The moral ambiguity of Vietnam

Today I would like to discuss a topic related to the Vietnam War. Specifically, I would like to focus on the Viet Cong, the unorganized bands of North Vietnamese civilians who were the American troops’ fiercest enemy for the majority of the war. The VC gained a reputation for their cunning guerilla tactics and for the brutal atrocities they committed against South Vietnamese civilians. Ever since, most Americans consider the VC an object of contempt and hatred. The North Vietnamese, on the other hand, are grateful for the VC’s actions, which they believe to be valiant and just.

I would like to pose the following question: Speaking from a purely neutral perspective, how can we assess the VC? Are they heroes and martyrs, or are they brutal murderers who deserve only contempt?

Unfortunately, I believe that it is almost impossible to answer this question because of the problem of perspective. To Americans, the VC should be considered evil because they committed heinous war crimes against civilians and brutally murdered American soldiers with barbaric booby traps. To the North Vietnamese and communist Chinese, the VC are heroes because they did everything in their power to defend their homeland from foreign invaders. They justify the brutality by stating that it was necessary, which is certainly true—the VC recognized that the Americans were far superior militarily, so they saw the need to wear down the American resolve.

This issue of perspective is more permeating than one might think. For more examples, look at American history. During the American Revolution, American soldiers broke the previously established rules of war and did what was necessary to repel the British, who are clearly depicted as the villain of the whole affair. The image of the “minuteman” became glorified in American culture ever since. But how is this any different from the VC doing what is necessary to repel the foreign invader that was the United States? How is the image of a Viet Cong soldier—a rice farmer who, when necessary, will defend his homeland, different from the glorified minuteman? Next, look at the American Civil War. One of the events that helped to solidify the North’s victory was “Sherman’s March to the Sea,” in which Union troops burned Georgia to the ground to destroy the South’s economy. This, surely, is just as much of an atrocity as those the VC committed—but in America Sherman’s March is glorified, not mourned.

I suspect that Vietnamese history—and the history of every other country or ethnic group—embellishes details in similar ways. Vietnamese culture is based around their geography, which lends itself to frequent invasion. The Vietnamese have a spirit of endurance, which has managed to triumph over all of the other nations that have attempted to conquer it. Thus, the Viet Cong are undoubtedly seen as heroes, as they simply carried on the tradition of resisting foreign invaders.

This issue of perspective makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to truly assess the Viet Cong. As the Greek poet Aeschylus put it: “In war, truth is the first casualty.” This moral ambiguity is probably part of the reason why most Americans are averse to looking back at this period in history. Americans do not like to see themselves as the villains in history, but the Vietnam War puts us in exactly that position. Sadly, it is this war on truth that perpetuates war—if we are ever going to outgrow armed conflict, we must first outgrow our obsession with embellishing it.   

Name that viewpoint

Today I am going to do something I hope you will find interesting. The lecture that follows is written from a particular philosophical/political viewpoint, but I do not mention the name of this viewpoint anywhere in the lecture. It is your task to guess what position I am espousing. Here’s a hint: I do not actually endorse this view, it is just for the purposes of today’s game. Feel free to leave your guesses on the comments page. Here goes:

Look at society today. The world is riddled with crime, corruption, and immorality. The root of these problems come from a single source: the systems of government and morality that watch over us. 

First, let us look at one of the most important problems in today's world, crime. With each passing day, more and more children drop out of schools to become career criminals. More and more men resort to animalistic criminal ways, simply because they do not know any better. The reason is not a failure of our educational systems, but a moral failing of our government in general. The reason is simple: man has no moral instinct. Human beings have no inherent knowledge of what is good or evil; the purpose of the state is to teach proper morals to society. But today's methods, proposed by misguided do-gooders, are wholly incapable of doing so. Why? Because of the way human beings learn. Today, child criminals are only scolded, never punished, and adult criminals are given light sentences in all-expenses-paid, state-sponsored facilities where they can learn from other criminals. These methods attempt to appeal to people's "better natures"--which is foolish because they have none. Instead, we should abandon our hopeless attempt to shy away from "cruel and unusual punishment" in order to stick with what works. 

