Money is NOT the root of all evil.

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?”

It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
- Francisco’s money speech, Atlas Shrugged

I could never grasp society’s hatred of money until I read this. It didn’t make any sense. Amass some money and you could do almost anything. Stay in a nice hotel room, drive a cool car, buy clothes you like, live somewhere that appeals to you, etc. It did not seem to me that any of this would be possible without money. It’s NOT possible without money. Yet no matter where I turned, I heard: “money is the root of all evil.” Asking why was a locked door. It was naive to wonder why, they would say. At a certain age you “just knew” that money is what’s wrong with the world.

Now I know why I found no answers. People who scorn money usually make bad decisions with it. They misunderstand it. They think it can buy them the direction and purpose they never pursued. As Francisco says: the person who would sell his soul for a nickel is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money.”

I can now observe this every day out in the world. The guy damning money is the guy blowing hundreds of dollars on lottery tickets. It’s the 40 year old woman working at Shaw’s instead of pursuing a career she enjoys. It’s the opportunistic wife who lives as a parasite off her rich husband (or vice-versa.)

I love my money. I enjoy writing and I get paid very well for doing it. I like taking my girlfriend out to eat at nice places and buying books that challenge my mind and putting gas in my car so I can go to school and make the Dean’s List. I like investing my money in the stock market to one day pay some of my law school tuition. If I was blowing it all on booze and lottery tickets with no plans and no future I wouldn’t feel that way. But I don’t. So I do.

It’s really that simple – and that difficult. Without thinking long and hard about what you want in this world and living every day in pursuit of it money will be meaningless to you.

Money isn’t the root of all evil. The purposeless life is.

Facebook Has a Higher Profit Potential Than MySpace

Many in the Internet business community might scoff at such a statement. I had a lively debate with two friends who think I’m nuts so I decided to flesh out my reasons in full. Here’s the method behind my madness:

1) MySpace does not have as many users as it claims. Rather than theorizing I will point readers to this eye-opening study showing that MySpace inflates its usage numbers by 133%. Could Facebook be doing this too? Sure, but I tend to think it’s on a much smaller scale because unlike MySpace, you can DO things on Facebook. According to this study over half of people who sign up for MySpace never return after a month. Whatever that is, it’s not a “user.” Don’t feel like reading the study? Fine. The gist is that MySpace probably has around 43 million users – not small change, but a far cry from that nice round 100 million that gets thrown around.

SRC: http://forevergeek.com/articles/debunking_the_myspace_myth_of_100_million_users.php

2) Facebook’s users don’t lie. Since MySpace is essentially a dating service, many people lie – about their age, their height and weight, their marital status, salary, etc. “So what?”, you might ask. Well, the main way of monetizing social networks is showing ads to the users. And if 20 year old Jessica is really 14 year old Jessica, she wont click on an ad for college scholarships or car insurance no matter how many times she sees it. Facebook users, on the other hand, generally do not lie about themselves. Since many of them hope to meet people at the school they attend, they have to be honest in describing who they are. With valid profiles of its users, Facebook can show ads that are relevant and very likely to be clicked.

3) College students spend money. Google any credible study about the spending habits of college students. Better yet, pop into a random dorm and ask how many pre-approved credit card solicitations they’ve received lately. College students spend money at a higher clip than almost any segment of society – on food, clothes, electronics, cars, you name it, they’re buying it. The combination of kids getting that first taste of freedom and those seductive credit card offers lead to an absolute tidal wave of spending, year in and year out. As long as Facebook is “the” social network for college students, they have a VERY lucrative window into those spending habits.

4) Kids aren’t abducted by people they meet on Facebook. Now, let me come right out and say that I don’t blame MySpace for this. It’s not their fault in the least. The sad truth is that many MySpace users are young – early to mid teen years. Kids at this age are are gullible enough to believe a child predator loves them, while most college students would not fall for it. That’s why predators (generally) aren’t hanging around Facebook. Nevertheless, MySpace gets a black eye each time they’re linked to an abduction. And with today’s parents sheltering their kids like never before it’s not hard to picture a huge backlash if this continues.

