Second, from my 22 January 2013 lesson: Two Fences with a Tight Turn. These tight turns are difficult for Lila and me. If I don’t have her very collected yet still powerful in her stride, they’re a disaster. Here, we did okay.

Earlier this week, I had my first lesson since January 22nd… and it was so much fun! Alas, no video.

• The 30 Most Hilarious Autocorrect Struggles Ever: I guarantee, these will make you cry with laughter.
• A bald eagle, a fox, and 2 cats hanging out on an Alaskan front porch: The eagle was calling for attention, and the fox really wants to come inside to warm up!
• 22 geniously defaced textbooks & exam papers: I like #16 the best.
• How to Give Your Kids an Old-Fashioned Summer!: I’m a big advocate of “free range kids,” and here’s a great idea from LePort Schools’ VP Heike Larson on how you can help your kids enjoy a fabulous free range summer.
• CNN anchors pretend they’re having a “satellite interview” even though they’re in the same parking lot: Oh lordy. Did they think no one would notice the big bus?!?
• These 4 Sisters Were Photographed Every Year For 36 Years: The differences in their signs of visible aging over the years were really fascinating.
• 7-year-old boy steals a car and runs from the cops to avoid going to church: He’s a remarkably good driver… so much so that it’s a shock to see such a little kid pop out of the car.
• 40 bald eagles descend on a pickup while its owner is shopping: “In the town of Unalaska, Alaska a hapless pickup truck owner parked his vehicle in the Safeway parking lot and went in for some groceries. In his absence, more than three dozen bald eagles discovered the bags of fish product that were in the bed of the truck awaiting disposal.” Who knew that bald eagles were such welfare queens?!?
• Watch out, bullies: She’s got the band behind her: What a fabulous story of music helping an autistic girl cognitively and socially! Hooray for her parents!
• Infographic: Is Your State’s Highest-Paid Employee A Coach?: Very likely, but sometimes, it’s not the football coach: it’s the basketball coach instead.

Apparently, that view has some currency among Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand Answers includes the following Q&A:

OY. I’m not a fan of mainstreaming disabled children in schools, except on a case-by-case basis, when everyone benefits thereby. However, the idea that disabled children ought to be kept away from normal children just flabbergasts me.

It’s simply a fact that some people in this world of ours suffer from mental and/or physical disabilities. Even otherwise normal people suffer from disabilities on occasion — not just injuries and illness, but the effects of aging too.

Disabled people are morally entitled to live their lives, pursuing their values to the best of their ability — just like everyone else. That means they’ll be out in the world, where children might see and/or interact with them. Hence, parents should speak to their children about disabilities, including how to interact with disabled people in a morally decent way. That’s an important part of a child’s moral education — if you don’t want little Johnny to push Grandma down the stairs because she was walking too slowly for his tastes, that is.

The moral education required here isn’t rocket science. Disabled people should be treated with civility and respect — just like everyone else. They might merit the effort of a bit of kindness, such as holding open a door or speaking slowly — just like everyone else. Of course, disabled people can be rude or disruptive or offensive or bothersome too. That’s pretty standard behavior for normal people too, albeit with less excuse. The sensible response is not to demand that disabled people be hidden from sight, but rather to put some distance between yourself and the bothersome person. See? Not rocket science!

Well… I’d better stop there, before I dive into a full-blown rant. I have plenty more to say on this topic on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio… so I hope that you join us!

This week’s questions are:

• Question 1: Individualism Versus Anti-Social Atomism: Does individualism imply social isolation and atomism? Many critics of Ayn Rand argue that her individualism is hostile to love, concern, and respect for other people. They claim that her “atomistic individualism” doesn’t permit, let alone support, groups or community. Are these criticisms true? What is the right view of human society and sociability?
• Question 2: Poor Communication from the Boss: How can I make my boss more communicative? My boss hardly ever tells me company news affecting my projects, even when critical. As a result, I’ve wasted days and weeks on useless work, and I’ve gotten into needless conflicts with co-workers. I’m always guessing at what I should be doing, and I just hate that. What can I do to make my boss to be more communicative with me?
• Question 3: Visibility of Disabled Children: Should disabled kids be kept out of the public eye? Recently, a waiter at a restaurant refused to serve one party after hearing them make fun of a child with Down’s Syndrome sitting with his family in a nearby booth. Both parties were regulars to the restaurant. Some people have praised the waiter’s actions because he took offense at overhearing the first party say “special needs kids should be kept in special places.” He called them on their rudeness and refused to serve them. Others think he was wrong: his catering to the party with the disabled kid is indicative of a culture that embraces mediocrity and disability. What is the proper assessment of the remark made and the waiter’s response? Should people with disabilities be kept from public view?
• Question 4: Arranged Marriages: Are arranged marriages legally and socially valid? A coworker of mine in his early 20s grew up in India. His parents have arranged his marriage to a young woman who also now lives in the US. He appreciates that his parents selected a wife for him: he doesn’t want to spend the time or take the risk of finding a wife himself. Should such a marriage be considered legally valid? Is it just a marriage of convenience? Is the practice of arranged marriages immoral and/or impractical?

After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Individualism, Disabled Children, Arranged Marriages, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Sunday morning… and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Every time this happens, I make repeated requests — through all available means of communication — to be removed from their call list. They’ve never responded, and they have obviously not removed my mobile number from their call list.

I don’t have any way to block them on my iPhone (as I would on my landline), and them calling my cellphone is particularly bothersome. Any suggestions for what to do to make it stop?

Even if that’s not possible, I’m happy to spread the word that the Tea Party Patriots seems to be run by a bunch of jerkwads without the slightest clue about basic manners.

Here’s my latest email to them… not that I expect it to do any good:

You left me yet another robo-call message on my iPhone on Monday… and I see that you called again this evening. Every time this happens, I’ve contacted you through multiple channels with clear requests to be removed from your call list. You have never responded, and you have obviously not removed my mobile number from your call list.

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

So, for the upteeth time, I ask that you remove my cell number — [redacted] — from your call list! I am sick and tired of these intrusive and unwelcome calls from you: it’s harassment.

Until you respond, and confirm that you’ve removed my phone number, I will continue to publicly shame you for being such rude jerkwads. I’ve already posted something to Facebook, and I’m writing a blog post now.

Oh, and you owe me — and probably a whole lot of other people — a BIG FAT APOLOGY.

I’d be nicer about it… except that I’ve already written about ten such emails, all of which have been ignored. *sigh*

Kudos to Audi for making such an awesome commercial!

A few days ago, I was riding my horse in our neighborhood arena while a father was attempting to teach his son to ride a bike in the grass. The father would push the son forward on the bike, and the son was supposed to pedal. However, even from a distance, I could tell that the son was getting scared and freezing. Instead of pedaling, he’d put his feet down into the grass and come to stop. The father had an excellent opportunity to talk to his son about overcoming fears.

Alas, that’s not what happened. Even from a distance, I could hear the father yell to his son in frustration, “If you’d only pedaled when I told you!” and “Why aren’t you listening to me?” Obviously, that didn’t help the boy pedal any better!

The father was making a very serious mistake in taking his son’s failure personally. He was seeing it as a failure to obey, rather than focusing on the son’s actual problem — namely, the difficulty of overcoming fears. As a result, the son was not only deprived of useful help about managing those fears, but also burdened with feelings of guilt too. Even worse, the father was telling the son that the son’s own judgment (including his fears) were not nearly as important as obeying the father’s commands. Oy.

Happily though, the father seemed to muster some better control over himself after that burst of anger. He stopped yelling, and the tension seemed to ease. Hopefully, he realized his error. Hopefully, he’ll stop himself sooner next time.

I’m not immune from the error of atttemping to dictate others — whether children, animals, co-workers, friends, or husband. I suspect that I’m not alone in that! So here are a few suggestions, which you can take or leave:

When you find yourself growing frustrated by the fact that other people aren’t doing what you’ve told them to do, remind yourself that they’re not likely attempting to spite you. Perhaps you didn’t give clear instructions. Perhaps you’ve asked too much of them. Perhaps they saw problems with your plan that you missed. Perhaps their goals don’t mesh well with yours.

