Category Archives: Ayn Rand

Putting together yesterdays post brought to mind my own experience with right wing atheism, which turned out to be a significant catalyst in my own spiritual pilgrimage. I tell about that pilgrimage, in part, in the new third edition of Spirituality of the Cross, but I didnt tell about this. So I thought Id tell you about it.

When I was in high school in Oklahoma in the 1960s, my best friend was a fellow adolescent intellectual. We had lots in common, but at the time I was a liberala Kennedy/LBJ Democrat all in for civil rights and the Great Society programsand my friend was a conservative, a Goldwater Republican. We loved to argue politics. (You might think by todays standards that it is impossible for people who disagree with each other politically to be friends, let alone best friends, but trust me, this happened back in those days.)

The Vietnam War was going on, as was the draft. My friend and I were still in school and too young to be drafted, but this was hanging over us. At the time, I supported the warafter all, this was LBJs war, as started by Kennedy, so I was loyal to that legacyand, if called, I would have served. Although the anti-war movement had started up, most of our small town, both Democrats and the few Republicans, supported the war, as we saw it, against Communist expansion. (Back then, both political parties were in substantial agreement on foreign policy, particularly when it came to the Cold War against Communism.)

So our town was surprised when my friends older brother, a brilliant guy and a star basketball player, fled to Canada to avoid the draft.

I thought your family was all arch-conservative like you, I said to my friend. How did your draft-dodger brother get to be even further to the left than I was?

It wasnt like that, he explained. My brother isnt a pacifist. He doesnt have any moral problem with this particular war. He doesnt care about any of that stuff. He doesnt believe he should risk dying for any cause or any person. He believes in the virtue of selfishness. He has been reading Ayn Rand.

I had never heard of this person, so my friendwho was also distraught about what his brother didexplained her beliefs and even lent me some of her books. Basically, she taught that human beings should always follow their individual self-interests. This is how free market capitalism works, and this is how evolution works.

But altruism, the notion that we should do things for other people, to the point of sacrificing ourselves and our interests for others, is the source of all of our personal and social problems. And the great teacher of altruism, the person who introduced the seemingly attractive but really toxic notions of selflessness, charity, and love, is Jesus Christ. Whereas most thinkers, even those hostile to religion, pay at least some tribute to Jesushonoring Him, trying to co-opt Him to their position, insisting that His followers have understood Him, etc.Rand pulls no punches in denouncing Jesus, His ethical teachings, and His influence.

She was a rigorous atheist and materialist, who insisted that we must be governed by reason alone. She called her philosophy objectivism. She put the highest value on individualism and freedom. Politically, she championed laissez faire freemarket capitalism, a small non-interfering government, and no welfare or social programs of any kind. That gave her impeccable conservative credentials, though her thought has been most influential with libertarians.

Reading Rand was unsettling. I was a mainline liberal Protestant, but I had a general orientation to Christianity and appreciation for Jesus. And since my church mainly taught good works and the social gospel, her critique of moralityparticularly the impulse to help other people rather than oneselfwas especially disorienting.

My friend and I talked about her ideas, but while we both recoiled from what she was saying, to our eager but immature minds, it was hard to see why she was wrong.

Then one night, my friend told me that he had been born again. God is real. Ive experienced Him. And Jesus is not just an ethical teacher that you can agree or disagree with. He is the Savior. From that point on, he knew that Ayn Rand was wrong.

My friends conversion also helped settled the matter for me. I realized that if God actually exists, an argument, however logical, does not take away His existence. God can manifest Himself in different ways. He is not a philosophical abstraction but a person who can make Himself known, as He did to my friend.

But I couldnt relate to all this Baptist stuff from my friend. As a matter of fact, he went on to become a Baptist minister. But, mainline liberal Protestant that I was, his new religiosity was alien to me, though we still remained friends.

Later, though, I had my own epiphany. My friend and I pooled our money to buy J. R. R. Tolkiens Lord of the Rings trilogy. I was blown away by it. My reactions were well-expressed by one of the blurbs on the back of the paperback edition: here are beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron. Exactly!, I thought. And I remembered the name of the person who said that: C. S. Lewis.

When I was browsing in a bookstore during a trip to Tulsa, I recognized the name on a book. I opened it up and saw that it was dedicated to J. R. R. Tolkien. The book was Screwtape Letters. When I read the introduction I recognized an intellect of the highest order who seemed to be taking concepts like the Devil and Christianity with total seriousness. And the book itself was a comical and artistic masterpiece. I had to read more from this C. S. Lewis.

What I appreciated from Mere Christianity is that Lewis shows that Christianity, contrary to what Rand said, is reasonable, that there is a rational case for Christianity. And Lewis was far more learned, far more humane, far more open to the vast range of life than the the narrow, harsh, and angry Rand. And Lewiss Abolition of Man, his defense of objective morality, completely demolished Rands dismissal of traditional ethics.

In the meantime, I also learned what Christianity is, something neither Rand nor my liberal church seemed to grasp. I learned that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. And The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe taught me what it meant that Jesus died for my sins.

Thus started the long and winding road to Lutheran Christianity, which I tell about from that time forward in the third edition of Spirituality of the Cross.

But even Ayn Rand played a part in that.

As for how I became politically conservative, that is a story for another day.

Photo: Ayn Rand by Julius Jskelinen, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

See the article here:

My Experience with Conservative Atheism | Gene Veith - Patheos

Sajid Javid has left people incredibly confused after setting out his vision for healthcare in the UK - and spoiler alert he doesnt sound that happy about the states role in it.

Showing his unwavering love for Ayn Rand, the health secretary questioned why people go to the state when they have a health issue and said people have to take some responsibility for their health too.

The state was needed in this pandemic more than anytime in peacetime, he said. But government shouldnt own all risks and responsibilities in life.

We as citizens have to take some responsibility for our health too. We shouldnt always go first to the state. What kind of society would that be?

Health and social care it begins at home. It should be family first, then community, then the state.

Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

If you do need support, we live in a compassionate, developed country that can afford to help with that. There are few higher callings than to care for another person.

Javid was speaking at the Conservative Party conference yesterday. During the speech, the minister also reminisced on his time volunteering in a care home - we hope not shouting at people to get their family to look after them instead - and said that he expected NHS waiting lists to get worse before they get better.

Javid said: My priorities are simple: Covid, recovery, reform. Covid: getting us, and keeping us, out of the pandemic. Recovery: tackling the huge backlog of appointments it has caused. And reform of our health and social care systems for the long term.

But it was his comments on personal responsibility that stuck out and left people confused.

Labour MP Sarah Jones called his idea a strange view of the world and the NHS.

While others similarly slammed the idea, pointing out that it was an odd thing to say after increasing national insurance taxes to pay for healthcare, and that the point of the NHS is to look after ill people:

So, next time you break your arm or something, get your family to put it in a sling first, then pop round to your neighbours to see if they can help, then if it really cant be sorted out with an ibuprofen and a rest then we guess you can go to the doctor.

Originally posted here:

Sajid Javid leaves people baffled with comments on who should be responsible for health and social care - indy100

The Xbox 360 is fondly remembered by many as one of the best game consoles of all time, and it had a vast library of excellent games to choose from. Indeed, the console welcomed more than 2,000 games, and while they were not all excellent, many were. Were looking back at the Xbox 360s glory days and listing off the 15 best Xbox 360 gamesin alphabetical orderfrom the second-ever Xbox that Microsoft made.