What these criminals--and society as a whole--do not remember is that the basis of all morality is duty. Today, society drones on and on about our "rights" while forgetting to tell us about duty. The results are predictable, because human beings have no natural rights of any nature. Look at the three famously proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life: what right to life does a man have who is drowning in the ocean? The sea will not harken to his cries. What right to life do two men have if they are stranded on an island, with only the other man as food? Which man's right in "unalienable?" Liberty: The men who signed this document knew that liberty was not a "right," since in doing so they pledged to buy liberty with their lives.  The pursuit of happiness: this is unalienable, though it is not a right: it is simply the universal human condition. But society reminds us of it nonetheless. This is the soft spot that our nation suffers because of: society--and the state--does not remind us of our duty, but of our imaginary rights. No nation, so constituted, can possibly endure. Instead, the state must cultivate our moral sense, so that we may live in harmony and prosperity. 

And what is this ideal moral sense? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive; all moral rules are derived from this key instinct of human nature. Anyone who attempts to deny this basic principle is destroyed sooner or later--this is the proof of its validity. But moral rules are more simple than just this blind instinct; the survival of the individual is in fact quote low on the moral scale. Higher up on the moral ladder are concepts such as duty to family, duty to one's nation, and duty to the human race. It is this theory of morals that is absent from today's society, and for this reason problems such as crime and corruption exist. 

Lastly, societies today are at fault when they scorn the military. They accuse leaders of causing unnecessary wars, bashing the army for being a "functionless organ" in today's world. What they forget is that wars are not caused by politicians, religions, or cultural differences--these are simply secondary factors. The truth is this: all wars are caused by population pressure . When two societies meet and here is only room for one, war is the natural and moral course of action. But this does not meet that we should implement birth control to prevent war--remember that societies who stop expanding will be wiped out by those who don't. So when one nation balances its population and declares it will never study war anymore, pretty soon (about next Wednesday) it gets crushed by a society that realizes that such a mentality is wishful thinking. The military performs a necessary and noble duty in defending the society it represents. Though civilians scorn military people, accusing them of being violent and barbaric, soldiers possess an important quality that many of these civilians lack: civic virtue. Each member of the military has shown that he willing to sacrifice his life for society, which is the noblest virtue a person can ever achieve.   

On the "inevitable singularity"

Unfortunately I do not have much time to write this month, as I am quite busy with other things. Today, though, I have an essay I would like to share: 

A recurrent theme in modern literature and philosophy is concern about the effects of technology on our humanity, a concern that has existed since the rate at which technology increases became too rapid to contemplate. Wallace Stegner expresses this concern in his essay “The Wilderness Idea,” in which he says that without another frontier humankind will be committed to a world defined and controlled by technology. Stegner is quite correct in stating that the concept of the frontier is behind us, and that technology will ultimately determine our way of life. Technological increase has been proven to be exponential and is inherently anti-individualistic, and technology naturally breeds dependence. Furthermore, the only frontier remaining is one that destroys individuality rather than promoting a self-sufficient pioneer lifestyle.

As any scientist will confirm, technology increases at a torrent pace and will only increase faster as time goes on. This has been proven in almost all fields of science, and most intellectuals regard the “technological singularity” as an inevitable conclusion. For example, in computer science, a theory known as Moore’s Law holds that scientists will be able to double a microchip’s computing power every two years until computers are capable of performing any calculation infinitely quickly. This inevitable increase helps to prove Stenger’s thesis, as it signifies that technology is impossible to supplant or remove from society. 

