The Rational Argumentator

A Journal for Western Man

Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group

March #10, Op. 59

G. Stolyarov II

Issue CXCIII - April 29, 2009

Recommend this page.

March #10, Op. 59:Listen.

Length: 2:26

This march contains numerous harmonies which have been associated with the Middle East – at least by late 19th-century composers of music that was meant to sound exotic to Western ears. Like all of Mr. Stolyarov’s compositions, however, this one is strictly harmonious in accordance with classical Western standards. It contains two main themes, with the second theme presented in the middle of the work, surrounded by versions of the first theme. The march is composed for a harpsichord, piano, flute, a brass ensemble, and timpani. Throughout the work, the piano keeps up a steady accompaniment of single eighth notes alternating with two repeated sixteenth notes. The harpsichord carries the main melody, which is also at times picked up by the flute and brass parts. The march was created on the basis of the interaction between massive and powerful chords and rapid passages of sixteenth notes transitioning between them.

­­___________

Find out about Mr. Stolyarov and The Progress of Liberty.

Recommend this page.

This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.

Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXCIII Index.

An excellent new essay by Patri Friedman, “Beyond Folk Activism,” discusses some fundamental shortcomings of traditional pro-freedom activism and suggests less intuitive but more powerful ways to overcome these shortcomings. As creatures who evolved in small tribes where everyone had the ability to directly speak to and persuade everyone else, we humans still have the intuition that by talking about an issue sufficiently with the people around us, we can effect substantial change. In the highly complex, technological civilization of modernity – with billions of people to persuade rather than tens – this approach does not work. The best kinds of activism are the ones that do not require the participation or even the agreement of the vast majority of people, and Friedman’s Seasteading project attempts to do just that. Generally, a more sophisticated and effective activist needs to focus on creating new kinds of goods – including technologies and capital goods – that advance the cause of liberty in themselves, without requiring the assent of the general society to be brought into existence.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

If all the conventional economic and moral arguments against the crackdown on illegal immigration were not enough, then consider this: the recent wave of persecutions and deportations of alleged “illegals” has led to American citizens being indefinitely detained and deported – in direct contravention of U. S. law. This article by Suzanne Gamboa discusses the case of Pedro Guzman, a mentally ill American-born citizen who was deported to Mexico upon suspicion of illegal status. Hundreds of other U. S. citizens have also been deported in this manner.

It is absolutely intolerable for even one American citizen to be denied the rights and privileges of citizenship due to overzealous and sloppy efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. And yet, if anyone is given the colossal power needed to keep track of and punish over 10 million people who have broken a rather silly law, then we can be sure that some mistakes will be made and some innocent people will suffer. The far more reasonable remedy to any of the negative effects of illegal immigration is to render the legal immigration process much easier, swifter, and more accepting – giving many of the currently illegal immigrants an incentive to take legitimate routes to residency in this country.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

An alarming number of theists argue that it was atheism that led to the genocides of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot during the 20^th century – notwithstanding that atheism is not a positive doctrine and it was rather the dogma of communism that motivated these genocides. However, theists who argue this way often challenge non-believers to give instances where slaughters on such a grand scale were motivated by religious considerations. In fact, there happens to be such an instance, the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) in China, where about 25 million people – mostly civilians – were killed in the course of an uprising orchestrated by the Christian convert and religious fanatic Hong Xiuquan. Hong’s regime was not only Christian, it was communistic – abolishing private property and mandating communal living and strict separation of the sexes.

By contrast, estimates of the death toll inflicted by Pol Pot only go as high as 2.3 million. This is still horrific, of course, and inexcusable. However, it is for this reason that I advise theists not to play the death toll card anymore. Rather, it is important to recognize the dangers of all sorts of fanaticism and dogma, irrespective of their underlying metaphysics. Any set of ideas which does not incorporate a considerable degree of tolerance for opposing views is highly dangerous and likely to lead to horrendous destruction of lives and property.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

I have no disrespect for many rank-and-file American conservatives – including serious academicians, middle-class professionals, and many college students who genuinely believe the ideas of today’s conservative “movement.” While I disagree with some of these ideas, I can admire those who adhere to them with sincere conviction and a genuine desire to do good in the world.

I have no comparable respect for most of the elites of today’s American conservative movement – who, in their personal lives, clearly do not practice what they preach. I do not simply refer to such religious figures as Ted Haggard or to such political figures as Larry Craig, who were exposed as practicing lifestyles they condemned. I point to much more routine indiscretions committed by the children of such elite conservatives as George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. I point to the routine personal vulgarity – which borders on and sometimes extends into the obscene – of such prominent conservative figures as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, and that artist widely considered to be a paragon of Christian virtue – Thomas Kinkade. This is, of course, not to mention the despicable spousal abandonment practiced by such men as John McCain and Newt Gingrich.

I have, over time, begun to see the American conservative movement as at least partially a scam perpetrated by ethically unscrupulous elites – who do not believe their own teachings – upon morally upright, conscientious, but credulous conservative petit-bourgeois and intellectuals. What the elites want is money and power; they do not actually wish to realize the principles they expound, but they need to expound the principles in order to receive the donations.