5) Facebook is letting users make money from the site themselves. Developers are now free to develop applications for Facebook, display unlimited amounts of ads and charge any fees they choose. The Facebook Marketplace is very interesting to me as well. I myself am trying to sell a used car on Facebook and have gotten tons of inquiries back. I haven’t sold it yet, but that’s because the car has a ton of mileage. Perusing the marketplace I see all kinds of things for sale, from housing to jobs to furniture to cars to books to you name it. To me this is a simple yet brilliant strategy: establish a way for students to buy and sell, THEN start taking a cut once it gets popular. Sell your car for $2k? Facebook gets 2 percent. Add it up across a nation of students and you’re looking at a goldmine.

6) Facebook is more useful to more people. One journalist (whose name I sadly forget) once summarized MySpace as “how it feels when you get to a party and find no chips, no pool, no good music and no girls.” Unless you’re a musician, there’s just not much you can actually DO on MySpace. This has been the case with many sites before it (Friendster ring a bell?) where the fad dies and the crowd moves on. Facebook is another story. Already, students can buy and sell their books, find housing, buy a car to drive, schedule study sessions, interact with professors, get letters of reccomendation, and more. While the service is now open it was is and will always be geared to the college audience, and guess what? College attendance has been steadily rising for years.

I just think Facebook has a much clearer path to sustained growth and profits than MySpace does. MySpace isn’t getting a cut of music sales. Say all you want about the number of impressions MySpace shows but if the ads aren’t targeted and they don’t get clicked then it’s pointless. Facebook has users that rely on it in their day to day lives. Once a new “all-purpose” social site springs up, will MySpace still be relevant?

“That’s Just Because You Think Logically!”

Not long ago I saw a drunken man beating his girlfriend in the street. Once I broke out of my frozen horror I ran to the gas station and phoned the police. When I came back outside the man was gone but the woman remained, her nose broken and her face covered in blood. Outrage and disgust took over my entire nervous system. I’ll never forget how my hands trembled with anger as I watched this monstrosity take place.

I left when the cops arrived assuming this awful deed would now be punished. Boy, was I wrong!

According to the responding officer, the girl refused to press charges or even identify who did this to her. She said quote “This is just how he gets, don’t worry about it.” Try as they might the police could obtain no further information about this criminal act.

When I told a priest (mom’s friend) how irrational that is I was admonished for being judgmental. “Abused women have low self-esteem!”the minister told me. “He might be feeding her drug addiction! That might be all she knows! You need to be sympathetic!”

These arguments are superficial and explain nothing. Of course she has low self-esteem. No proud person would protect someone who brutalizes them. But the solution to low self-esteem is high self-esteem, which you earn through your actions and standing in the world. Letting a man break your nose and kick you in the ribs until you’re face down in your own blood doesn’t raise anyone’s self-esteem. Furthermore, her lack of self-esteem doesn’t alter reality. Protecting your own destroyer is irrational, enormously so.

If the man was giving her drugs that’s even worse! Drug addictions with peaceful dealers are bad enough. They wreck your finances, isolate your loved ones and devastate your health. All a violent dealer does is add the constant threat of attack to these life-crippling circumstances. A person in this situation shouldn’t sit back and say “Well, I’m a drug addict and my dealer beats me. I guess that’s my lot in life.”

Sympathy is appropriate but it alone will not end the violence. To this the priest said “You’ve never been in that situation, you can’t judge.” My response was “Bull! I can think of half a dozen options off the top of my head. I’d probably live with my family for a few weeks, or start a life somewhere else, or go to the police after I’d collected my thoughts and could calmly explain what this man was doing to me. I would never just accept it as a way of life.”

To that I was told “Well, you think that because you think logically.” (Silly me!) When will people learn that logic is the ONLY way to make sound decisions? Consider what it would mean to try and solve a problem without logic. It’s impossible! A girl driven by whims thinks she can end the abuse without ever asserting herself. Only logical, non-contradictory thinking will reveal this error. Only then will she think to herself “Hmm. Being mercilessly beaten for no reason isn’t conducive to a healthy life. How do I stop this?” Nothing else will achieve her happiness.