More importantly, technology naturally breeds dependence. Consider all of the major industries that define people’s lifestyles in today’s world: agriculture, transportation, and consumer goods. All of these industries are highly dependent on technology and will continue to utilize new technology as it is invented and it is completely inconceivable that any of these industries will abandon the technology on which they are based. This principle, combined with the fact that technology will continue to increase, yield only one conclusion: technology is and always will be a part of our lifestyles and society, proving that Stenger’s is correct in stating that a “Brave New World” scenario is unavoidable.

Stegner’s main point is that without a frontier or wilderness, mankind is committed to this dependence on technology. Stegner is quite correct in this assertion—the only frontier open to mankind is, as science fiction tells, us, outer space. However, this is not true wilderness in the sense that Stegner would like it to be—rather than promoting individualism as previous frontiers have been, space exploration encourages federalism and dependence on technology. Since sophisticated equipment is required for space exploration, the common man is no longer able to become a self-sufficient pioneer. Instead, only strong, central governments have the ability to perform the necessary research and build the equipment needed for space travel. Thus, no “wilderness” can save us from our inevitable fate—we are indeed committed to a society defined by our technology. However, Stegner is far too pessimistic about his conclusion—he forgets that technology has the capacity to meet all of our needs, destroying our individuality and self-sufficiency but creating a world without hardship. 

Pandemic time?

Tomorrow I will return to the Bush lexicon—today I have a more pressing issue to discuss: swine flu. Until a few days ago, the term was virtually unheard of, but now the threat of a global swine flu pandemic is all over the media. There are a few key questions about the possibility of a pandemic that I would like to address today.

First, what are the chances of swine flu becoming a global pandemic? The answer depends on two factors: how well we can contain the virus, and how contagious it is. It is already obvious how quickly disease can spread as a result of air travel—cases of swine flu have already been confirmed in the US, EU, and New Zealand. However, if hospitals follow adequate sanitation procedures, it is possible to prevent the disease from spreading to everyone. As far as the contagiousness of the virus goes, I believe we will just have to wait and find out—it will probably take a week at least for scientists to analyze the virus. But what is the bottom line? Are we headed for a pandemic? I believe the answer may be yes. We have already seen cases of swine flu all over the world, and there are undoubtedly more people infected than meets the eye.

Already several countries are attempting to close their doors to prevent the spread of this disease, such as Japan, China, Malaysia, and Indonesia, who have banned pork imports from Mexico and the US. Other countries will probably begin following in their footsteps, cutting off air travel to the Western Hemisphere. However, I believe that these efforts are mostly futile—in today’s world, it is almost impossible to completely isolate any one country from the rest of the world. Without a doubt, the swine flu will eventually enter these nations if it hasn’t already—between air, land, and sea travel, it is far to impractical to keep everyone out of a country.

Next—and perhaps most important—are we ready? Thankfully, I think the answer is “yes” here too. Over the past few years the world has been stocking up on anti-flu supplies in preparation for the expected bird flu epidemic, and we certainly have large quantities of anti-viral medicines like Tamiflu. However, we do lack a vaccine for swine flu as of right now, but that is not too much of a concern. Of course, this does not mean that we do not have to take action if swine flu becomes a pandemic, but we will not have to worry about the fall of civilization. As always, Third World countries will have a higher mortality rate than developed countries, and there may be serious issues in African countries if swine flu reaches there.

China will probably suffer the worst—it possesses several highly concentrated population centers—Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong—that lack first-class healthcare or measure to contain the spread of disease. How the Chinese government will react to this new threat will be interesting indeed.

So, to summarize: I am not worried. Though swine flu may turn into a pandemic, the world is not unprepared for it. We can only watch and wait for further developments. 

