Chris, you wrote, "The coalition Rothbard sought with New Lefties in a concrete-bound opposition to Vietnam must strike those if this generation, who take ideas seriously, as plain nuts and a freakish sell-out."

It struck many of us that way in the Seventies.

> I'm not a fan of name-calling. And I regret the one time that I ventured into such territory with you. It was unseemly, so my apologies on that score.

Thanks, Diana. I don't even recall what it was right now. So, if it was part of the Sciabarra thread...and if I participated in it...my apologies also.

Not to downgrade your otherwise excellent comments on Rothbard et al, but your rhetorical question below is another sign of a false alternative with respect to libertarianism and activism:

"How many people have actually been persuaded towards accepting laissez-faire capitalism by the anarcho-libertarian chants of "taxation is theft!" By contrast, how many have been persuaded by Rand's argument that reason and individualism are good?"

I can say from personal experience that many people have been persuaded by both, and in fact when presented properly (for instance as one of a series of on-campus posters to attract punters to a presentation of Peikoff's 'Philosophy of Objectivism' course) some have even been quite literally persuaded by the slogan 'Taxation is Theft' to listen and be persuaded by Rand's argument that reason and individualism are good.

So it's not necessarily either/or.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Well Phil, I'm not commenting on Linz's claims about ISIL one way or another because...

(1) I'm totally and completely ignorant of the particulars of ISIL. Sure, I know that it's a libertarian organization. And I know that some libertarians support pedophilia. Since I'm not a libertarian nor a supporter of the libertarian movement, I don't really care what people say about this or that libertarian organization. It wouldn't change my overall negative assessment of the libertarian movement one bit. (That's why I didn't even bother to read what Linz wrote.)

Moreover, I personally witnessed Jim Peron indignantly lie through his teeth for weeks about his support for pedophilia, smearing Bill Dwyer in the process. Jim was later exposed as a stinking liar. So I don't take random libertarians at face value on this issue any more. Once burned, twice shy. With libertarians, all things are possible, including the advocacy of the most crazy and repugnant views.

(2) Linz's views don't reflect upon me. We have plenty of well-known disagreements on a wide range of issues, so I hardly feel the need to comment upon every new one that arises. As a general matter though, I do think that if Linz made the accusation, he ought to back it up.

However, while I'm here, I may as well mention that I regard the metaphorical discussion of your sexual organs to be an embarrassment to SoloPassion. I'm not a fan of name-calling. And I regret the one time that I ventured into such territory with you. It was unseemly, so my apologies on that score.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Still waiting for ANY SINGLE ONE of all those people who habitually post within a half hour of reading something and many of whom are quite familiar with ISIL to support my point that it was IRRESPONSIBLE or UNSUPPORTED BY AN ATTEMPT AT PROOF of Linz to call ISIL a "Nambla Network".

Still waiting for those who extoll courage and outspokenness.

And admire it as "Kassy".

.....

I wouldn't normally put it in such crude and seventh grade terms as lacking or possessing testicles. But since I've been now been accused of Kasslessness at least a dozen times, I just want to point out that I've never had a problem going against even my own subculture or friends or allies. Or the vast majority of people in Objectivism or that I hang out with in life or on websites like this.

What About You, Gentle Objectivist?

> because you took a stand in opposition?

because it's valid not because it's oppositional.

(don't make me waste my time replying to these)

You know how much I hate an unlocked foot locker, don't you!

The more important question is why anyone should express support for your post, just because you took a stand in opposition?

> How many people have actually been persuaded towards accepting laissez-faire capitalism by the anarcho-libertarian chants of "taxation is theft!" By contrast, how many have been persuaded by Rand's argument that reason and individualism are good? [Chris]

Excellent point.

And you didn't even have to insult anyone to make it.

> I haven't really looking into the Nampblaphilia charge, but here's what I suspect...

Chris, don't tell me what you suspect but what you've actually verified especially with regard to levelling as serious a charge as 'child molestors' or advocates of same.

I think there is some confusion as to whether it is I or some other people on this site who possess what you call "Kass": A real demonstration of what some of you so crudely and stupidly call "growing a pair" would be if any of his supporters make a post today *supporting my last post*, taking an independent stand apart from the Pack, criticizing Linz when he smears someone.