Don’t listen to people who demean logic or guilt yourself into thinking they must be more sympathetic than you. In reality they are apologizing for things you know are wrong while proposing no actual solutions themselves.

An Open Letter to the Cowards at RandZapper

An Open Letter to RandZapper

The best advice I’ve taken from Ayn Rand is to “check my premises” before making intellectual statements or decisions. To identify the starting points from which your actions and thoughts follow. My premise in this letter is the following: your website portrays Objectivism and Objectivists in a misleading way. Instead of criticizing Rand’s ideas (which you take pride in not doing) you spotlight the craziest people calling themselves Objectivists as examples of Objectivist thinking. Compounding this fraud, you even quote reputable Objectivists and purposefully misinterpret their words. Then as the cherry on top you refuse to provide contact information or allow any comments on your blog, a mysterious choice given that medium. This, you say, is so comment threads are not “overrun by Randian nutjobs.”

Most Objectivists would scoff at the people you compare them to. As one of those Objectivists, I feel I must do my small part to discredit you. To this you might snidely reply “Oh, how typical! Another Randian scrambling to protect his bitch-goddess!” Lest that be described as my motive I will explicitly state that it isn’t. Ayn Rand is dead. If she stopped at “We The Living” or “Anthem” she still would have accomplished more than RandZapper ever will. My worry is that on-the-fence readers will see RandZapper and accept your smears as what Objectivism is and what Objectivists are like. A reader might be taken in by that and conclude “Objectivism isn’t something I want to be a part of.” I believe Objectivism is a powerful tool in the pursuit of a fulfilling life, and even if others disagree, it would be an injustice to reach that conclusion by way of your website. So let’s dive in.

A recurring theme on RandZapper is the belief that Objectivists are living breathing monuments to Ayn Rand. While some no doubt do this, this is the exact opposite of what Rand intended. Objectivism is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is a tool for putting the bewildering complexity of life into context and a backdrop for the vast, disparate chunks of knowledge and ideas any human being accumulates. The essence (I would argue, beauty) of Objectivism is its guidance on validating one’s ideas and ensuring the ones one accepts do not contradict his other knowledge. This in itself is an immense help in anything that requires thinking, from choosing romantic partners to making investments to finding a house to live in or a pair of shoes to buy.

The point I want to stress is that the principles and virtues of Objectivism are means to an end. A person’s goals, tactics, strategies, and ultimate desires are still his to choose and shape. (Observe that “Atlas Shrugged” hero Hank Rearden does not spend his precious hours writing individualist columns to rebuke Bertram Scudder’s trash; he focuses squarely on making Rearden Metal succeed.) Objectivism only shows that certain mindsets, by their very nature, will never lead to the positive outcomes, and proposes a philosophy that does lead to them. Since Rand cannot speak for herself I can only speculate, but I believe she would scoff at someone “living for Objectivism.” She would likely say “I am Objectivist so that I may live.”

Contrast this with the “Objectivists” portrayed by RandZapper. Your post “Objectivism: Torture, Murder, Holocaust” leads one to believe that Objectivism is like the Bible; full of arbitrary, out-of-context injunctions and commandments. It claims that “Ayn Rand’s followers and the philosophy they endorse advocate the nuclear annihilation of large populations of human beings today.”

Nuclear strikes are one of many options some Objectivists have proposed in the War on Terror. However your notion of Rand-sanctioned nuke worship is groundless. Consider the following from Objectivist and Ayn Rand Instititute member Alex Epstein:

“Depending on the magnitude and immediacy of the threat, the proper form of preemptive force will vary, from threats to tactical strikes to supporting revolutionaries to assassinating foreign leaders to economic embargoes to all-out invasion. And far from committing us to make war against every dictatorship on earth, a consistently implemented policy of preemption would actually decrease the need for force by intimidating potentially threatening regimes.”
- The Epistemology of Pre-Emption

That’s far from all-out “nuke ‘em all” fanaticism. Was that quote, as you say, “based on whatever remnants of common sense and religious ethics Alex has not yet surrendered to Rand’s influence?” No. It comes from the Objectivist idea of contextual knowledge and decision-making. Many focus solely on Rand’s sexier ideas, of which context is not one. But acting with the full context of one’s knowledge is a vital pillar of Objectivism. That some loud followers reject this aspect does not negate its existence. Could an Objectivist rationally advocate a nuclear strike? Yes – but only after a full assessment of the circumstances and the other available options – and in the context of a rationally defined goal. As of yet, few credible Objectivists are advocating that.

