I am impressed with the Ayn Rand Institute, and with anything I've been hearing about Ayn Rand in the past few weeks.  Her views are Libertarian. And Libertarianism, in my opinion, is the closest any political party has come to perfection.  (I am, however, a registered Republican because voting Libertarian wouldn't make much difference in this country. The great majority of Americans are not intelligent enough to value complete economic freedom and selfishness.)  Unfortunately, in order for the Republican party to get American votes, it has to throw in the religion and moral bullshit.  Any moral value that comes from religion is worthless. Morals are selfish; they are a direct reflection of a person's values. They can only come from within.

In fact, I don't understand what part religion plays in the Republican party. Religion completely contradicts every conservative economic view. As Ayn Rand says, socialism and religion are both looters:

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive--a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society--a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a superbeing embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except youself. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man's mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subodinated to the will of Society."

I have always hated Society in the same way I have hated religion. The only unit I value is the individual who lives for himself and himself only--not for other people, and certainly not for God.

I read some articles on the Ayn Rand Institute webpage today, and while they by no means approve of every one of Bush's policies, the way they disapprove is interesting. Pertaining to the war: they believe Bush's mistake is trying to appease Americans and other nations instead of following his own convictions and diving deeper into this war.  They believe Bush is not being harsh enough: Afghanistan and Iraq are not enough. There are many other countries who have created terrorists and are now harboring them.  The Randists believe that we must crush terrorists and show the world that we do not care about its approval of our policies.  We must kill the enemy before it has another chance to kill us. Waiting idly, they say, has been the policy of former American presidents, and it has led directly to 9/11.  I completely agree. Pertaining to tax cuts for the rich: Randists say the tax cuts are not enough. The rich should get an even higher percentage of tax cuts because they deserve it. Again, I could not agree more. A recent article reffering to Americans who now want to go live in Canada says "As Canadians, you'll have to learn to embrace and use all the products and culture of Americans, while publicly bad-mouthing their way of life."  This is parallel to how most Americans view the rich. They use the rich's products, they exploit the intelligence of wealthy businessmen, and then they say that acquiring money is immoral, that the rich should just hand out their money to people without it. I would love to see what would happen to such people if the rich disappeared.  If there were no more products such as Windows (Bill Gates is evil right? A monopoly), if there were no more jobs created by gigantic corporations, if the hard-working and money-earning people of this country went on strike. At the turn of the century (19th to 20th), when America came closest to laissez-faire capitalism, our people had the highest standard of living. Our poor lived better than the rich of many other countries.  Free market and no government intervention is the only way to go.  But the looters and the lazy Americans who demand that the rich sustain their worthless lives will never allow such an economy to exist.

I voted no on Proposition 71 (stem cell research) for one reason and one reason only: it is not my responsibility to pay with my tax dollars for stem cell research. The research should be left to private institutions. I did not care about the "immorality" of embryo cloning or embryo killing (I am not religious).  Similarly, I do not want nationalized health care. Again, it is not my responsibility to pay for the health care of anyone but myself. And I love the liberal rebuttal to this: "but as humans we all have to take care of each other, whine whine whine."  I don't care. I don't care to pay for the health care of smokers, drinkers, drug users, overeaters, or people who have no means to pay for their own lives but have six children anyway. I just don't care. I'm selfish. I live for myself, and if I ever choose to help anyone, it will be because I wanted to. Not because it was my obligation to.  My only obligations in life and moral responsibilities in life are to my own happiness--not to anyone else's.

Everything in life is a trade. Altrusim has no place in the world. Love is selfish. Friendship is selfish. A rational human being is selfish. 

Why is love selfish? Because it is a relfection of a man's inner values. The people I choose to love reflect what I value. The people I choose as friends reflect what I value. The Rand Institute had a perfect example:

"Love, we are repeatedly taught, consists of self-sacrifice. Love based on self-interest, we are admonished, is cheap and sordid. True love, we are told, is altruistic. But is it?

"Imagine a Valentine's Day card which takes this premise seriously. Imagine receiving a card with the following message: "I get no pleasure from your existence. I obtain no personal enjoyment from the way you look, dress, move, act or think. Our relationship profits me not. You satisfy no sexual, emotional or intellectual needs of mine. You're a charity case, and I'm with you only out of pity. Love, XXX."

