you take something from someone and turn around and give it to someone you believe is deserving doesn’t justify it either. The Seventh Commandment is everything the Good Lord ever had to say about “social justice,”–about what is mine and what is thine.

The free samples of some new pineapple/anchovy salsa being handed out by the nice ladies in latex gloves at Costco are not really free.  They are either being paid for by Costco, or the company that makes those dreadful concoctions.  So while Costco is erroneously saying, “Try these free samples,” what they really should be saying is, “Try one of these dreadful concoctions that we or the producer are paying for.”  The same with the pens and refrigerator magnets at your local bank or car dealership. And the customers are likewise incorrect when they proudly tell their spouses, “The pens were free, Honey.”

So, while the merchants and customers are misusing the word free in these examples, if only because it’s convenient, the actions in both cases are not immoral.  Neither action involves breaking the Seventh Commandment nor anyone’s private property rights. Both the salsa and the pens and refrigerator magnets are owned by the parties giving them away. The owners can dispose of them as they wish.  But, in any event, they are not free. Someone had to pay for them.

In the case of your mother-in-law’s hip replacement, however, it is neither free nor morally acquired. The new hip wasn’t free; it was clearly paid for by somebody else, in this case the taxpayer.  And it was not morally acquired, since it involved a breach of the Seventh Commandment and private property rights.  The money to pay for her new hip came out of her neighbor’s pocket, the very party the Seventh Commandment (and the United States Constitution) was designed to protect. The money to pay for the hip was taken from her neighbor by a third party, an intermediary we customarily call the government. Third Party intervention, however, does not legitimize the violation of the Seventh Commandment nor the very private property rights protected by the Seventh Commandment.  If a highwayman robs you at gun-point and tells you they are going to give all your money to the needy, it doesn’t make it right.  It’s still a violation of that pesky Seventh Commandment.

Both the hip replacement and the act of that thoughtful highwayman involve a breach of the Seventh Commandment and the private property rights protected by the Seventh Commandment.  In either case, the ends do not justify the means.  Nor is the hip replacement free.  But if you ask your mother-in-law how much she had to pay for the hip replacement, she would in all likelihood and without a second thought say, “It was free.” What she really should have said was, “My neighbor paid for it, and they didn’t even ask him for permission.”

So the next time you’re about to casually say, “It’s free,” think again.  Because, rightly or wrongly, it really means somebody else is paying for it.

The Artful Dilettante—Conscience of the Second American Revolution