Instead of stewing over their failure to obey, consider how you might be genuinely helpful. You might want to ask them if they want help. You might want to clarify your instructions. You might want to just keep your mouth shut.

Whatever the circumstances, acting like a petty tyrant is always the wrong answer. Nothing alienates rational thinkers — young and old — more quickly.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: Paul McKeever about “Winning Elections with the Freedom Party of Ontario”

Can a political party based on principles of individual rights win elections? Perhaps so – and Paul McKeever has a strategy for doing so with the Freedom Party of Ontario.

Paul McKeever is the Leader of Freedom Party of Ontario. Paul joined Freedom Party in 1992. He first ran as a candidate for Freedom Party in Ontario’s 1999 election. He became a Freedom Party spokesperson that year in 1999, and the party leader in 2002.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:13:40
• Download: Standard MP3 File (25.3 MB)

Topics:

• Parliamentary government in Canada
• Paul’s political philosophy
• About the Freedom Party of Ontario
• Why focus on electoral politics
• Paul’s role in the Freedom Party of Ontario
• The platform of the Freedom Party of Ontario
• Taking steps toward freedom
• The benefits of focusing on small issues
• Liquor regulations
• Getting media attention
• The role of a political party
• How political power is won in Canada
• Destroying the “progressive conservatives”
• Not voting for the lesser of two evils
• What’s wrong with the strategy of “buying time”
• Electoral strategy
• The problems with libertarians
• Optimism about the future
• Political parties in the US

Links:

• Freedom Party of Ontario
• Paul McKeever’s Blog

Tags:

• Alcohol/Drugs, Canada, Elections, Epistemology, Ethics, Libertarianism, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Politics, Voting, Voting

Episode Sponsor

This episode is sponsored the incomparable Audible.com.

I’ve subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my “Platinum Annual Membership,” I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text.

If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You’ll get a great deal, and you’ll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It’s a win-win – and I love that!

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That’s because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.

Best line: “In their defense, there is a good reason why people using the IRS to crack down on political enemies would not want Americans educated about the constitution.”

Now that they’ve been targeted, let’s just hope that the media stops sucking up to the Obama Administration.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

When is a relationship broken beyond repair?

Relationships can be severely strained, fraught with anger and frustration, and perhaps put on ice for weeks or months or years. Yet in the end, the two people can often reconcile in some way, so that they can enjoy a genuine (even if not deep) relationship again. In some cases, however, that’s not possible. Why not? In such cases, must the problem be that one person (or both people) continue to behave badly? Or might reconciliation be impossible between two good people? If so, why?

Is philosophy deduced from axioms?

Often, I hear people claim that philosophy – particularly Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism – is deduced from axioms. Is that right? Personally, I don’t see how that can be: How can anything be deduced from “existence exists”? But if that’s right, then what’s the purpose of the axioms?

Are spouses entitled to privacy with each other?

My wife thinks that she should have access to all my online accounts, including my email. I don’t have any secrets from her, and my email doesn’t contain anything scandalous. Still, I don’t want her prying into my conversations, and I don’t see that she has any reason to do so. I’ve never given her any reason to distrust me. Aren’t I entitled to some privacy online?

How would the poor obtain medical care in a free society?

In your May 12th, 2013 show, you discussed how EMTALA – the law that obliges emergency rooms and doctors to treat patients, regardless of ability to pay – violates the rights of doctors and results in worse care for the poor. But what is the alternative? How would the poor and indigent get medical care – if at all – in a society without government welfare programs? What if charity wasn’t sufficient?

What is the individualist response to claims about “white privilege”?

You recently published a blog entry entitled, “Personal Motives for Benevolence” where you introduced the idea that prejudice is often formed by favoritism and not overt bigotry. Clearly, favoritism can extend to race too, in the same way it extended to your example of “professor” vs “quilter.” So what is the proper response to advocates of “white privilege awareness” such as David Wise and David Sirota? David Sirota recently wrote a Salon.com article entitled “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American” where he argued that culturally,”white terrorists” are treated as lone wolves, whereas Islamists are treated as existential threats. Semi-noted Objectivist hater David Wise wrote an article called “Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness” where he claims “White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.” What is the individualist answer to this collectivist viewpoint?