Love is selfish. Period.

Our relationships with people--be they business relationships, frienships, or love--are a trade. Both parties are gaining something from their relationship. They are benefiting themselves. Altruism plays no part in them.

One thing that completely turns me off is seeing someone hand money to a beggar. I saw an ex-boyfriend of mine do this once; I never felt the same way about him again. Because he was not selfish enough. He did not value his own intelligence. His mind created that money; it made that money. And he handed it over to someone who wants to take what other people created instead of creating it himself.

In Ayn Rand's Atlast Shrugged, one of the heroes of the novel says he hates Robin Hood. I was ecstatic while reading that part. I have always hated the way people think of Robin Hood. In reality, Hood was only stealing back the money that the monarchy had initially stolen from the people. But now, the world remembers Robin Hood as the man who "stole from the rich and gave to the poor." Disgusting.

The more I read Rand's work and work about Rand, the more I realize that as far as my social life goes, I am not practicing what I preach. Most of the friends I have chosen do not reflect my values. They actually contradict them. I do not respect them for their minds. I do not respect them for their values.  And I know they have no respect for me. While I was playing around on google with a friend, typing in our names to see what would come up, I came across a secret blog of a "friend" who said some interesting things. To that person: you know who you are and I have something to say to you. I did not steal him from you. He was never yours. He is not an object. He has a mind. He has the ability to choose. He never chose you. And saying those things about me does not change the fact that he chose me. You once responded to a blog of mine--it was about my dislike for feminism--and you said "You better watch yourself, because I do indeed consider myself a feminist."  I did not tell you then, but I will tell you now. I don't care if I offended you. I don't care if I offend you now. No one has a right not to be offended.  If there was such a right, freedom of speech would not exist. And because I owe it to myself, I'm going to respond to that comment of yours now, even if I am a year late. I think feminists are misguided. There is a right way and a wrong way to promote women's rights, and feminism is the wrong way. In fact, I believe that feminism has caused many of the problems women face with men today. First the feminists demand to be treated like men; now they complain that men don't treat them like women. Women are different than men, and that is reality. It is not a bad thing. Feminists should just deal with it.

It's time to start over. It's time to find friends I respect and enjoy. It's time I started taking care of myself and being more selfish than I have ever been.

I am going to disable comments for this post because I do not care to see them. This blog is mine, and I have written it for my own sake, out of selfishness. And it is my selfish desire not to see the comments.

"Well, the man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures--which can't be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man's sense of his own value...the men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think--for the same reason--that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one's mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you--just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself...The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer--because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut...He does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it... Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives--and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other. Love is our response to our highest values--and can be nothing else."

Wow.

A Harvard undergrad returns home on break. The conversation at the welcome home dinner inevitably turns to her schooling.

"I've become an enlightened liberal," the English lit student declares proudly. The conversation then turns to her study habits, free time and the like.

Daughter: "Free time? What free time? I barely have time to eat. I'm working like a dog --- but I'm making dean's list!"

Father: "And how is your best friend Michelle doing?"

Daughter: "She works, but has different parties, I, uh mean, priorities. Her GPA is hitting rock bottom. She's pretty smart, but she was warned that if she doesn't clean up her act, then she'll be booted."

Father: "Now, you wouldn't want that. Why don't you go to the dean's office and offer to transfer some of your GPA to Michelle so you both can be equal?"

Daughter: "Why in the world would I do that!? I work hard. I push myself. I do what I must without any excuses. Michelle is capable. If she wanted to succeed like me, she would."

Father: "Are you sure that your English lit courses don't include a class in poli-sci? You've managed to succinctly articulate the differences between conservatives and liberals."

-Jewish World Report, Chaim Gantz of Brooklyn, New York

i LOVE the LA Athletic Club. I was in an elevator today with one of the most beautiful boys ive seen in my entire life. Even his accent was gorgeous (he was Austrian). He is exactly how i would imagine Sirius Black looked like when he was younger. Thank you LAAC.