Many of the games listed below are still playable today on Xbox One and Xbox Series Xsome of them were even remastered with updated visuals and mechanics. For more modern Xbox recommendations, check out our roundups of the best Xbox Series X games and best Xbox One games.

2009s Batman: Arkham Asylum was a watershed moment for Batman games and is regarded today as one of the best comic book games ever. Developed by UK studio Rocksteady as one of its first games, Arkham Asylum is beloved for its excellent story, which was written by Batman veteran Paul Din, and performances by Kevin Conry (Batman), Mark Hamill (Joker), and Arleen Sorkin (Harley Quinn). The games combat was also one of its most praised elements, with players able to chain attacks together in a free-flowing system that felt satisfying, rewarding, powerful, and fair. Its no surprise that the game spawned multiple sequels and a wider universe of comic book games. If you want to check it out today, Batman Arkham Collection contains all three of Rocksteadys Batman games and is playable on Xbox One and Series X.

Read our Batman: Arkham Asylum review.

BioShock is often cited on lists of the greatest games of all time. Written and directed by Ken Levine, BioShock tells a period story set in the underwater world of Rapture. The story evoked themes of Ayn Rand and George Orwell, and apart from its gripping story and big twists, its memorable for spawning Big Daddies and Little Sisters. The game really nailed its style and tone, which made it a truly unique experience. You can play the entire BioShock series by purchasing BioShock: The Collection for Xbox One (playable on Series X).

Read our BioShock review.

Remembered as one of the most influential and best Call of Duty games ever, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was part of the incredible 2007 that saw many other great games release. Developed by Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare took the Call of Duty franchise out of a historical setting and into modern times. The globe-trotting story took players to many different conflict zones and served up one of the most memorable Call of Duty missions ever: All Ghillied Up. The multiplayer was a real show-stopper, too, advancing the formula with a long list of now-common multiplayer elements like killstreaks, custom loadouts, and the ability to earn XP toward new weapons and gear. A remastered version of Modern Warfare released several years back, so its playable on Xbox One and Series X.

Read our Call of Duty: Modern Warfare review.

From Softwares successor to Demons Souls, Dark Souls released in 2011 and was a runaway success that remains beloved by fans today. We praised the game for its gorgeous and frightening world and its excellent combat mechanics that make every attack feel powerful and precise. Dark Souls is also remembered for its very different bosses that test your skill and determination, while the games novel online element that allowed players to cooperate and compete became a fixture in future games. The series has remained popular over the years, and From Software is now innovating once again with Elden Ring in 2022. You can play the remastered edition of Dark Souls on Xbox One and Series X.

Read our Dark Souls review.

Long before Deathloop, Arkane made a name for itself with Dishonored. Released in 2012 at the tail-end of the Xbox 360 console cycle, Dishonored was praised at the time for its impeccable and striking design that helps bring its setting to life. Here at GameSpot, we scored the game a 9/10 and also gave props to its level design, superb voice acting, and vast suite of abilities that encouraged players to play with creativity and style. Dishonored featured a celebrity voice cast that included Susan Sarandon, Michael Madsen, Lena Headey, Chloe Grace Moretz, Carrie Fisher, and Brad Dourif.

Read our Dishonored review.

Bethesda Game Studios open-world RPG The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is now available on basically every platform under the sun, but its origins date back to the Xbox 360 era. The game was released in November 2011 and few could have predicted the bonafide phenomenon that it would become. Directed by Todd Howard and the winner of many Game of the Year awards, Skyrim was praised in part for its open-ended structure that allowed players to venture through a fantastical world full of monsters and magic. Many believe Skyrim remains Bethesdas best RPG ever, and as for why Bethesda keeps releasing it on more and more platforms, well, we only have ourselves to blame.

Read our Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim review.

Long before Epic Games was known for Fortnite, the studio created the Gears of War franchise, with Cliff Bleszinski as its designer and director. Released one year into the Xbox 360s lifecycle in November 2006, Gears of War was a stunner with its cover combat, co-op support, and completely over-the-top action involving fighting giant enemies. Gears of War also introduced the world to the gun-with-a-chainsaw, the Lancer, which would go on to become iconic for the series and shooter games overall. Epic eventually sold Gears of War to Microsoft, which is now developing the series via The Coalition studio. Gears of War was later remastered for Xbox One and is available to play via Game Pass.

Read our Gears of War review.

Rockstars Grand Theft Auto V is still going strong today, selling millions of copies every few months, and its even set for release on PS5 and Xbox Series X|S in 2022. The games journey actually began back in 2013, when it was released on Xbox 360. A stunning display of creative and technical achievement, GTA V is remembered by many as one of the great games of all timeand certainly one of the most commercially successful, too. In addition to the wonderful open-world campaign, GTA V has remained relevant thanks to Grand Theft Auto Online, the massive multiplayer playground that is essentially its own game at this point.

Read our Grand Theft Auto V review.

Another one of the great games of 2007, Bungies Halo 3 is revered for its multiplayer mode that many still see as the high watermark for the series. The single-player campaign was also one of the best in franchise history. It told a gripping story of Master Chief, Cortana, and The Arbiter fighting Covenant through the galaxy. The game also introduced the map- and mode-making toolset, Forge, which would go on to be a defining feature of the series. It would be among the final Halo games developed by Bungie before it exited the series and Microsofts 343 Industries took control. Today, the best way to play Halo 3 is by grabbing the Master Chief Collection, which is also included with Xbox Game Pass. If youre curious where Halo 3 lands on our overall list, check out our Halo mainline series ranking.

Read our Halo 3 review.

2008s zombie shooter Left 4 Dead not only had great box art (who could forget those four fingers?) but it was an excellent multiplayer shooter that reenergized the gaming landscapes obsession with zombie games. The four-player co-op shooter takes place after a zombie outbreak and your job is to take them out with your squad mates in a variety of settings. The game had more than just mindless zombie hordes to overcome; it also featured numerous different zombie types, including the horrifying Witch and the hulking Boomer.

Who could forget Limbo? 2010s puzzle-platformer from developer Playdead was striking and haunting, with simple-enough controls for anyone to pick up. The tone of Limbo is eerie, and the fact that the small child you control can, and often does, die in horrible ways in this black-and-white side-scrolling game is something few who played the game will ever forget. The games ending led to many different interpretations of what actually happened and what it all means, and that mystery is part of what made the game so memorable. Limbo is playable on Xbox One and Series X and is included as part of Game Pass.

Read our Limbo review.

Yet another of the standout releases of 2007 was BioWares original Mass Effect. After years of developing fantasy games, BioWare took its talents to space and into the realm of sci-fi with an engrossing and rewarding role-playing game that spawned a franchise. It also introduced the world to Commander Shepard, who is now one of gamings most recognizable characters. Mass Effect was praised for its powerful storyline, its many and varied characters and choice-based dialogue, and its setting. Lesser-loved elements like vehicle navigation and combat would be improved upon in subsequent installments, as well as the retooled trilogy released in 2021.

Read our Mass Effect review.

2011s Portal 2 took what made the original Portal great and dialed it up in a satisfying way. Valves puzzle game sees players controlling Chell in the halls of Aperture Science as she uses her portal gun to solve puzzles and figure out what was going on. The sequel not only added new equipment, but also a bigger celebrity cast, with J.K. Simmons and Stephen Merchant voicing characters. The sequel also had a co-op mode for solving puzzles with friends and featured music by The National. Portal 2 still stands tall as one of the best modern puzzle games.