What's in a name? (part 1)

The War on Terror is over. At least, Obama has told his top advisors and officials to stop using the term and instead use the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operations.” This is not the only name-change that Obama has put in place—in fact, it seems as if he is purposely trying to discard as many Bush-era phrases as quickly has he can. Today, I would like to discuss the lexicon of the Bush Administration, its effects on America, and why President Obama is so eager to move away from it. In particular, there are a few phrases I would like to discuss:

War on Terror—this is perhaps the most notable phrase of the Bush era, it is equally important to note how quickly Obama opted to change it. This phrase is designed to be a euphemism for Bush’s neoconservative approach foreign policy, which groups nations and peoples into clearly defined, black-and-white categories. “War” implies two distinct and well-defined sides engaged in open warfare so that one side will ultimately obliterate the other. “Terror,” of course, is a reference to 9/11, the mere mention of which infuriated Americans a few years ago. The phrase helped to sell the war using an age-old fear-mongering technique: make something sound far more sinister and dire than it actually is.

It is no surprise to me that Obama wants to replace this with a more euphemistic phrase. First, the Iraq War is no longer a war in the traditional sense—it is much closer to a police action than anything else. Since Obama is focusing on getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq, he does not want to make it sound as if we have a full-fledge war on our hands. Still, there are some dangers to using euphemisms for armed conflicts—as Robert Heinlein points out (I’m paraphrasing) “You are just as dead in a police action as you are in a real war.” Even so, Obama’s term is far more accurate than Bush’s extreme-sounding “Global War on Terror.”

Axis of Evil—like “War on Terror,” this reinforces the neoconservative foreign policy stance. Bush used this term to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. As Bush put it: “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” To many Americans, the word “axis” still retains a negative connotation from the Axis Power of WWII, which was undoubtedly why Bush chose in included. Like “War on Terror,” the phrase is intended to sell the Iraq War and make the situation seem more extreme than it actually was. It is interesting to note that the three nations included in Bush’s axis are not even working together—North Korea has no affiliation with Iran or Iraq. Obama has never used this term, which is unsurprising since his foreign policy is far more diplomatic than Bush’s. Also, there is not longer any reason to portray Iraq as “evil” because it has undergone a regime change. Thus, “axis of evil” is more outdated than it is incompatible with Obama’s policies.

Tomorrow I will cover more terms used during the Bush years and discuss their significance. 

So much for unity...

Though I am reluctant to judge Obama just yet, one aspect of his administration is clear: his promise to “end partisanship” in America will go unfulfilled. In fact, since his administration took power the opposite has happened. Today, I would like to discuss this growing trend of partisanship and how to prevent it. Much of this recent surge of partisanship is not Obama’s fault, but merely the result of the fact that he is so liberal. In other areas, though, he is indeed responsible.

The first arena in which Obama’s promise will go unfulfilled is in Congress itself. During the election, he promised to work more closely with Republicans in Congress, ensuring that his legislation would have the support of both parties. Instead, the results of the election made the Republicans an endangered species in Congress, making it difficult to oppose the Democrats. This, in turn, caused the Democrats to attempt to pass legislation that they wouldn’t otherwise, infuriating the Republicans.

To be fair, not much of this is Obama’s fault—though he could have done a better job of working with Republicans on the stimulus bill, many of them refused approve any kind of government spending related legislation, making compromise impossible. Additionally, many Democrats exacerbated the problem by attempting to abuse their newfound supermajority, which angered Republicans and made them less willing to compromise.

Obama’s election has also created partisan issues in the public sphere. After some of the stimulus legislation and bailouts passed, many prominent conservatives turned into alarmists, declaring that Obama is a socialist, communist, Muslim, and tyrant. The best example of this is the infamous Tea Parties, which had cropped up in response to the most recent economic legislation. Also, other social issues are inflaming conservatives, such as Obama’s reversal of the stem cell research ban. There are also some issues concerning gun control, even though Obama has done nothing in this area so far. In fact, many gun-happy Americans are buying as many weapons as they can, fearing that Obama is going to tighten gun control laws.

These social issues (and the all-important economic one) could be considered Obama’s fault, but he is not to blame for the alarmism and destructive criticism. I certainly understand the animosity towards bailouts and the inevitable tax increases. But the real instigators of the conservative anti-Obama movement are Republican rabble-rousers such as Rush Limbaugh, who, as we all know, “hopes Obama fails.” To put it bluntly, I have no sympathy for these destructive critics, just as I had no sympathy for those who blithely criticized George Bush without offering their own solution. However, many Americans are so infuriated and depressed with the economic situation that ruthless rhetoric sounds appealing.