How should a young adult manage persistent differences with his family?

As I grew up, I turned out radically different from my family expected. They think college is necessary for success in life. I didn’t, and I dropped out. They eat the Standard American Diet and hate fat. I eat Paleo, and I glorify fat. And so on. Basically, we diverge on many points. I’ve never committed the mistake of attempting to preach to my family in order to persuade them, but many of them grew unduly concerned with these differences between us. They would argue with me on the subject for months, if not years, no matter what good results I had to show them. Assuming that the relationship is otherwise worth maintaining, how should an older child or young adult handle such contentious differences with his family? How can he best communicate his point of view to them — for example, on the question of college, after they’ve saved for two decades for his college education?

What is the proper relationship between ownership and control over property?

Today, politicians seem to want to reduce a person’s control over his property, such that it’s ever-closer to ownership in name only – such as by limiting the capacity of landowners to develop property. Also, selling plots of land on Mars would seem to be silly, given that no one controls that land. So what is the proper connection between a person’s ownership over his property and his control over that property? How does that principle affect proper principles for dealing with temporarily or permanently abandoned property?

Should individuals try to avoid online surveillance by the government?

In a recent comment thread on NoodleFood, there was a debate over the extent to which a person’s use of Internet tools such as cloud storage, password managers, wifi, smartphones, etc. exposes him to surveillance by the federal government. It seems to me that any serious effort to avoid using these tools would require forgoing many of the conveniences that make the Internet such a value – and there is still no guarantee that such avoidance would stop the government from spying on you. Since our government does have many improper powers, but it is nowhere close to being a dictatorship, is there any value in curtailing one’s everyday Internet activities to avoid surveillance?

Should DDoS attacks be illegal?

Should distributed denial of service computer attacks be illegal, like they are in the United Kingdom? Are they analogous to convincing people to send many letters to an organization or to calling on the phone repeatedly, thereby crippling its infrastructure? Or are they more like trespassing on property?

Is killing a baby born after an abortion murder?

Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for murder, due to accusations that he killed infants who were delivered in abortions at his clinic. If the facts are as reported, should he be convicted of murder? What should be done when a baby is born alive during an abortion? What are the likely cultural implications of this trial?See: http://abcnews.go.com/US/abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell-condemned-pro-abortion-rights/story?id=18958384

Should marital infidelity be illegal?

Many states, including Colorado, have laws against marital infidelity on the books. These laws are rarely if ever enforced. Politicians often attempt to repeal them, but those attempts are often unsuccessful. Many people think that the government ought to “take a moral stand” even if the law isn’t enforced. Does that view have any merit? Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

Do unfit parents have a right to procreate?

Courts today seem to hold the view that people have a right to procreate. As a result, wholly unfit parents can produce child after child. Even if the court removes the latest child from the home when very young, some abuse or neglect must have already occurred. In fact, the child might have health problems at birth due to drug abuse, alcohol consumption, or lack of proper medical care by the mother during pregnancy. Does the current system respect the rights of unfit parents at the expense of their kids? Instead, should unfit parents be required to adopt out any new children they bear? Should serial abusers be forced to take birth control or even sterilized?

Can the consistent practice of wrong ideas lead to mental illness?

Often, the most consistent practitioners of an ideology – such as Naziism or Islam – seem to become increasingly unhinged over time. Does being fully consistent in a completely fantasy-based ideology require a person to become loony? Are such people then not responsible for what they say or do?

Is a moral career in law enforcement possible today?

Today, anyone involved in law enforcement would likely be required to enforce immoral laws, such as those against drug use, prostitution, and failure to pay taxes. Given that, can a career in law enforcement be moral?

When should a person declare his love for another?