Read our Portal 2 review.

Also released in 2007 during what was obviously an incredible year for games, Rock Band was Harmonixs successor to Guitar Hero and it turned things up to 11. Not only could you play guitar with a plastic peripheral, but you and friends could get together and live out the fantasy of being a rock band from the comfort of your living room. The game had a drum kit and microphone as well as a bass guitar mode to complete transition from solo act to full-on band. It was so much fun, and many have great memories of jamming out with friends late into the night.

Read our Rock Band review.

Super Meat Boy is one of the Xboxs most memorable games. Released in 2010 on Xbox Live Arcade (when that was a thing!), Super Meat Boy is an ultra-challenging platformer where you play as a bag of meat trying to rescue your girlfriend, Bandage Girl, from the evil Dr. Fetus. Developed by just two people, Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes, the game was also featured prominently in the documentary Indie Game: The Movie, which chronicled the games development and offered many fascinating insights in the process. Super Meat Boy is one of the games that helped garner widespread interest to smaller indie games. It feels just as good to play today as it did over a decade ago.

Read our Super Meat Boy review.

Continued here:

The 15 Best Xbox 360 Games Ever - Toys Matrix

Its hard to think of a single item in the culinary world thats more divisive than mayonnaise; like Ayn Rand, chihuahuas, and the music of Dave Matthews Band, mayo is one of those things people either love or despise with an undying passion with virtually no middle ground.

As a diehard Mayo Hater, I can barely stand the sight of Guy Fieris beloved food lube. Unfortunately, thanks to the cursed nature of the internet, Ive found myself routinely revolted by people who can happily down globs of it by the spoonful and filmed themselves doing exactly that to share with the world.

Ive also been downright offended by the unconventional ways people have dreamed up to consume mayo, including Dale Earnhardt Jr.s favorite sandwich and the ice cream shop that decided to whip up a frozen treat inspired by the Devils condiment.

Hellmanns didnt really need to do anything to cement its position near the top of my list of mortal enemies, but on Thursday, it managed to get bumped up a couple of spots just below People Who Play Music On Public Transportation thanks to a tweet with a suggestion that has understandably gotten the internet very riled up: putting mayo in your coffee.

I dont even want to attempt to rationalize the thought process that led to someone deciding it was a good idea to introduce that notion to the world; I guess it could be viewed as the spiritual relative of the Bulletproof Coffee that Had A Moment last decade, but its more likely it was engineered in a lab by scientists tasked with figuring out how to disgust the most people with the fewest words.

Based on the reactions the tweet managed to generate, they did their job very well.

After doing a bit of digging, it appears we can trace this all back to University of Kentucky quarterback Will Levis, who somehow managed to top the insane manner in which he eats bananas when he revealed hes a big Mayo in Coffee Guy on TikTok last week.

Earlier this week, Dukes Mayo Bowl gave that move a ringing endorsement, and it looks like Hellmanns decided to hop on the mayo coffee bandwagon.

Every day we stray further from Gods light

Continue reading here:

Horrified Twitter Users React To Hellmann's Telling People To Put Mayo In Their Coffee - BroBible

Looking for the best Xbox 360 games of all time? Crazy as it may seem, the good old Xbox 360 is now sixteen years old and, peering back over the history and back catalogue of Microsoft's amazing 7th gen console, there's an absolute feast of great games to choose from.

From excellent Xbox Arcade titles to fresh new franchises, top notch RPGs, thought-provoking shooters, amazing puzzlers, superhero spectaculars and more, there's something for every type of gamer here and most, if not all of them, are as impressive today as they were when they first released.

We've dug deep into this impressive array of titles in order to bring you what we consider to be the very best, the cream of the crop of Xbox 360 games in the list below. We've also gone ahead and flagged up whether each of our entries is available to grab via backwards compatibility on the current crop of consoles.

So, without further ado, let's jump in and see what we've picked as the best games on Xbox 360!

Whether or not you loved the very first Assassin's Creed game, or thought it little more than a fancy tech demo with a rather middling adventure attached, there's absolutely no doubting that its sequel came along and steered this fledgling franchise in exactly the right direction.

Assassin's Creed 2 provided the gameplay to go with the graphics in an outstanding game that sets players free across an astoundingly detailed Renaissance-era Italy, giving them a wonderfully intricate playground in which to stealth, stab and swordfight. Taking in multiple Italian cities, including Venice and Florence, and featuring cameos from a host of history's finest such as Leonardo da Vinci himself, Ezio's second outing is a fantastic, all-encompassing achievement that's a crowing glory in the pre-Origins Assassin's Creed series.

Rocksteady's take on the Dark Knight blew us all right out of our gaming chairs back in 2009 with its wonderfully bleak atmosphere, awesome combat and clever Metroid-esque world layout.

Donning the cape and cowl here saw players step into a world jam-packed full of detail, lore, an incredible cast of Gotham's deadliest villains and top-class voice acting from Kevin Conway, Mark Hamill and more. The free-flowing, combo-centric combat here was, and still is, some of the very best in video games and, combined with wonderfully well-realised detective/puzzle elements and a cracking story, resulted in an adventure that was easily the best superhero game ever released at the time. Batman: Arkham Asylum truly made us feel like we really were Batman and absolutely nailed what the Dark Knight is all about.

How do you follow up a game as breathtakingly good as Batman: Arkham Asylum? Well, you break down the walls of that infamous prison and give players a great big slice of city to run amok in.

The bright lights of Arkham City often mocked us from afar from certain vantage points in its predecessor, but Rocksteady's follow-up went ahead and delivered us a generously sized chunk Gotham City through which to grapnel, glide and zipline. The kickass combat, puzzles and metroidvania aspects return from the first game but in Batman: Arkham City they're joined by a truly liberating sense of being able to fully roleplay the bat, soaring down from above into street brawls, watching and waiting silently from a rooftop before gliding into battle, stalking your foes and choosing when to strike in style...it's wonderful stuff.

With a new rogue's gallery of villains to face off against, tons of puzzles, fantastic voice-acting, a top-notch story and New Game Plus mode that turns the heat up nicely, this one more than makes up for a slightly knuckleheaded portrayal of the Dark Knight himself by fully delivering the goods in the gameplay department. One of the great superhero games of all time, you owe it to yourself to glide right into this one.

One of the truly great action games of all time, Platinum Games' 2009 hack and slash extravaganza absolutely bewitched us way back when we first played it.

The story of an amnesiac, angel-slaying witch with guns on her shoes and a seriously killer haircut - and we really do mean killer - Bayonetta is one of the most slick, intricate and completely off the rails action experiences you're ever likely to have.

With sublime combo-centric combat that rewards players who take the time to learn, a completely nuts story that's absolutely dripping in lore and some of the most OTT boss fights and characters we've ever encountered, we just can't get enough of this Umbrian witch and her super sexy, ultra slick fighting style. Dodging into Witch Time to slow fights to a crawl, pummelling your heavenly foes into submission with a fist made from your hair, or racking them up for a Gigaton medieval torture finisher...hack and slash action just doesn't get any better than this, and if you think it does you can FUGGETABOUTIT!

Ryu Ga Gotoku Studio's 2012 shooter has become something of a cult classic over the years - we actually don't know anyone who doesn't love it - and for plenty of good reason.