Whooops!!

WHERE ARE ALL THOSE TESTICLES NOW???

How many people have actually been persuaded towards accepting laissez-faire capitalism by the anarcho-libertarian chants of "taxation is theft!" By contrast, how many have been persuaded by Rand's argument that reason and individualism are good? Have Rothbardites accomplished anything in advancing the cause of liberty with their approach? As nice as Ethics of Liberty might be for what it does in parts, why won't he be remembered as more than a footnote generations from now? Hell, Herbert Spencer, who did more by way of philosophy, was a giant in his own time, and he's mostly forgotten today. His defense of rights had too much utlitarianism to it, and more importantly, he didn't communicate sound philosophy, all the way to its fundamentals, in dramatic and inspiring fashion.

I haven't really looking into the Nampblaphilia charge, but here's what I suspect: a bunch of "libertarians" clueless about philosophy who somehow deem fit to tie advocacy regarding age-of-consent laws to libertarianism. This kind of stuff has no place in a movement under that title; if they want to go litigate on age-of-consent stuff, they've got their own time and own forum to do it. Leave the rest of us out of it.

As to "anarchocapitalism" and the like, it's also another aggravating aspect of the "libertarian" movement, focusing not on the requisite philosophical fundamentals for establishing any kind of free society, but focusing their fervor on the State. This stuff has basically no business in a respectable libertarian movement by that name, either. The fundamental enemy is unreason, and it's unreason that must be fought, or not even anything resembling "minarchy" has any hope. My hunch at this point is that it's a lot of ultra-rationalist treatement of the concepts of force, consent, etc. Even granting that there were some area of legitimate disagreement (that this is an area of specific application or somesuch for those with sufficient interest and patience for these debates -- and I can't say I have much of either), dragging it on into the mainstream of discussion as a fundamental preoccupation of political debate is ridiculous. There are much bigger fish to fry, and it lies in the realm of philosophy.

(I'll note for George's edification that anarchism isn't a disqualifying qualification for someone as an intellectual ally. It wasn't the case for Rand, who didn't regard Rothbard's anarchism as the disqualifying element of her then-friendship with him. It was, however, his attitude towards ideas, displayed in many later published writings [I can only best describe the attitude at this point as snide and cynical, and philosophically superficial], that set him and his like apart from Objectivists and theirs. The coalition Rothbard sought with New Lefties in a concrete-bound opposition to Vietnam must strike those if this generation, who take ideas seriously, as plain nuts and a freakish sell-out. That's what you get when you take opposition the State as such to be so central.)

> ISIL is a Nambla network, and a respository of Saddamy.

Linz, it's an organization for the spreading of libertarianism globally. That's it.

I don't know the story about books their past bookstore carried a decade ago, but ISIL does not advocate (and I doubt you would find many member who would advocate) child molesting. On your other point, it's probably true, unfortunately, that many or even most of ISIL members oppose America's forceful, preemptive, necessary for it's own survival war on terrorism (or at least prosecuting through to victory the Iraq war).

And it wouldn't surprise me if...again unfortunately...many or most ISIL members were anarchocapitalists. But they will certainly host polite and intelligent discussions on both sides of the issue: They cosponsored my debate with George Smith at Laissez-Faire Books in the mid-nineties on anarchocapitalism vs. minarchism.

I haven't checked recently, but I don't think that is a view they are trying to promote or argue about in their work or their literature or in their conferences: They are trying to create libertarians and objectivists in all the countries of the world. Not to advocate or argue particular policy matters.

It is not "KASS" or good, spirited debate or poetic license or fair "polemics" to overstate or exaggerate your charges with the result that you unfairly characterize or oversimplify or smear organizations.

You should never confuse ISIL with anything to do with Objectivism. ISIL is a Nambla network, and a respository of Saddamy. Of course it was Peron who substituted for Branden. The Namblaphile par excellence substituting for the defender of Namblaphiles par excellence. Ick substituting for slime. If Objectivism is ever corrupted by their ilk, it's as fucked as they think pubescent kiddies should be.