What can we do about this issue? Unfortunately, I do not believe there is an easy solution. Americans are almost always going to disagree, and there are always going to be rabble-rousers on both sides of party lines. The best we can hope for is that Americans eventually grow tired of constant criticism and resolve to form their own opinions. But I’m not holding my breath. 

The new capitalism

For weeks, political pundits—both liberal and conservative—have been rambling on about their belief that Obama’s policies are going to create a new form of American capitalism, the likes of which have never been seen before. Conservative pundits have attempted to use this as a fear-mongering technique, spreading the dire warning that Obama is peddling socialism. Until now I have looked upon these claims with skepticism—after all, during the Great Depression FDR used socialistic policies to create consumerism, which became the biggest boost to American capitalism in all of American history. Though his policies where based around government intervention, at heart FDR was still an avid defender of capitalism.

But Obama is not FDR. Though both are using government intervention to save capitalism, it is becoming clearer every day that Obama does not plan to return to the status quo after the recession ends. I am not worried that Obama is a radical leftist who will destroy American economic freedom, but I think it is clear that we will not be returning to business as usual.

The first and most obvious sign of this is the G20 Summit. Not only did Obama wholeheartedly support the conference, but he supported mandates to regulate global trade, support the International Monetary Fund, and encourage government spending to end the global recession. This is a far cry from “Reaganomics,” where government is viewed as the problem, not the solution. Next, Obama has clearly stated his intent of guiding American industry and banking to prosperity. He demanded the resignation of a prominent auto executive, and has supported bailouts for banks and financial institutions, something even Democratic Presidents would be hesitant about.

These signs (warning signs, to conservatives) hint at a future paradigm shift in American economic policy. Clearly, Obama is planning to re-invent capitalism and the way America interacts with the world, probably through legislation.  

When will these changes occur? I don’t know for sure, but I believe it will be soon. Recall that immediately after the election Obama promised to “fix” the US economy and declared that the American people could hold him responsible for the result of his administration. What this means is simple: he acknowledges that if he can’t “fix it” in 4 years, he won’t be re-elected. However, it is probably impossible to bring us back to where we were in 2008 in 4 years, so many Americans will be unhappy even if Obama manages to slow or stop the recession (and decide not to vote for him again anyway). Also, Obama probably realizes that if things do not begin to turn around by 2010, the Democrats may lose their majority in Congress. Thus, I believe that Obama plans to implement his reforms sometime the next year or so. I am not sure exactly how or even what he plans to do, but I think we are going to see a major economic policy shift in the next few years. 

Will Obama’s reforms be for the best? This is a very difficult question, and we can only speculate. For one thing, it is obvious that the world is no longer going to depend on the US economy as much as it used to. Though this reduces our role in world politics, I believe it is for the best because our economic growth can no longer match that of developing countries. However, this economic influence may be crucial in the potential cold war against China, in which the US will probably be hard-pressed (once again) from preventing an authoritarian government from expanding its influence. As always, though only time will tell the real result of Obama’s reform. One thing is clear, though: we will see change soon, be it for the better or worse.  

On the Obama’s dog

Today I would like to discuss a somewhat innocuous issue that has been all over the news lately: the Obama family’s new dog, Bo. The American media has eaten this story up, providing in-depth discussion of the dog’s breed and how it is being cared for. I would like to discuss the implications of the massive amount of media coverage for such a small, unimportant event.