Binary Domain's post-apocalyptic story tells of a world where robots are now the main workforce and charges you with blasting the absolute hell out of absolutely tons of them, issuing commands to your squad and watching how your actions and attitude affected the game's storyline through its unique Consequence System,

However, what really makes Binary Domain worthy of inclusion on this list is just how good it feels to rip robots apart here, blowing chunks off their exoskeletons with great big meaty weapons as they cleverly flank and swarm your position. The musclebound cast of characters also spout the cheesiest, gruffest, dumbest lines of dialogue possible, which is exactly what we're looking for in this scenario. It's cathartic, OTT and ridiculous in all the best possible ways, looks great, has a completely mad story and stands up well to repeated playthroughs. If you haven't yet, we strongly recommend you seek this one out and get stuck in.

Ken Levine's spiritual successor to System Shock, Bioshock is quite unlike anything we're ever played before or since.

A meditation on the nature of man and society that draws from the works of Ayn Rand, Huxley, Orwell and more to inform its nightmarish vision of an underwater utopia gone seriously wrong, it's a horrifying, mesmerising, genre-defining piece of work.

And away from its more cerebral elements it's also a damn great shooter, with myriad ways with which to dispose of your terrifying foes. Whether through straight-up gunplay, plasmid-based attacks, sneaky stealth or meddling with mechanics to turn the tide in your favour, Bioshock's combat is delightfully open-ended, giving you a robust set of options with which to set about its truly haunting world.

Jack's journey from plane crash, to bathysphere, to deep underwater hellhole and beyond is a genuine tour-de-force that stands up as one of the truly great games and a journey you simply owe it to yourself to take.

It's hard to believe that 2013's Bioshock Infinite is still the most recent entry in the beloved series, but it certainly doesn't disappoint, even by today's standards. It's quite a departure compared to the original Bioshock trilogy, taking place in the flying steampunk city of Columbia (instead of focusing around the underworld city of Rapture), and that change of pace proved a fantastic breath of fresh air for the franchise.

These days, you're probably best off playing this one (and the rest of the Bioshock games) in the Bioshock Collection for Xbox One, but they're also backwards compatible if you can grab the Xbox 360 versions cheap.

Publisher: 2K Games / Developer: Gearbox Software

Release Date: TBA

Gearbox's 2012 sequel took the undeniable promise of its predecessor and built upon it fully, expanding your zany adventures on Pandora into a fully-fledged epic adventure with a much-improved story, absolutely tons of loot and guns and plenty of replay value.

Blasting around Pandora here with up to three friends in co-op mode it's hard to deny the continued allure of Borderlands 2, we love the aesthetic, the gunplay is rock solid, Handsome Jack is an awesome new character, the weapons are endlessly inventive...heck there's enough good stuff here to help us completely ignore the fact that we absolutely loathe claptrap and aren't huge fans of the series' humour in general - the gameplay is just that good. If you're looking for some madcap looter shooter action, this is a super solid shout.

We weren't entirely sure what to make of the idea of an open world Burnout game when we first got wind of Burnout Paradise, we like our Burnout tightly contained on tricky little tracks and full of spectacular smashes. However, once we actually got our hands on this one, we quickly realised that Criterion Games had crafted a cracker.

Paradise City is custom built to accommodate your most destructive tendencies, a bespoke playground littered with hidden paths, jumps, shortcuts destructible objects and events at every junction. The smashing action, driving and sense of speed feels great here, this game is just fun to play around in, the showtime events bring the madness of Crash Mode back to life and online play is seamlessly integrated into the experience.

With tons of cars to takedown and add to your collection, an excellent soundtrack (even if that DJ needs shutting up) and visuals that still look great today, Burnout Paradise is a fantastic open world entry into one of our favourite racing franchises.

Publisher: Activision / Developer: Infinity Ward

Release Date: TBA

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's shifting to a modern theatre of war brought the horrors of conflict home in a way the series had failed to do up until this point.

Yes we'd had the D-Day landings and countless other historical events chronicled in detail in previous releases in the franchise, but there was something disturbingly immediate about Modern Warfare. The spooky green glow of night-vision, the terrorists we knew were currently our real world enemies, that AC-130 Gunship level where you flattened so many human targets indiscriminately...it was something entirely different.

And yet the same. For all the horror, this was Call of Duty as it ever was, an almost on-rails ride through a short and spectacular campaign, something to polish up your skills and get you used to the game's tweaked mechanics before you were unleashed on the massively revamped multiplayer with its perks and loadouts and everything that the game still adheres to all this time later.

A high point in the series for sure, Modern Warfare set a new standard for Infinity Ward and delivered an experience that still stands up as one of the very best Call of Duty's to date.

Link:

The Best Xbox 360 Games Of All Time - Pure Xbox

Introducing the Ayn Rand University, dedicated to creating the new generation of Objectivist intellectuals.

A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war.

Those words by Ayn Rand helped inspire the Ayn Rand Institutes biggest initiative so far, announced by CEO Tal Tsfany at the 2021 Objectivist Summer Conference in Austin, Texas: the Ayn Rand University.

An educational organization that is going to be growing over the years and decades to come, the ARU will leverage the Institutes unique strengths. The vision, Tsfany said, is to create new generations of what Ayn Rand called New Intellectuals.

Tsfanys talk outlined the vision for ARU and the plans for its growth. The Institutes Objectivist Academic Center will be repurposed as a two-year undergraduate-level program in Objectivism and philosophy, with an introduction to methods of objective communication and writing in Year Two.

For individuals with potential to become Objectivist scholars, the Objectivist Graduate Center will offer intensive, advanced courses in many different subjects, such as an advanced seminar on Rands Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, courses on morality and moral judgment, and advanced writing and editing.

Those completing these programs and aiming for careers in philosophy or the core humanities will have available three general career paths: (1) working for ARI as teaching assistants, junior fellows or faculty members; (2) working as intellectuals in academia and think tanks or working independently, or (3) becoming intellectual professionals in fields such as education, law and psychology.

The ARU initiative calls for expanding the faculty, hiring teaching assistants, and recruiting junior fellows to join the Institutes staff to keep pace with growing student enrollment.

Since its founding in 1985, ARIs strategy has always been to attract bright young minds to Rands works and ideas and to offer advanced training in Objectivism, said ARIs vice president of education, Keith Lockitch. But Tal Tsfanys new vision for ARU represents a new and deeper understanding of how to implement that strategy by focusing on our core strengths as an organization.

Learn more about the Ayn Rand University by watching Tsfanys talk, available here:

If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Read the rest here:

CEO Tal Tsfany on ARI's 'Biggest Initiative So Far' - New Ideal

The Supreme Courts decision in Lochner v. New York is as much maligned today as when this essay was first published in 2009. As just one example, a federal judge who approvingly cited Lochner in a recent decision nullifying coronavirus lockdowns set alarm bells ringing in liberal quarters over fears that economic liberty might be on the rise. By and large, however, Justice Holmess dissent in Lochner continues to hold sway, as evidenced by Justice Amy Coney Barretts decision to side with Holmes during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. As you will read, a dangerous intellectual vacuum plagues American constitutional jurisprudence. I want this article to serve as both a warning that change is needed and as a pointer toward the needed change.