Linz

I was not active in politics in the early and mid 90s. Business took up all of my waking hours so I was not aware of that conference (not online then either). I would love to see the programme and supporting materials.

Last year's ISIL conference in Germany was billed as a tribute to Rand. Jim Peron substituted when Barbara Branden pulled out. I tried to register but it was full up (mainly Eastern Europeans). An affordable European Objectivist conference in a major city (to take advantage of low cost air flights) would attract a substantial attendance.

To deal with Phil's point, it is easy to purchase Rand's fiction in the UK. Borders and the larger Waterstone stores tend to carry them as standard stock. You used to see some of the non-fiction in the central London stores.

One key resource to developing an Objectivist movement in the UK would be access to the details of Britons who, having purchased a Rand book, contact ARI for more information.

See. There's one now.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

"Good breeding"? Wait till you get a whiff of one of the Irishman's vegetarian windbreaks. That'll disabuse you. The lentil-&-broccoli ones are especially devastating.

Well, I will certainly remind Fred Seddon at the first available opportunity. Although, he may be a hard sell.

"...you are a man of high intelligence and good breeding..."

May I quote you on that, Fred. There are people about, you know, who would refuse to believe you.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

Thanks for your comments, Fred. I very much understand your objection to my phrasing, as it was a convenient but unfortunate lapse into econ-speak.

You see, using the current economic rhetoric, it is difficult to speak about the behavior of markets in aggregate without abstracting from the individual. I do agree that individuals produce all resources to be brought to and traded in markets. However, prices are not determined by individuals, but by the numerous interactions between buyers and sellers in markets. Individuals matter, but their choices in aggregate also matter.

I shall have to work on new ways to express economic ideas without trotting out jargon that misrepresents my ideas.

Excellent, Peter.

Your understanding of the issues related to "Roofs and Ceilings" and your familiarity with Ayn Rand's critique of it demonstrates that you are a man of high intelligence and good breeding (lest anyone hereafter have any doubts about it).

I had my nose rubbed in that issue some years ago when it became a perennial topic on HPO because David Friedman used to throw it in our face as an example of Rand's excessive hyperbole - that being her calling Friedman and Stigler "reds". Having to defend her on the point was difficult until I got a good grasp of the underlying issues and it took me awhile.

FRED: "You might be surprised to learn that Ayn Rand once called Milton Friedman and George Stigler "reds" for advocating the end of rent controls after WWll on the grounds that the free market is better able to "allocate housing resources" (this was in an essay by them, "Roofs and Ceilings"). Rand's comments were made to William Mullendore, a "conservative" friend of hers, September 20, 1946 (see Letters of Ayn Rand). That essay infuriated her and she let Mullendore know why in some detail. It is a classic example of her view that a bad defense of capitalism is far more damaging than no defense."

That certainly is a classic. Not to boast now (well, not too much), but I do have some excerpts from that letter on my blog, along with a link to the article itself.

(I'm linking to the blog rather than directly to the article just to show how we libertarians of the South Pacific do argue, that we have a moral backbone, and that so much of what we do here is about education: trying to foment as Linz is wont to say "a revolution inside people's heads."

In the post linked here I'm responding to the leader of the local ACT Party, a so-called 'classical liberal' party, who posted the 'Roofs and Ceilings' piece approvingly on his own blog. The schmuck. )

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

NB: Note that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister respectively (And I use the stub 'respect-' about those two only out of grammatical necessity.)

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Katherine, I'll also add that you should try and eradicate from your mind the notion of "allocating resources" as a differentiating characteristic of economies. First of all, socialism doesn't have resources to allocate. In the process of destroying them it can only ration the ever dwindling supply. Most important, capitalism should not be primarily understood as a system which allocates resources efficiently. That's a static, collectivist notion. Capitalism is constantly *creating* resources (in the process of creating wealth), especially new "resources" (really, goods and services) which had not previously existed - and what's more, producing them in vast quantities and at ever lower prices. A manufacturer in a free market doesn't have to "allocate" his product (except in unusual and temporary shortage situations). He's quite happy to produce as much as the public wants at a price it is willing to pay, just so long as he can make a profit on it.