What is an appropriate amount of time to wait before saying “I love you” in a new relationship? New relationships often start out strong, but then the feelings of eros dissipate after a few months. When you meet someone who you share the same values and ideals (and you are super-attracted to him or her) when should you say those three little words?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

• If you live near a college, university, or especially a conservatory for the arts, be sure to get on the school’s mailing list or check posted schedules regularly for free or low-cost performances. You’ll frequently find Shakespeare, dance productions, recitals, orchestra concerts, and sometimes even opera.
• Ballroom dance studios often offer free or low-price guest nights to attract new students. You can enjoy the free beginners’ lesson, then apply your new skills dancing with your date for the rest of the night.
• Many pubs and bars offer trivia nights. You and your date can be a two-person team.
• Some bars and restaurants offer themed wine-tasting nights.
• Picnic in the park. Bonus points if you make the food yourself and/or have a dog that likes to play.
• Follow dinner or drinks with board games instead of a movie.
• In the summer, many cities have food festivals or street fairs that it’s fun to browse with a date.
• If you and your date are sports fans, try minor-league or college games. Minor-league baseball is a particularly fun date, and usually costs the same or less than a movie ticket! If there’s no minor-league team in your area, catch a game at a sports bar.
• Go on a hike (but don’t pick too strenuous a trail; you want to be able to converse with your date).
• Visit your local zoo or botanical gardens to enjoy nature harnessed for man’s enjoyment.
• If your city has a Time Out magazine, subscribe to it (or visit timeout.com) to find all kinds of events.
• Many farmer’s markets offer free or low-cost cooking demonstrations. See how a dish is made, then buy the ingredients, go home and prepare it with your date.

Any other ideas? Post them in the comments!

If you’re interested in purchasing the podcast, that’s still available for just $20. You can find more information — and purchase it — here: Finding Good Prospects for Romance and Friendship.

Tonight in Manhattan, I went to hear Brad Thompson speak at NYC Junto. There were announcements before he spoke. A woman got up to alert the audience to a new development in libertarianism, the moral shift from Rand to Hayek and Rawls. She spoke for only a minute or two and then handed out copies of this:

Awesome, no? If you’ve not yet heard my interview with John P. McCaskey about “Libertarianism’s Moral Shift” from 10 April 2013… don’t miss out!

• Duration: 1:12:27
• Download: Standard MP3 File (24.9 MB)

For more details, check out the episode’s archive page.

Can a political party help advance the cause of liberty? Perhaps so, in a parliamentary system. Paul McKeever will explain how and why he advocates for individual rights via the Freedom Party of Ontario.

Paul McKeever is the Leader of Freedom Party of Ontario. Paul joined Freedom Party in 1992. He first ran as a candidate for Freedom Party in Ontario’s 1999 election. He became a Freedom Party spokesperson that year in 1999, and the party leader in 2002.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Paul McKeever on Promoting Liberty via a Political Party. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening… and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

He’s colorful throughout, but the end put me in stitches! (Of course, I’m so mostly glad that those three women were able to escape that monster. More details about the horrifying case are here.)

Objectivism upholds seven major virtues as indispensable to our lives. Yet what of other qualities of character — such as ambition, courage, spontaneity, liveliness, discretion, patience, empathy, and friendliness? Are these virtues, personality traits, or something else? Diana Hsieh will argue that such qualities are best understood as “moral amplifiers,” because their moral worth wholly depends how they’re used. She will explain why people should cultivate such qualities and why they must be put into practice selectively.

When I introduce people to the concept of “moral amplifiers,” people often want examples thereof. (Yay!) My standard go-to examples are persistence and ambition. Everyone sees that these qualities are often beneficial, but they’re not always so. Plus, I love to use Lance Armstrong as an example of ambition gone wrong.

Interestingly, the list of moral amplifiers is really quite long — because most of the qualities that people think of as virtues are, in fact, moral amplifiers rather than virtues. Here’s the list of moral amplifiers that I created — based on lists of virtues such as this one — when preparing my proposal for ATLOSCon:

• Ambition
• Agreeability
• Assertivenesss
• Calmness
• Charity
• Charisma
• Cautiousness
• Charitablity
• Choosiness
• Compassion
• Conscientiousness
• Cooperativeness
• Courage
• Courteousness
• Creativity
• Curiosity
• Decisiveness
• Dependability
• Determination
• Diligence
• Directness
• Discernment
• Discrimination
• Discretion
• Discipline
• Easygoingness
• Eloquence
• Empathy
• Endurance
• Enthusiasm
• Equanimity
• Exactingness
• Fairness
• Fidelity
• Flexibility
• Forbearance
• Fortitude
• Friendliness
• Frugality
• Generosity
• Gentleness
• Helpfulness
• Humorousness
• Idealism
• Inventiveness
• Joviality
• Kindness
• Liberality
• Lightheartedness
• Liveliness
• Loyalty
• Magnaminity
• Mindfulness
• Neatness
• Openness
• Optimism
• Orderliness
• Passionateness
• Patience
• Perseverence
• Persistence
• Persuasiveness
• Pessimism
• Predictability
• Prudence
• Punctuality
• Reliability
• Resiliance
• Respectfulness
• Resourcefulness
• Self-Confidence
• Self-Control
• Self-Directing
• Sensitivity
• Simplicity
• Sincerity
• Spontaneity
• Steadiness
• Tact
• Temperance
• Thrift
• Thoughtfulness
• Tolerance
• Toughness
• Trustworthiness
• Zealousness

Clearly, I’m not going to run out of material in my talk! I plan to pick just a few of these to discuss, as I have some theory related to Aristotle’s and Ayn Rand’s differing conceptions of virtue that I wish to cover too. I’ll explain how Ayn Rand’s conception of virtue is really something quite distinct from traditional conceptions of virtue — and how those differences represent a major advance in thinking about ethics.

SO MUCH FUN!

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: High Taxes, Infanticide, EMTALA, and More

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:08:57
• Download: Enhanced M4A File (24.8 MB)
• Download: Standard MP3 File (23.7 MB)

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I attended the hearing of the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the Coalition for Secular Government‘s lawsuit in federal court. The main question discussed whether a single sentence of express advocacy in our policy paper makes the whole paper a policy paper or not. I’m still working on editing the galley proofs of soon-forthcoming book, Responsibility and Luck (a.k.a. my dissertation). Of course, that’s taking longer than I’d like.

Question 1: Taxes Versus Slavery (6:51)

In this segment, I answered a question on taxes versus slavery.

Are high taxes comparable to slavery? On Facebook, some friends suggest that America is becoming more like Nazi Germany. Others share images comparing Americans workers to slaves picking cotton in the antebellum south due to our ever-higher taxes. I think these comparisons go way too far: Americans are still some of the freest people the world has ever known. No doubt, our freedom is being chipped away, but are we really like slaves?

My Answer, In Brief: Advocates of free markets discredit their cause by likening taxation to slavery. Slavery is the complete and utter violation of the rights of persons. It’s a far worse horror than taxation, with differences in kind, not just degree.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 14:35
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags:

• Activism, Apocalypticism, Epistemology, Government, History, Language, Politics, Slavery, Taxes

Links:

• Ayn Rand on the Draft
• Man’s Rights and The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Infanticide After Abortion (21:28)

In this segment, I answered a question on infanticide after abortion.

Is killing a baby born after an abortion a form of murder? Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for murder, due to accusations that he killed infants who were delivered in abortions at his clinic. If the facts are as reported, should he be convicted of murder? What should be done when a baby is born alive during an abortion? What are the likely cultural and political implications of this trial?

My Answer, In Brief: According to the testimony at the trial, Kermit Gosnell did not merely perform abortions: he killed born babies, i.e. persons with a right to life. A person who does that is guilty of murder, and he should be prosecuted and punished.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 15:52
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags:

• Abortion, Children, Crime, Ethics, Infanticide, Law, Politics, Pregnancy, Rights

Links:

• The Atlantic: Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story and 14 Theories for Why Kermit Gosnell’s Case Didn’t Get More Media Attention by Conor Friedersdorf
• CBS News Coverage of the Kermit Gosnell Trial
• The “Personhood” Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, particularly Rights in Pregnancy
• Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell Condemned by Pro-Abortion Rights Groups
• Gallup: Americans’ Abortion Views Steady Amid Gosnell Trial
• Philosophy in Action: Criminal Death of a Fetus

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Emergency Medical Care (37:20)

In this segment, I answered a question on emergency medical care.