* * *

On April 17, 1905, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. issued his dissenting opinion in the case of Lochner v. New York.1 At a mere 617 words, the dissent was dwarfed by the 9,000 words it took for the Supreme Courts eight other justices to present their own opinions. But none of this bothered Holmes, who prided himself on writing concisely. The vulgar hardly will believe an opinion important unless it is padded like a militia brigadier general, he once wrote to a friend. You know my view on that theme. The little snakes are the poisonous ones.2Of the many little snakes that would slither from Justice Holmess pen during his thirty years on the Supreme Court, the biting, eloquent dissent in Lochner carried perhaps the most powerful venom. A dissent is a judicial opinion in which a judge explains his disagreement with the other judges whose majority votes control a cases outcome. As one jurist put it, a dissent is an appeal . . . to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.3 Holmess Lochner dissent, though little noticed at first, soon attained celebrity status and eventually became an icon. Scholars have called it the greatest judicial opinion of the last hundred years and a major turning point in American constitutional jurisprudence.4 Today, his dissent not only exerts strong influence over constitutional interpretation and the terms of public debate, but it also serves as a litmus test for discerning a judges fundamental view of the United States Constitution. This means that any Supreme Court nominee who dares to question Holmess wisdom invites a fierce confirmation battle and risks Senate rejection. As one observer recently remarked, The ghost of Lochner continues to haunt American constitutional law.5

Holmess dissent in Lochner blasted the majority opinion endorsed by five members of the nine-man Court. Holmes, as if anticipating the modern era of sound bites, littered his dissent with pithy, quotable nuggets that seemed to render the truth of his opinions transparently obvious. Prominent scholars have called the dissent a rhetorical masterpiece that contains some of the most lauded language in legal history.6 His appeal to the intelligence of a future day was a stunning success. So thoroughly did Holmes flay the majoritys reasoning that Ronald Dworkin, a prominent modern legal philosopher, dismisses the majority decision as an infamous ... example of bad constitutional adjudication that gives off a stench; and Richard A. Posner, prolific author and federal appellate judge, writes that Lochner is the type of decision that stinks in the nostrils of modern liberals and modern conservatives alike.7

What heinous offense did the Lochner majority commit to provoke Holmess caustic dissent? It was not the fact that they had struck down a New York law setting maximum working hours for bakers. Holmes personally disapproved of such paternalistic laws and never questioned the Supreme Courts power to strike down legislation that violated some particular clause in the Constitution.8 No, in Holmess eyes the majoritys unforgivable sin did not lie in the particular result they reached, but in the method by which they reached it. The majority interpreted the Constitution as if it embodies a principled commitment to protecting individual liberty. But no such foundational principle exists, Holmes asserted, and the sooner judges realize they are expounding an empty Constitution empty of any underlying view on the relationship of the individual to the state the sooner they will step aside and allow legislators to decide the fate of individuals such as Joseph Lochner.

Lochner, a bakery owner whose criminal conviction sparked one of the Supreme Courts most significant cases, never denied he had violated the New York Bakeshop Act of 1895. Instead, he contended that the statute itself was unconstitutional. The majority agreed with Lochner, and Holmes was moved to dissent for reasons that are best understood against the background of Progressive Era reform.

The first decade of the twentieth century was a time of rapid economic and population growth in America. European immigrants streamed into the cities, searching for the upward economic and cultural mobility that defined the American Dream. Of course, they all needed to eat, and the baking industry was one of many that expanded rapidly to meet demand. From the growth pangs of that industry came the legal dispute that eventually took the form of Lochner v. New York.

The great, mechanized bakeries that today produce mass quantities of baked goods had not yet been organized. What few machines had been invented (such as the mechanical mixer, patented in 1880) were not widely owned.9 Thus three-quarters of Americas bread was baked at home, mostly in rural areas.10 But in the fast-growing cities, many people lived in tenement apartments that lacked an oven for home baking. Bread was baked here as it had been in urban environments for centuries, as it had been in ancient Rome in commercial ovens scattered about the city. Consumers could walk a short distance and buy what they would promptly eat before it went stale (the first plastic wrap, cellophane, was not manufactured in America until 1924).11 In New York City, bakeries were often housed in tenement basements whose solid earth floors could support the heavy ovens.

From the great Midwestern farms came massive railroad shipments of flour, which was packaged and distributed by wagons and trucks to each bakerys storeroom. Laborers were needed to unload bags and barrels that weighed as much as two hundred pounds; sift the flour and yeast; mix the flour with ingredients in great bowls, troughs, and sifters; knead the dough; fire up the ovens; shove the loaves in and out of the ovens; and clean and maintain the tools and facilities.12 Most urban bakeshops employed four or fewer individuals to perform this work.13 Long hours were typical, as was true generally of labor at the turn of the century, on farms and in factories. Indeed, bakers worked even longer hours than other laborers. Ovens were heated day and night, and bakers worked while others were sleeping, so that customers could buy fresh bread in the morning.14 A bakers workday might start in the late evening and end in the late morning or early afternoon of the next day.15 A typical workday exceeded 10 hours; workweeks often consumed 70 or 80 hours, and on occasion more than 100 hours.16

These bakeshops did not feature the clean, well-lit, well-ventilated working conditions that mechanization and centralization would later bring to the industry. Urban bakeshops shared dark, low-ceilinged basement space with sewage pipes. Dust and fumes accumulated for lack of ventilation. Bakeshops were damp and dirty, and facilities for washing were primitive.17 In order to entice people to work long hours in these conditions, shop owners had to offer wages high enough to persuade laborers to forgo other opportunities. A typical bakeshop employee would earn cash wages of as much as $12 per week.18 Despite harsh conditions, the mortality rate for bakers did not markedly exceed other occupations.19 And many who had escaped Europe to pursue upward mobility discovered that competing employers when they could be found offered nothing better.

No governmental or private coercion required anyone to take a bakery job within the state of New York. Labor contracts were voluntary, and terminable at will. The law left each individual employer and employee alike free to make his own decisions, based on his own judgment, and to negotiate whatever terms were offered. But such voluntary arrangements were not satisfactory to the New York legislature in these, the early years of what later became known as the Progressive Era. The hallmark of that political reform movement, which began in the 1890s and ended with World War I, was increased government intervention in the marketplace through such measures as railroad regulation, antitrust legislation, and income taxation. Progressive reformers focused special attention on housing and working conditions and advanced a variety of arguments that laws should limit hours of labor. Some said this would spread jobs and wealth among more people, eliminating unemployment. Others attacked the validity of labor contracts reached between bakeshop owners and laborers. According to one critic, An empty stomach can make no contracts. [The workers] assent but they do not consent, they submit but they do not agree.20

The Bakeshop Act of 1895, sponsored by a coalition of prominent powers in New York politics, passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously.21 The Act made it a crime for the owner of a bakeshop to allow a laborer to work more than 10 hours in one day, or more than 60 hours in one week. Bakeshop owners, however, were exempted; only employees hours were limited.22 Although similar laws in other states allowed employees to voluntarily opt out, New Yorks law included no such free-contract proviso.23 The law also provided funds for hiring four deputies to seek out violations and enforce the law.24

During the first three months after the Bakeshop Act took effect, 150 bakeries were inspected, of which 105 were charged with violations.25 In 1899, inspectors brought about the arrest of Joseph Lochner, a German immigrant whose shop, Lochners Home Bakery, was located upstate in Utica.26 Lochner had arrived in America at age 20 and worked for eight years as a laborer before opening his own shop. In contrast to the dreary basement bakeries that furnished the Bakeshop Acts rationale, Lochners bakery (at least, as shown in a 1908 photograph) seems to have been a relatively airy and mechanized aboveground shop.27 In any event, Lochner was indicted, arraigned, tried, and convicted of having offended the statute in December 1899, by permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. To avoid a 20-day jail sentence, Lochner paid the $20 fine.28 Two years later, Lochner was arrested again, for having allowed another employee to work more than 60 hours.29 (Not coincidentally, Lochner had been quarreling for many years with the Utica branch of the journeyman bakers union, an avid supporter of the maximum hours regulation.)30 Offering no defense at his 1902 trial, Lochner was sentenced to pay $50, or serve 50 days in jail. This time, however, instead of paying the fine, he appealed his conviction.31 Lochner seems to have been a hardheaded man who had determined that no one else was going to tell him how to run his business not the state of New York and especially not the workers or their union.32