In a good example of KASS, you might be surprised to learn that Ayn Rand once called Milton Friedman and George Stigler "reds" for advocating the end of rent controls after WWll on the grounds that the free market is better able to "allocate housing resources" (this was in an essay by them, "Roofs and Ceilings"). Rand's comments were made to William Mullendore, a "conservative" friend of hers, September 20, 1946 (see Letters of Ayn Rand). That essay - a good example of "Objectivist rage" - infuriated her and she let Mullendore know why in some detail. It is a classic example of her view that a bad defense of capitalism is far more damaging than no defense. It's a fascinating letter.

I will give it a look.

"Although many economists have lost sight of the crucial role that institutions (legal and otherwise) play in shaping market activity and market outcomes, I'm trying to revive this idea through my own work."

Katherine, if you haven't already discovered him you will probably enjoy author Tom Bethell, who makes that very point in the introduction to his mostly excellent 'The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages.' [You can read some of it here with the Amazon Online Reader.]

All the best with your work.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

As a student of economics, I must offer a brief comment on the following statement:
Actually, the full designation that Rand gives it is "laissez-faire capitalism," and the full designation is a politico-economic one. If it were only about economics without a normative component, you might as well call it "markets" (as the very KASSless would do).

The word market is so general as to be almost devoid of meaning. I do not think of markets as existing in a vacuum, rather they require some kind of institutional framework to even come into existence. It is this framework that determines the efficiency of market activity.

To advocate “markets” is essentially to advocate economic activity – what kind of economic activity is not obvious. Markets exist even in socialist societies. They are, to use a technical term, crappy markets, in that they do not allocate resources efficiently, but markets nonetheless. However, to advocate laissez-faire capitalism tells me exactly what kind of institutional arrangement will facilitate the functioning of economic behavior.

Although many economists have lost sight of the crucial role that institutions (legal and otherwise) play in shaping market activity and market outcomes, I'm trying to revive this idea through my own work.

So, yes, to say that Ayn Rand was pro-market is KASSless indeed!

> there's no fewer Ayn Rand books available in the UK than there are in the US

That's good news. Does it mean you would find her major titles in every bookstore in the country, chain or independent, filed in both the literature and philosophy sections, as we have in the U.S.?

Could people from NZ, Australia, etc. also comment on this last question: How prevalent is Rand in your country in the bookstores?

> you're not really serious are you, Phil, in suggesting that Britain was out of the mainstream of Enlightenment ideas?

That wasn't me-*
-It was Thomas Lee.
The Brits spread it to we.
And that's why we're free.

*Please don't feed my sense of aggravation that people aren't reading my posts and committing them to memory as carefully as they should.

I've just noticed that one of the poms in the list of 1995 attendees was one Elan Journo from Canterbury, Kent. I wonder if he's still in touch with any of his former Objectivist 'townies.'

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

Hmmm, there's no fewer Ayn Rand books available in the UK than there are in the US, and they're certainly far more than are easily available here in NZ where people at least know who she is, so I'm not sure that's the answer.

And I don't seriously think that the old money/new money problem exists any more, at least not to the extent those from outside the UK might think. And unlike you Americans, most Brits are atheists (or at least agnostic about religion), so they have that going for them too.

Thatcher's 'revolution' was a time when the country was in intellectual ferment, when by all standards one might think Rand's pithy and incisive answers to the questions with which they were wrestling and on the dragons they were slaying would have been something to shout from the rooftops. But they weren't.

So I'm not really sure what the problem is. (And BTW, you're not really serious are you, Phil, in suggesting that Britain was out of the mainstream of Enlightenment ideas?)

My only hypothesis would be to say that Brits don't generally have too much respect for people who don't write their books in Britain (unless of course they're a coloured colonial or an Irishman with a sad story), but that surely can't be the whole story.

So I'm still flummoxed.

And just to clarify on the question of Objectivist conferences in London: as I understand it, there have been at least two major conferences there, and (I think) one cancelled in 2001.