At first, I was dismayed by the media’s treatment of this issue. With so many serious issues ahead of us, I looked with scorn upon the media’s focus on pointless stories such as this one. I feared the lasting effect that treating Obama like a celebrity could have. If the media continues to portray Obama as a celebrity figure, in the minds of many Americans he may become one, with disastrous results. Like other American celebrities, Americans might pay close attention to Obama’s personal like without caring about the important things he does. After all, he is the President of the United States, and we must not allow ourselves to get distracted from his policies by trivial details about he personal life. This concern is not entirely unfounded—former President Bill Clinton suffered from this celebrity syndrome, and by the end of his administration people no longer cared about his policies, only about his sex scandals. In fact, I recently saw a program on the History Channel that summarized the events during the term of each President. In Clinton’s segment, none of his polices or decisions were discussed, bu the Monica Lewinsky affair was talked about at length. To be fair, Clinton brought this upon himself—during his Presidential campaign Clinton tried to appear “cool” to appeal to younger voters, even going so far as to appear on MTV playing the saxophone on election night. 

However, I now believe that giving this story so much attention may be for the better. Though it distracts from the more serious issues, this is not as unfortunate as I originally thought. In times as grim as these, people need something trivial to take their minds off of their concerns, and the Obama family’s dog does just that. People can follow the plight of Barack’s Portuguese water dog instead of worrying about their own trouble, and escape (if only for a minute) from the harsh realities they must face. Indeed, this same concept of escapism is what makes the Hollywood culture so appealing to many Americans. Americans often nitpick over their heroes, as we saw with the unending praise for pilot Chelsea B. Sullenburger, who landed a plane in the Hudson River. Thus, as long as we avoid treating our President as a superficial celebrity, I see no problem with caring about what brand of dog food Bo is going to get. In this respect, too, I am more confident: if the issue is put in perspective, it is obvious that the President’s family getting a dog is far less celebrity-like than the President cheating on his wife. 

Just for fun: the Time Cube

Today I would like to take brief moment to discuss something I have stumbled across: the "Time Cube" website. This site is the outpost of a certain Dr. Gene Ray, who invented a theory that supposedly explains everything. This theory (which I am having some trouble understanding) has something to do with the way Earth rotates, but because it goes against most religions and makes little sense most people have never heard of it. Dr. Ray (who signs all of his posts on this website "Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human") claims that there is a giant conspiracy to prevent people from learning about the Time Cube, perpetuated by the education system. He suggests that if people disagree with the theory or even are unaware of it they will burn in hell (even though the theory has nothing to do with the afterlife at all, as far as I can tell. 

I found Ray's use of extra-large text aggravating, and his writing style is almost completely incoherent. After reading through the website, I came across a few points that Gene Ray makes that I would like to repeat. First, Dr. Ray believes that -1 times -1 is equal to -1. Don't ask me why. Second, this theory of the Time Cube somehow has to do with race relations. From what I gather, Dr. Ray is a bit of a racist, which he somehow justifies with the fact that Earth actually has four simultaneous days instead of one. Next, Dr. Ray believes that the Judeo-Christian God is homosexual. Again, don't ask me why. Overall, the website appears to be the best example of crank fundamentalism, pseudoscience, conspiracy, and incoherence I have ever seen. 

For these reasons, check the website out for yourself. If nothing else, it is hilarious to read. And if you figure out what Dr. Ray is talking about, please tell me—I’d like to know.

1776 in 2009 (part 2)

Nowhere is the issue of Americans longing for 1776 more present than in the issue of gun control. Gun-toting Americans see gun control laws as an offense to the men of 1776, who proudly carried guns and respected others’ rights to do so. However, regardless of whether gun control is justified, it is important to note that things have changed considerable since 1776, so the argument that “it’s what the Founding Fathers wanted” is not as valid as it seems.

The first difference between 1776 and today that relates to gun control is the fact that the reason people need guns is different. In 1776, society was more agrarian, less industrial, and more of a “pioneer culture.” In colonial times guns were not only helpful to deter crime, but also necessary for survival. Guns were essential for hunting, protection against robbers or invading Indians, and many other uses. Because of this, the way people viewed gun control in 1776 was very different from today: back then, t would have seemed far more tyrannical to take away people’s guns than it does now. 