READ ALSO: Ayn Rand on Applying the Principle of Objective Law

The next New York appellate court to consider Lochners case also treated the Bakeshop Act as a health law that trumped the parties right to make labor contracts. The court pointed out that the statute regulated not only bakers working hours but a bakeshops drainage, plumbing, furniture, utensils, cleaning, washrooms, sleeping places, ventilation, flooring, whitewashing, and walls, even to the point that the factory inspector may also require the wood work of such walls to be painted.35 Given the Acts close attention to such health-related details, the court thought it reasonable to assume ... that a man is more likely to be careful and cleanly when well, and not overworked, than when exhausted by fatigue, which makes for careless and slovenly habits, and tends to dirt and disease.36

New Yorks power to regulate for health reasons was grounded, the court held, in the police power that state governments possess as part of their sovereignty. While noting the impossibility of setting the bounds of the police power, the court held that the Bakeshop Acts purpose is to benefit the public; that it has a just and reasonable relation to the public welfare, and hence is within the police power possessed by the Legislature.37 According to a then-prominent legal treatise cited by the court, the Acts maximum hours provision was especially necessary to safeguard health against the supposedly mind-muddling effects of capitalism:

If the law did not interfere, the feverish, intense desire to acquire wealth...inciting a relentless rivalry and competition, would ultimately prevent, not only the wage-earners, but likewise the capitalists and employers themselves, from yielding to the warnings of nature and obeying the instinct of self-preservation by resting periodically from labor.38

In a concurring opinion, another judge warned that to invalidate the law would nullify the will of the people.39

In dissent, however, Judge Denis OBrien urged that the Bakeshop Act be struck down as unconstitutional. He, too, acknowledged the long-established understanding that the police power authorizes legislation for the protection of health, morals, or good order, but he did not believe that the maximum hours provision served any such purpose.40 Instead, he urged that this portion of the law be voided as an unjustified infringement on individual liberty:

Liberty, in its broad sense, means the right, not only of freedom from actual restraint of the person, but the right of such use of his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation. All laws, therefore, which impair or trammel those rights or restrict his freedom of action, or his choice of methods in the transaction of his lawful business, are infringements upon his fundamental right of liberty, and are void.41

In so dissenting, Judge OBrien was following leads supplied by Supreme Court justices as to how the Constitution should be interpreted. Justice Stephen Field, dissenting in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, had argued that a state monopoly on slaughterhouse work violated the right to pursue one of the ordinary trades or callings of life.42 And in Allgeyer v. Louisiana,an 1897 case, the Supreme Court had actually struck down a Louisiana insurance law, holding that the Constitutions references to liberty not only protect the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration but also embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties . . . to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper.43

As Joseph Lochner pondered his next step, he found cause for hope in the fact that his conviction had been upheld by the narrowest possible margins (32 and 43) in New Yorks appellate courts. The conflict between liberty of contract and the police power, like a seesaw teetering near equilibrium, seemed capable of tipping in either direction. Sensing that victory was attainable, Lochner took his fight to the highest court in the land.

When Lochners petition arrived at the Supreme Court, it was accepted for review by Justice Rufus Peckham, a noted opponent of state regulation and author of the Courts Allgeyer opinion.44 The case was argued over two days in February 1905.45 At first the court voted 54 in private conference to uphold Lochners conviction. But then Justice Peckham wrote a sharp dissent that convinced another justice to change his mind. With a little editing, Peckhams dissent then became the majoritys official opinion declaring the Bakeshop Act unconstitutional.46

Early in his opinion, Peckham conceded that all individual liberty is constitutionally subordinate to the amorphous police power:

There are . . . certain powers, existing in the sovereignty of each state in the Union, somewhat vaguely termed police powers, the exact description and limitation of which have not been attempted by the courts. Those powers, broadly stated, and without, at present, any attempt at a more specific limitation, relate to the safety, health, morals, and general welfare of the public. Both property and liberty are held on such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the governing power of the state in the exercise of those powers. . . .47

Thus Peckham had to admit that the bulk of the Bakeshop Act, being directed at health hazards curable by better plumbing and ventilation, was valid under the police power. But the Acts maximum hours provision, Peckham wrote, was not really a health law, because it lacked any fair ground, reasonable in and of itself, to say that there is material danger to the public health, or to the health of the employees, if the hours of labor are not curtailed.48

So if the maximum hours provision was not a health law, what was it? In the majoritys view it was a labor law, designed to benefit one economic class at anothers expense.49 It seems to us, Peckham wrote, that the real object and purpose were simply to regulate the hours of labor between the master and his employees ... in a private business, not dangerous in any degree to morals, or in any real and substantial degree to the health of the employees.50 Finding that the statute necessarily interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employees, Peckham concluded that laws such as this, limiting the hours in which grown and intelligent men may labor to earn their living, are mere meddlesome interferences with the rights of the individual....51 Four justices sided with Peckham in holding that the limit of the police power has been reached and passed in this case, yielding a five-man majority to strike down the maximum hours portion of the New York Bakeshop Act.52 (Three justices, not including Holmes, dissented on grounds that the law really was a health measure and therefore valid under the police power.)

READ ALSO: What Questions Would You Ask a Supreme Court Nominee?

To be continued.

If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Footnotes

Read more from the original source:

Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution (Part 1) - New Ideal

Both Stoicism and Ayn Rands philosophy, Objectivism, purport to offer guidance on the pursuit of values and the conduct and improvement of our lives. But, unlike Objectivism which upholds free will Stoicism embraces a deterministic worldview thats incompatible with moral guidance, or so I argue in my article The False Promise of Stoicism. For a philosophy to be useful as a guide, I wrote, it must at least acknowledge that we have some genuine, volitional control over our actions and choices actions and choices that make a difference to where we end up in life.

Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of philosophy at The City College of New York and a prominent voice in the contemporary Stoicism movement, disagrees. In his essay Epic Battles in Practical Ethics: Stoicism vs Objectivism, Pigliucci insists on a perspective held by many philosophers and scientists today namely, that to reject determinism, as Objectivism does, amounts to believing in magic.

Consider Pigliuccis argument for this position.

Determinism, writes Pigliucci, in its simplest and broadest definition means that things happen as a result of cause-effect, or because there are laws of nature.

If you accept that the cosmos works by cause-effect, then your attitude about human volition (free will) can fall into one of two categories: (a) You believe there is no such thing as volition, its an illusion (deterministic incompatibilism); or (b) You believe that volition is just another aspect of the lawful behavior of things in the universe, including human beings (compatibilism).