The one I attended in 1995 had all but one of the then big-name ARI speakers (ie., Berliner, Bernstein, Binswanger, Schwartz, Ridpath, Hull and even a young Yaron Brook, who we had a chance to talk to and who delivered a fascinating presentation on Toscanini, albeit without sound, but accompanied by beautiful drawings by his wife Revital) and had about 80 attendees, 17 of those American and the rest from across Europe, including 7 from Sweden, 3 from German and 31 from the UK. (I just happen to have the conference notes to hand here; no, don't ask why.)

So there was a small and what seemed to be hardcore group of pommie Objectivists there. As I was leaving London at the time I only met up with them all very briefly, but where have they gone I wonder?

"To build a British Objectivist organisation would require access to the their mailing lists and the details of Britons on the lists of Atlasphere, ARI, TOC etc."

Well, I do still have the names of those 31 poms here in my notes beside me, should any still be out and about. I presume they were included in the conference notes for a reason ...

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

I've just been Skyping with John about getting SOLO-UK cranked back into life. The relevant folk will be hearing from us.

I would add that most British classical liberals and libertarians repeat the claims about Rand being rude, angry and intolerant. Only an informed minority of that "elite" group even understand that Rand called her philosophy Objectivism.

Another example is that the Institute of Economic Affairs has recommended me as a speaker on Rand. I have a reasonable knowledge of Rand's works but, being a businessman rather than a trained philosopher, I would not call myself an expert.

Things are really that bad here.

It's getting late here in London so I will be brief. The UK Objectivism Association does not appear to be active. It's website is very small. The last time I looked there were around a 100 or so Britons registered on the Atlasphere site but I would be surprised if there were more than a handful of committed Objectivists.

The Libertarian Alliance has had a few Ayn Rand admirers, notably the late Chris Tame and Nicholas Dykes (who writes for JARS). The LA has a substantial number of articles on Rand on its website (www.libertarian.co.uk). However, I broke with the LA, due to a personal dispute with one key individual, many years ago.

The Objectivist Centre's William Thomas ran a two-day seminar in London last year. To my knowledge, that was first Objectivist seminar that has been held in the UK. I A friend told me that it attracted around 20-30 participants. The LA also held its annual conference that same weekend and honoured Chris Matthew Sciabarra. I was booked into another conference that weekend and could not attend either of them. No doubt the pro-ARI posters on this site would tell me that was a good thing but, for me, it was a missed opportunity to meet other British Objectivists.

Fred Weiss should note my pro-Rand views are well-known in the "Westminster village". I spoke at the Adam Smith Institute's seminar to celebrate Rand's 100th birthday. It was attended by about 70 or so free marketeers. The pro-ARI British blogger Andrew Medworth and an academic (whose name escapes me at the moment) also spoke. Medworth spoke before me and used similar material so I ditched my speech and gave an account of how Rand had influenced my life. I met Tim Sturm afterwards (he was amazed that I knew about SOLO even though I was not blogging at that time).

The British Rand fans are therefore spread around in various organisations and it is difficult to estimate their numbers . To build a British Objectivist organisation would require access to the their mailing lists and the details of Britons on the lists of Atlasphere, ARI, TOC etc.

I agree with Fred. What you might be called is the last thing you should worry about. "Randroid" is unlikely from calling yourself an Objectivist, in any event, since it refers to a specific kind of emotionally repressed religionist whose repression is very evident in his demeanour. These days one finds such repression in the ranks of the Brandroids, who regard any display of emotion, let alone sustained passion, as uncouth.

Linz

I think the problem is that Rand's books appeal to American values, such as a deep respect for productive achievement by average Americans, which aren't as widespread in the UK. As I understand it, there is still a view there that "old money" is more respectable than "new money." More generally, I don't think Englightenment values penetrated as deeply in the UK as in America.

> It's disappointing so little progress has been made there in having Objectivism penetrate the culture, and given the UK's general intellectual atmosphere, it still seems to me somewhat surprising. Anyone like to try and explain it? Anyone have any theories?

The books aren't as widely available.

"The UK has been a virtual wasteland in regard to Objectivism, but there are some signs of stirrings."

I attended a very good Objectivist conference in London ten years ago at which Andy Bernstein, John Ridpath et al all spoke. The conference was well-attended, but for a London conference there were very few Londoners.