It is time for men of integrity among American conservatives to cease being the dupes of the Republican Party, megachurches, big talk show programs, and huge activist organizations whose real goal is to maintain a perpetual stream of funds from fairly ordinary and credulous people. Think for yourselves – and keep your money, too.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

In behavioral finance, there is a well-known tendency of many people to consider themselves worse off after a financial net gain that happens under certain circumstances. For instance, if person A wins $10 million but then loses $8 million, he might consider himself worse off than he would have seen himself as being if he had simply won $1 million. Even though in absolute terms A is twice as wealthy in the first case as he would have been in the second, A will see his current position mostly in relation to the $10 million he once had and will thus consider himself to be in dire straits. This is, of course, an entirely irrational mindset; $2 million is clearly better than $1 million, all other things equal.

I think many people are afflicted by a similar mentality with regard to life itself. It is likely that even a majority of people think that life is not worth living under certain conditions. These conditions are virtually always worse than the conditions of those people’s lives at present – and so a descent into such conditions would entail a diminution of the quality of life. However, people who think that life is sometimes not worth living do not venture to make the proper comparison of lower quality of life to no quality of life. Rather, they compare some hypothetical or actual lower quality of life to a former higher quality of life – even though both are better than an absence of life altogether. In despair over their losses of liberty, privilege, health, loved ones, or any other values, they are willing to abandon everything else of value that they have by choosing to succumb to death. This is as irrational as a person who lost $8 million out of $10 million burning the other $2 million out of the belief that wealth is just not worth having unless there is a certain amount of it.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

Religions and religious doctrines evolve all the time – and this is a fact that warrants hope. I have long speculated that some future strains of Christianity might come to view the promise of resurrection as one of renewed life in this world – not in some ethereal Platonic world of souls that many Christians today seem to consider Heaven to be.

Robert Ettinger, the founder of the cryonics movement, wrote an excellent short story, “The Penultimate Trump,” in 1948. In this story, the suspended animation of humans enables them to be restored to life and youthfulness hundreds of years later. At that time, they are judged on the basis of their past actions and, if they committed sufficient misdeeds are flown to the penal colony on Mars, which has been renamed Hell. (I recommend everyone to read the full short story, so I will say no more on its contents.) Perhaps the promise of resurrection and judgment will be fulfilled through naturalistic means in this world – and cryonically preserved humans will indeed be judged by their more morally advanced future counterparts upon their revival.

An even more distant future possibility might be the revival of non-preserved humans from even a remoter past, if it ever becomes possible to reconstitute entire bodies and minds from the data included in whatever DNA samples from these persons might have remained. In this case, the “judgment” might consist of deciding whom to revive. We would want Leonardo da Vinci and Benjamin Franklin around, but not Hitler or Tamerlane.

I myself am an atheist, but I welcome any adjustments in the theological views of religious people that would render such persons more comfortable with and supporting of technological progress that will ultimately benefit us all.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

One of the most ludicrous allegations made by some theists is that one needs to believe in God in order to appreciate beauty in the world and in art. Such a claim needs only one counterexample of an atheist artist, musician, or admirer of the arts to refute. Several such counterexamples are extremely well-known.

The French composer Hector Berlioz (1803-1869) repeatedly referred to himself as an atheist in his letters. The virtuoso Italian violinist Niccolo Paganini (1782-1840) was well-known as an atheist during his day. Franz Schubert (1797-1828) was documented to have said of all religious creeds and writings, “Not a word of it is true.”  French composer Charles-Camille Saint-Saëns (1835-1921) was an atheist, as was Richard Wagner (1813-1883) during the time when he wrote his most monumental music.

An excellent article by Madalyn Murray O’Hair documents atheistic and freethinking tendencies among some of the most famous composers of human history. If these men could compose works of universally recognized beauty, then surely a belief in God is not required for esthetic appreciation!

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

With regard to enjoying life, I am, of course, not opposed to it – and I, like all human beings, seek out enjoyment in a variety of circumstances. I do, however, try to follow a permanent enjoyment hypothesis, much akin to Milton Friedman’s permanent income hypothesis. That is, I try to sustainably spread my enjoyment throughout my life (and perhaps to increase its sustainable quantity per unit time whenever possible). However, I think it is also important to take care that present enjoyment does not undermine one’s future capacity for enjoyment – and this often requires one to endure a certain level of inconvenience and struggle in order to not suffer much more in the future. Those who maximize enjoyment now at the expense of future enjoyment – or even in a manner that causes great future suffering – are not acting prudently or with foresight as far as enjoying life is concerned.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II

I was once asked whether some experiences were so worthwhile as to justify a willingness to sacrifice one’s life in order to have such experiences. The question was phrased as follows: “Is it possible that a finite life with experience A is preferred to an [indefinite] life without experience A?” I do not think so and, moreover, I think the dilemma is a bit artificial. A life of indefinite duration will always give one the possibility of pursuing experience A at some point in the future. If one missed having A now, one can always catch up on it thousands or millions of years in the future. No A is worth so much to me that I would be willing to cut off my future ability to exist or to experience anything for it.

Sincerely,

Gennady Stolyarov II