If you dont like either of the above two stances on volition, then your only remaining choice, (c) is to reject the premise of determinism and claim special status for human free will (contra-causal incompatibilism). The Stoics like most contemporary philosophers chose option(b). Smith, apparently, wants something like (c). Which, based on what we know of how the world works, amounts to believing in magic, just like many religious people do: its called contra-causal free will because the notion is that, somehow (but how??), human volition can transcend the laws of physics and biology.1

Observe that Pigliuccis argument relies on equating determinism with cause and effect and scientific lawfulness. This equation is of course not unique to Pigliucci. Daniel Dennett, one of the most influential philosophers in the contemporary free will debate, characterizes determinism similarly as the idea that every event has a cause, which has a cause, which has a cause, in a causal chain that goes back to the Big Bang, if you like, and that there are no events without causes undetermined events.2 (My emphasis)

The reason Pigliucci gets Rand wrong is that the Objectivist view offree will (and causality) doesnt fit the alternativesthat he and others consider viable contenders.

This equation which, as we will see, Objectivism rejects leads Pigliucci to narrowly frame our theoretical options as either: (i) accept the universality of cause and effect and scientific lawfulness (and therefore determinism) dismissing free will as either an illusion or a deterministic action or (ii) accept free will and therefore reject the universality of cause and effect and the laws of nature (i.e., determinism). Since Objectivism openly rejects determinism, Pigliucci assumes that Objectivism must endorse a non-causal (or contra-causal) theory of free will.

But it doesnt. Volition, according to Objectivism, is both causal (no need for magic) and free (non-deterministic). Perhaps the reason Pigliucci gets Rand wrong is that the Objectivist view offree will (and causality) doesnt fit the alternativesthat he and others consider viable contenders.

READ ALSO: Why Champions of Science and Reason Need Free Will

Consider just a few aspects of Rands account.

According to Objectivism, causality (or cause and effect) is not a principle relating antecedentevents to their necessary consequences (determinism), but one that relates an entitys identity (what it is) to its actions (what it does). Objectivism holds that since every entity has a specific identity, constituted by its specific set of characteristics, it can perform only those actions it has the capacity to perform; it cannot act apart from or in contradiction to its nature. As such, there can be no uncaused actions and no miracles. (There goes anything contra-causal.)

Objectivism accepts the universality of cause and effect. But it stresses that the principle of cause and effect by itself does not legislate that all cause-effect relations are deterministic (such that one and only one outcome is possible from and indeed necessitated by a given set of antecedent circumstances). Nor does the principle of causality tell us which specific actions an entity can take in a given context; it tells us only that an entity must act in accordance with its nature; it cannot act in contradiction to it.

Contrary to Pigliuccis assumptions, the Objectivist view of free will is not that volition magically transcends identity and causality as Gods volition is traditionally supposed to. Rather, Objectivism holds that volition is a form of causation.

Questions about what specific actions entities are capable of must be settled by reference to observed facts about the behavior of the relevant entities. And when it comes to human volition, the proper place to begin is with the data of introspection i.e., with what we can directly observe of the operations of our own consciousness. What we observe thereby is that we possess a certain kind of control over our consciousness. This observed control, this causal power to initiate and direct action, is what Rand calls free will.

As Rand puts it, what is fundamentally and directly under our control is the process of thinking:

To think is an act of choice. . . . Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort.4

To say that we have free will, in Objectivism, is to say that reason operates by choice. You can choose to think to exercise your cognitive faculties, to seek to know, to classify, to reach a wider and deeper understanding. Or, you can allow your mind to drift letting it glide on autopilot, guided only by undirected stimuli, emotions, and associations. Or, you can choose to deliberately throw your mind out of focus to refuse to know, to pretend facts are other than they are, turning your mind away from the goal of awareness, thereby subverting its functioning. You can also realize (clearly or dimly) that you are out of focus and choose to exert the effort that a state of goal-directed awareness requires an effort nature does not compel you to exert or sustain.

READ ALSO: Free Will vs. Science?

To say that a process of thought is caused by the actor, does not mean only that it is caused by factors that are internal to the actor rather than external, as many determinists would say. It means that the actor possesses the capacity to initiate action and chose to exercise that capacity.

It is only because we have free will that we need, and can make use of, a philosophic perspective to guide our choices toward a vision of what our lives and character could and ought to be.

If the deterministic framework that so many philosophers and scientifically minded people today accept doesnt allow for this directly observable form of causation, then that framework should be revised. The alternatives dismissing the observed fact of choice as an illusion (deterministic incompatibilism) or rewriting it to fit the prevailing theory as compatibilist accounts of volition like Pigliuccis attempt to do are unscientific.5

Pigliucci as someone offering advice on how to live and what to value seems to want to maintain some genuine notion of free will, presumably because he realizes that moral agency is impossible without it.

Our decisions are the result of external causes (other peoples opinions, events, etc.), combined with internal causes (our character, considered judgments, etc.) Human beings arent passive receivers of external influences . . . we are part and parcel of how the universe works. And the intriguing thing . . . is that volition, as an internal cause, can act on itself in a recursive fashion. A fancy way to say that we can reflect on our own judgments and change them. And the more we engage in cognitive and behavioral steps, the more we change our internal causality. If our changes are in the right direction we become better persons, the goal of Stoic practice.

This is as close as one gets to free will in a universe governed by laws and by relations of cause-effect.

Summarizing this perspective later in the essay, he writes:

Nothing is really ours, except the considered judgments we arrive at. Those are the ones on the basis of which we should be thought of as worthy or unworthy human beings. And lucky for us, those are under our control. Which means that the objective of living a life worth living is also under our control.6

But when Pigliucci says that our considered judgments are under our control and that we can reflect on our own judgments and change them, the essential question is: are both alternatives to consider or not consider, to reflect or not reflect, to think or not to think within our power to choose under the circumstances? Or is our act of reflecting or not reflecting itself necessitated by antecedent events? If we take determinism seriously, then whether we become a better or worse person today or tomorrow is not within our power to choose. It was determined for us long before we were born.

In his book Stoicism and the Art of Happiness, fellow modern Stoic Donald Robertson presents the Stoic position on determinism more accurately as the idea that absolutely everything in life necessarily happens as it does.

Your own thoughts and actions are necessitated as part of the whole string of causes that forms the universe . . . so that even if there are things in life that seem to require great effort on our part to achieve, whether or not we make the effort is fated along with the outcome . . .

What happens next will depend, in part, on what you choose to do next because you are a tiny but essential cog in the vast machinery of the universe. However, your choices themselves are the consequences of a massive string of causation set in motion countless billions of years before you were even born, at the beginning of the universe.7

The essential point here is that, for a cog whose every thought and action is necessitated by factors outside his control a philosophy of life is useless. It is only because we have free will that we need, and can make use of, a philosophic perspective to guide our choices toward a vision of what our lives and character could and ought to be.

If youre seeking a philosophic perspective on life according to which there genuinely are things that are up to you that you face genuine alternatives, such that if you make the right choices, you can become a better person and live a better life you need a philosophy that embraces free will, not one that gives you the illusion of freedom while insisting on a worldview that denies it.

If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Footnotes

More:

Stoicism vs. Objectivism: Is Free Will Magic? - New Ideal

Sixty years ago, the great philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand delivered a famous lecture in which she called Americas big business as a persecuted minority. Evidently, she overlooked the situation in India, for the persecution of all businessbig and small, in services and manufacturing cutting across sectorswas infinitely more here than it was ever in the United States. Even 30 years after liberalization, which did away with some of the worst features of socialism, the captains of industry continue to be treated like second-class citizens. This is evident from the treatment meted out to the Infosys bosses, the Tata group, and the auto sector.