Next, remember that in 1776 guns were very different than they are now. At the time of the American Revolution the best weapons were primitive flintlock muskets, and pistols could only fire one shot. Today, though, we have a wide variety of extremely deadly firearms, from handguns to high-powered rifles to automatic weapons. These make it possible for a single person to kill many other people quickly and easily, which is a concept that simply didn’t exist in the Founding Fathers’ time. 

However, there is one fundamental aspect of gun control that has not changed since 1776: gun control can act as a deterrent to crime. Similar to the way the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) deters nuclear war, guns can prevent crime by acting as an equalizer. Today, pro-gun and conservative politicians often cite this effect as justification for less gun control.

So, what can this tell us about the issue of gun control? One thing is clear: preserving the right to bear arms simply because “the Founding Fathers would want it” is an absurd an invalid argument. So much has changed technologically and societal since 1776 that the principles behind the 2^nd Amendment are radically different today. However, there is still some merit to the 2^nd Amendment as a deterrent to crime. Also, from a libertarian perspective the problem changes only superficially—since libertarians believe that the preservation of civil liberties is the most important thing, the social issues surrounding guns are irrelevant. From are more practical perspective, though, these issues must be taken into consideration. Also, think about this: even if less gun control would deter crime, what sort of weapons should be banned? Should automatic weapons be allowed? What about assault rifles or explosives? I’ll leave it to my readers to decide for themselves.

Dialogue with an objectivist (part 2)

Today I will continue my discussion on my conversation with my objectivist relative. As the conversation progressed, the topic of public versus private education kept coming up. As a pure laissez-faire capitalist, libertarian, and objectivist, my relative opposes public education, stating that education should be left in the hands of individuals.

My argument against privatized education is this: without public (“socialized,” as he called it) education to act as an equalizer, society could develop into a rigid caste structure defined by the cost of this education. My reasoning is simple: education is obviously an integral part of any successful person’s upbringing—no matter how intelligent a person is, without an education they will only be able to rise so far. If education is privatized, a large percentage of the population would not be able to afford it, meaning that they will be unable to ascend in socio-economic status. However, the sons and daughters of the rich can afford education that will allow them to be “qualified” for many high-level positions, often regardless of skill level. Because it is impossible to break from this cycle, the result is a world defined by class, in which one’s greatest asset is rich parentage. Since this type of society is neither desirable nor equal (which is the objectivist reason for capitalism, since it forces people to be on equal ground and “earn” everything they have), it is obvious that public education serves society much more.

My relative’s refutation of this is that education is not the most important aspect of success—he stated that natural intelligence, which cannot be taught, is the most important. I find this view overly idealistic—as we see today, employers are not as skilled and gauging incompetence and stupidity as many think. Also, it is not true that wisdom is often more important the knowledge—most jobs require a person to be learned in a subject, regardless of how smart they are.

Additionally, the topic of ownership was brought up repeatedly. My “opponent” stated that the product of a person’s are always their property, and any government that thinks otherwise is oppressive and unjust. Indeed, he compared any form of government intervention or income redistribution (a term he used in a disgusted tone) akin to slavery. However, he did mention some odd points about the concept of ownership. First, he stated that only a person, not a group of people, can own a invention. At one point he went as far as to say that groups of people cannot invent things, only individuals can. (I quickly shot this down with numerous examples.) Additionally, he stated that it is impossible to force someone to think. This did not surprise me—it is one of the central themes of “Atlas Shrugged,” which I have read and discussed here before. I am not so sure of this one, either—I mentioned the Soviet Union as a counter example, but my relative did not accept this.

Overall, I was quite surprised to meet a hard-core objectivist in the flesh. I knew such people existed, as there is are several foundations and organizations devoted to the promotion of the objectivism. However, I was very surprised to find one who is so few “degrees of separation” away from me. Also, I should point out that this conversation did not change my views—I still regard objectivism as invalid and outmoded.