Other RandZapper posts blatantly lie about what an Objectivist actually said. For example, the post “Duke Nukem” that criticizes the John Lewis article “No Substitute for Victory.” In the article Lewis identifies the source of today’s terrorism as the merger of Islam and state. He specifically identifies this tie as the merging of Islamic fanatics (which Lewis openly admits, not all Muslims are) with the money, training, and sanction only governments can provide, offering numerous practical examples. After quoting the article, RandZapper concludes that what Lewis REALLY means is “All Muslim intellectuals must renounce their religion or die.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are Lewis’ actual words, which RandZapper itself amazingly quotes before misquoting him:

“Every Muslim intellectual must denounce the Islamic State as an aberration and a monstrosity, as being contrary to the requirements of life on earth.”

- John Lewis, “No Substitute For Victory”

Lewis is clear: they must denounce the Islamic State – the open and official arming of Islamic terrorists by a government- not Islam as such. As Lewis has explicitly stated in this and in verbal speeches, the enemy is NOT Muslims. It is extremists who use state force out of demonstration to a diety, viciously taking American lives in the process.

It is interesting that RandZapper accuses Objectivists of nuke-worship with only isolated nutjobs advocating their use. Neither John Lewis nor the majority of actual, concientious Objectivists advocate nukes as a first response or even a necessary last resort; in fact, I tend to advocate pre-emption as early as possible (when justified) precisely so that nukes will NOT be necessary later. In his eye-opening book “Objectivism – The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”, Leonard Peikoff concurs, stating that a free nation’s moral certainty and courage is the greatest deterrent to war. Liberal or conservative, most agree that the last 30 years of shuttle diplomacy, arming one dictator against another, and nation-building is not moral certainty or courage. But that does not negate the fact that we need it if we are to survive. Lewis’ article is a good start.

Perhaps the most vicious act is when the site smears Rand herself. The RandZapper post “Coop!” approvingly quotes a man who says:

“Rand taught her disciples that ordinary mortals are mere puppets of the ideas of Great Philosophers in just about every important aspect of their lives, so the essence of self-interest allegedly was one’s absolute loyalty to the ideas of the greatest philosopher of all times, namely herself.”

I challenge anyone to produce one quote and page number in an Ayn Rand book where that is even implied. Rand’s books such as “The Virtue of Selfishness” stress principles like non-contradictory thinking (logic) and examples of what it means to live a rationally self-interested life. In no way does she urge readers to be “loyal” to her or live a life in her honor. She did not even want an institute opened in her name. What Rand does say is that a person’s fundamental ideas, wherever they come from, are the driving force of his actions and, on a wider scale, the state of society. Her work is a powerful inspiration to analyze one’s ideas and discover, for oneself, what if any weight they truly hold. A person being introduced to Rand through RandZapper may never reach that conclusion, or even try.

There are plenty of other examples well worth dissecting but to be honest, I don’t have the time or interest to do it all. I hope I’ve convinced a few readers that Objectivism is not arbitrary thirsts for violence or mindless obedience to a dead author. Those who investigate Objectivism for themselves will find plenty of non-controversial principles and positions, things that will never appear on RandZapper because they openly and proudly refuse to discuss ideas. To the nameless authors of RandZapper, I have nothing to say other than “would it kill you to put forth something positive of your own?”

Objectivism is one of those rare achievements that can rightfully wear the mantle “groundbreaking” or “revolutionary.” The characters in “Atlas Shrugged” and the ideas in Peikoff’s book are things you will find nowhere else. They will lead you to analyze your life in greater detail than most people ever care to theorize about. Whether you see eye-to-eye with Rand or not, you will make a much smarter decision by opening your own eyes than by reading the trash on RandZapper.