Not that micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) are treated any better. An Indian-American entrepreneur, Rakesh Nayak, recently exposed the governments big claims about the enhanced ease of doing business in India in a tweet: Unpopular opinion: After spending almost a month in India doing business, I have concluded one thingthe morons who gave me lectures on how India has developed digitally & become business-friendly recently are either jobless or never did any business or they are worth nothing.

It has got more than 19,700 likes and 500 replies since then. It has been retweeted over 4,200 times.

MSMEs, however, can find some solace in the fact that at least ministers, ruling party leaders, and other politicians dont badmouth them. Even communists, doctrinally and temperamentally opposed to anything private, favor support to MSMEs.

Big business, however, is a different ball game. Politicians, especially those leaning Leftwards, regularly portray corporate biggies as anti-poor, profit-obsessed monsters who ought to be kept on a tight leash. Even the incumbent ministers, supposedly representing a Rightwing government, routinely humiliate top magnates. Big businesspersons can be accused of being heartless towards the plight of their employees and fellow citizens, ruthless in the market, not nationalistic enough, and now even anti-national.

A minister slams India Inc focusing on profits rather than nation building and another one harangues the auto sector for not going electric. These verbal assaults are symptomatic of a severely statist attitude which, in turn, has real, painful consequences.

For, in policy terms, statism translates into tight controls over businesses. Not just regulatory mechanisms are made more stringent and compliances more cumbersome and agonizing; state intervention tends to enter into corporate decision making.

A few years ago, the government mandated that a certain amount of big companies profits should go towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding. Non-compliance could result in criminal liabilities. Thankfully, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced in August 2019 that the liabilities would be just civil and not criminal.

But the very idea of mandatory CSR is an abomination; it is indeed the epitome of illiberal welfarism, something no lover of human freedom can condone, let alone support. The first and foremost objection to the idea is that it represents the states brazen desire to control of one of the noblest of human instinctsphilanthropy. The urge to help fellow human beings is as old as mankind. Over two-and-a-half millennia ago, Prince Siddhartha Gautam, moved by the sufferings of men and women around him, sacrificed all the pleasures and privileges that his royal status could bring to him and became Lord Buddha. He was certainly not responding to some fiat by his father to do so.

Similarly, those countless Europeans who gave up comfortable lives to serve humanity as Christian missionaries in Africa and Asia did not do so because of some government diktat. In the last century, a large number of rich youngsters in the West as well as in India became communists and socialists in the mistaken belief that their ideologies would make the world a better place. Many American tycoons have donated huge amounts to set up foundations and charities. Indian business houses have also donated for society. So, why should our government force big industry to become philanthropic?

Mandatory CSR is egregious not just because it introduces a pointless state intervention where none is needed, but also, and more so, because it attempts to control all that is personal and private to any individualinstincts, sentiments, munificence, genuine, and spontaneous altruism. It enters the sacred space of the citizen, conscience, and defiles its sanctity. It is the colonization of conscience.

But Indias deep pink statecomprising statist policy and decision makers entrenched in the systemdoes not believe that corporations have any conscience. Since the institutionalized mindset is inveterately anti-business, the policy framework remains hostile to entrepreneurs. An obvious consequence is price control. The healthcare sector is the worst affected one; price caps on drugs and medical devices are a regular occurrence. The pretexts are well-knownaffordable healthcare, helping the poor, etc.

The powers that be, however, also meddle in other sectors to regulate prices. One of the most anti-business decisions the Narendra Modi government has taken so far was the setting up of the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) in 2017. The objective was to ensure that the consumer benefited from the reduction in rate of the Central goods and services tax. The exercise militated against the spirit of liberalization, for every economist, barring the lal salaam-types, agrees that prices are best determined by the market; politicians and bureaucrats should have nothing to do with them.

The NAA was supposed given a two-year term. But then, as Milton Friedman said, nothing is so permanent as a temporary government programme. The NAA got another extension, of two years, in 2019.

But what now, as the extension ends in November? Will the fiend die its natural death? Well, not if our political masters have their way, for the Goods and Service Tax Council is still pondering over the great issue of keeping the NAA alive. A proposal doing the rounds is that it may be merged with the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Evil is vanquished only in fiction, not in reality.

The moral of the story is that some things dont change in India; anti-business attitude is one of them. Unsurprisingly, India Inc remains a persecuted minority.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Continued here:

Indias big business: A persecuted minority - The Times of India Blog

(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Lindsay Brown prepares a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine at a drive-thru event organized by the Utah County Health Department in Spanish Fork on Friday, Sept. 10, 2021.

By Paul Gibbs | Special to The Tribune

| Sep. 21, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

| Updated: 10:24 p.m.

This is the weapon of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

Batman, The Dark Knight Returns, by Frank Miller

Most who know me through my advocacy know that Batman is my activist alter ego. Im inspired by how he uses the fear and pain of his own trauma as motivation to turn fear and pain against themselves, and thats what I try to do by fighting to give others the access to health care that gave me the transplanted kidney that has kept me alive.

Batman obeys one rule which he believes separates him from his adversaries: he refuses to kill. The line I wont cross is rooting for or talking pleasure in anyones illness or death, and I allow no exceptions. These things are the enemy, and I will not use their weapons.

As the pandemic rages, I see many good people reacting without compassion to the deaths of unvaccinated people. They site the ready availability of vaccines and the politically motivated refusal of many as reasons these people deserve their fate.

I certainly understand and share the anger at those who spread vile anti-vaccine propaganda and deride a safe and simple measure which could save the lives of themselves and others. I would argue that Im in a position to feel this more than most, as my status as an immunocompromised kidney transplant patient has put me in virtual house arrest for most of the past year and a half.

But despite my anger at the anti-vaxxers, I cannot share the dismissive attitude toward their passing.

No ones vaccination choice truly impacts them alone. Unvaccinated people increase the spread of COVID-19 to others, and slow our chances of reaching herd immunity. As they die, so will others with them, whether they are unvaccinated or are immunocompromised or otherwise higher risk, even if vaccinated.

Far from all of those who fail to get vaccinated are angry, politically motivated anti-vaxxers. Many simply have not been able to sort the real information from the anti-vaccine propaganda and crackpot theories. And an inordinate number of them are in the Medicaid population. These are the same people so many of us in Utah fought long and hard to protect through Medicaid expansion. To care less about them now would blur the line us and those we accused of dismissing their health and lives because they disagreed with expanding Medicaid.

During the fights I joined in to expand Medicaid and protect the Affordable Care Act, I saw an astonishing lack of compassion. Whether it was the person who said they hoped my 1-year-old son and I got run over on our way to a rally, or politicians who echoed Ayn Rand rhetoric to complain about taking money from producers to help the uninsured, I saw people who had made a moral compromise to allow for the belief that some lives are less important than others.

I promised never to make the same compromise. Whether our reason is better than theirs is not the point; Any step toward separating those who deserve life and those who dont moves our society away from compassion when we need it more than ever.

If we are to be defenders of human life, we cannot do so by devaluing lives, however ridiculous or pernicious their beliefs and choices. We dont need the weapon of the enemy, and we must refuse to use it. Our words undermine our own efforts to extend compassion to others. To paraphrase my hero again, its not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.

Paul Gibbs is an independent filmmaker, health care activist and Batman fan. He has advocated for health care causes locally and nationally since receiving a kidney transplant, and is currently waiting out the pandemic in West Valley City with his wife and two sons, and teaching kindergarten at home to his 5-year-old.

See original here:

Paul Gibbs: Take no joy in the misery of the unvaccinated - Salt Lake Tribune