Do people have a right to emergency medical care? EMTALA (a.k.a. the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) is a federal law that requires emergency rooms to stabilize any patient with an emergency medical condition, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Is that proper? Is that the same as a right to medical care?

My Answer, In Brief: EMTALA violates the rights of doctors, based on the false premise of a “right” to health care. In practice, it’s a disaster for doctors, hospitals, and the working poor. Ultimately, only scammers and advocates of government-controlled medicine benefit by it.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 22:21
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags:

• Altruism, Charity, Egalitarianism, Emergencies, Ethics, Free Society, Justice, Law, Law, Medicine, Politics, Poverty

Links:

• FAQ on EMTALA
• Cato Institute: Medicare’s Origin: The Economics and Politics of Dependency by Charlotte Twight
• American College of Emergency Physicians: On EMTALA and The Uninsured
• Health Care Is Not a Right by Leonard Peikoff
• The Objective Standard: Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh
• The Objective Standard: Health Care and the Separation of Charity and State by Paul Hsieh
• Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM), particularly its articles
• The History of Health Care Costs and Health Insurance by Linda Gorman

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (59:42)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

• Is taxation a form of racket?
• Does your house have dignity?
• Have you ever noticed people mixing up a right to something and eligibility for it?

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 7:05
• Download: MP3 Segment

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:06:48)

Be sure to check out my blog NoodleFood and to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Happy Mother’s Day!

• 11 May: Upcoming Diana Hsieh Podcast on EMTALA by Paul Hsieh
• 10 May: McArdle on Medical Innovation by Paul Hsieh
• 9 May: Benjamin Rush YouTube Channel by Paul Hsieh
• 8 May: Hsieh Forbes OpEd on 3D-Printed Guns by Paul Hsieh
• 7 May: More Reactions to Oregon Study by Paul Hsieh
• 6 May: More Lessons From the UK by Paul Hsieh

This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

• 9 May: Concern for the Rights of Rights-Violators: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh
• 7 May: CSG at the Colorado Supreme Court Tomorrow by Diana Hsieh

This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard:

• 11 May: Toward Less-Unfair Corporate Taxes by Michael A. LaFerrara
• 10 May: Is Your State in an Economic Rut? North Dakota has the Solution by David Biederman
• 9 May: Scientists Advance 3D Printing Toward Fabrication of Living Tissues and Functional Organs by Mikayla Callen
• 9 May: Thank Industry for Protecting Us From Nature by Roberto Sarrionandia
• 8 May: Obama’s Un-American Call to “Service” and “Duty” by Stephen Bourque
• 7 May: Judge Narragansett’s Solution to Congress’s Shady Trading by Robert Begley
• 6 May: Good News Abounds: Space Tourism, Medical Marvels, and More by Ari Armstrong

This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo:

• 12 May: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Why 3D Guns Could Be Good For America by Paul Hsieh
• 11 May: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh
• 10 May: The Paleo Rodeo #161 by Diana Hsieh

Hugues Merle (French painter) 1823 – 1881
Maternal Affection, 1867
oil on canvas
39 3/4 x 32 in. (100.9 x 81.2 cm.)
signed Hugues Merle and dated 1867 (upper right)
private collection

Catalogue Note

After studying with Léon Cogniet, Hugues Merle became a regular contributor to the Salon between 1847 and 1880, up until the last year of his life, receiving medals for his entries in 1861 and 1863. His themes of maternal love found a ready audience with newly affluent art patrons in America. In fact, by 1878-9, in his Art Treasures of America, Edward Strahan could cite as many as 52 works by Merle in American collections. His reputation was equally great at home in France, where he enjoyed the patronage of the Duc de Morny and also enjoyed the support of Adolphe Goupil, the most prestigious art dealer in Paris whose other leading artists included William Bouguereau and Jean-Léon Gèrôme.

Merle was most often associated with his friend and rival, Bouguereau, not only because they depicted similar subjects but also employed a high finish and naturalistic technique. Merle was just two years older than Bouguereau, and their thematic and artistic similarities begged comparison from critics and collectors alike.