All The Best,

Jay

Why Your Friend Will Never Leave That Jerk

If you’re like most people, you have a friend dating a total putz. She cries to you about how he never calls, blames her for his own shortcomings, fabricates lie after lie, insults her, etc. Bewildered, you wonder what it’ll take for this girl to assert herself and put an end to this. Want the truth? It’ll probably never happen. Your logic may make Aristotle blush but she’ll still do anything to keep this clown in the fold.

Why? The deepest reasons are too many to list (the belief that “everything happens for a reason”, the refusal to judge behavior, etc.) The root cause is what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victim.” For now let’s zero in on why some people not only tolerate bad relationships but accept them as a way of life.

You are confident because of how you choose to live and conduct yourself; you would refuse to traffic with those who demean you. Your friend on the other hand has extremely low self-esteem. To her, nothing is more important than being loved by this person. If he decides she shouldn’t spend time with her friends, or have any time to herself, or hold him responsible for his lies, she wont. It doesn’t matter how irrational you prove it to be or how self-destructive it clearly is.

This is why she recites his terrible actions and justifies them with “but he says he loves me” – and believes it.

This is why appealing to principles like self-respect, integrity, or independence is wasted breath. Principles are just words that impose on her fantasy. Firm standards would force her to take stands, which she believes she must never do. The constant stress and headaches, she believes, are only temporary. Someday soon, her boyfriend will become the outstanding man that none of his behaviors portray him to be. We don’t know “the real him.”

Of course she wont explicitly say that. Pressed for details she will sidestep the sad truth by waxing nostalgia. “We’ve been together soo long! It used to be soooo good!” In practice this amounts to: “Things are unspeakably bad and have been for months, but it was good once so this is acceptable.” She does not benefit from this relationship or even seek to. What motivates her is inertia, the emotional weight of all the time she’s already wasted on this person.

The smallest dose of rationality would collapse her delusions like a house of cards. So to keep the daydream alive she takes the only possible course: refusing to look at the big picture. This is why she harps on isolated details (ie, “But he didn’t call me nauseating names last week!”) when you prod her to put things in context. In isolation, any random event can be twisted so it looks like things are turning around. Only by looking at all the events from start to finish will the truth emerge. By now however you know the truth isn’t what she’s after.

So what should you do? Chances are you’ve wasted hours agonizing over how to help this person, or how to word your next criticism of her boyfriend. I say, Save it. If your friend conscientiously analyzed the events of her life she wouldn’t be in this situation. You can’t give sight to someone who chooses blindness. You cant pinch hit for her self-esteem.

Alcoholics Anonymous wont help someone until they admit that alcohol is destroying them and you should take the same policy with your friend.

Ever Consider What Your Basic Ideas Really Mean?

Do you agree with these common yet never-explained ideas?

- “The world is too selfish.”

- “Big businesses earn too much profit.”

- “We can’t be black or white; the key is to compromise.”

- “Money is the root of all evil.”

- “No one can really be sure of anything.”

Well, you’re wrong.

These beliefs are spread from cradle to grave, in schools and churches nationwide. They are preached as facts of nature that no serious person would ever challenge. Ironically, if you think about it you’ll probably realize that you’ve never heard a logical explanation for any of those beliefs, nor any proof that they’re the least bit true.

Great. So why should I read your blog?

This is a blog about ideas. Each post will be about something palpable and real, some current event of importance. But rather than passively accepting the consensus (for example, that Google is “big enough” and should be cut down to size), my posts will rigorously dissect what these fatal ideas demand of us in practice and the terrible, unjust outcomes they inevitably lead to.

The trader principle is the principle of value for value, that both parties should benefit. So my proposition to you is this: keep up with my posts, and I’ll light a fire in your mind. Whether you agree with all of what I say or not, you will hold your life up to the light and examine it in greater detail than most people ever care to theorize about. Whatever ideas you eventually accept, you will hold them explicitly, with full knowledge of what they mean for your own life.

I hope this blog will be the start of a life-long push to live your life to the fullest.