It's disappointing so little progress has been made there in having Objectivism penetrate the culture, and given the UK's general intellectual atmosphere, it still seems to me somewhat surprising.

Anyone like to try and explain it? Anyone have any theories?

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Kenny, if in fact that reflects your views, I suggest that you embrace the banner of Objectivism and carry it proudly, even flaunt it, in the face of those who you think will call you a "Randroid". You might discover after a time that you will win their respect, bring some others "out of the closet" to join you, and make some points in the process.

Even if you only agree with some key Objectivist principles, I would make that clearly known, too.

The UK has been a virtual wasteland in regard to Objectivism, but there are some signs of stirrings. You may just need to blow on the sparks to get a little fire going.

SJW, while frothing at the mouth, manages to spew forth, in reference to the esteemed Mr. Mazza: "Yours are the tactics of the witch doctor." Perhaps, SJW, you need a mirror...

Shayne, please don't use such big words in future posts. I have trouble understanding.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

First of all, thanks for answering honestly.

But I honestly can't fathom that anyone declaring themselves as "Objectivist" or using your tagline, could possibly resort to that kind of dishonest high-school crap. You admit to resorting to bald-faced lying, with the sole justification being to pull my chain. The fact that it's a lie, that it's defamation, that not all readers are going to see through your lie, doesn't even cross your mind. So much for objectivity. And you rationalize this by tacking on this "I think I'm better than everyone" on me--well I'm certainly better than *you*--but that's not saying much. I would never resort to such crudely dishonest behavior or to such crude rationalizations about it afterwards.

You're right, Shayne. I am just pulling your chain. See, you are an excellent example of the arrogant, self-absorbed "I'm better than the rest of the world" Objectivist that gives the rest of us a bad rap. So I admit to intentionally pissing you off, as I find it quite amusing. But you win, I give up. You are obviously much smarter and more "rational" than I'll ever be. I concede defeat.

- Mike "I'm not as smart as Shayne the genius" Mazza

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Mazza I way overestimated you. OK, I'll spell this out real slow and careful. You assert below: "For anyone who doesn't know, I kicked Shayne's ass in an argument about the nature of proper names and abstract particulars so bad that he changed his screen name and didn't post on the forum for months."

Never mind the "kicked Shayne's ass" part. I won't call that a lie because I think you're inept enough to think it's true. But the rest of it--no one is that inept. Or at least I can't fathom that you're that you're so self-deluded as to believe it. I can only reconcile the lie by hypothesizing that like Linz, that's just your style of insult, or, that you really do intend to spread lies about your adversaries.

Frankly it's just morbid curiosity that keeps me around at this point. I never figured out what it was that made so many people on this board lie like this.

So which is it? Do you actually believe that I left the board because of you? And that I changed my screen name to my initials because of you? Or is this just the way your little cult dishes out insults, and you expect everyone is aware that you're just trying to pull my chain and not really intending to convey information? If it's this last I don't expect you to admit it: Is it that you really intend to spread lies about your opponents? Let me put it this way then: In what circumstances would you consider it a valid tactic to lie about your adversary? We've seen the rationalizations from Diana about disclosing private emails, I'm gonna guess that you might have some rationalizations about making up shit about your adversaries.

Still hurtin', huh Shayne? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have lied about, though. Or maybe it was just too subtle for someone stupid like me to pick up on.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Mazza, maybe I'll grant you the privilege of pointing your nose in what went over your head. But that'd only be after you own up and apologize for your dishonesty and/or ineptness.

By the way, the cry OMFG isn't you "hitting a nerve"; it's me being disgusted at the low behavior around here. Insults are one thing; completely dishonest fabrications are quite another. Technically speaking, with Linz leading the charge, you're moving from the realm of uncivilized insults into criminal territory--defamation. Outright lies about those you can't defeat in an argument. Yours are the tactics of the witch doctor.

In retrospect I should've given the kudos to Creely not you. Befuddlement and mouth-foaming insults trumps ad hominem based on lying through your teeth.

I have stopped describing myself as a libertarian for the same reasons as Chris Cathcart. Close friends know of my love for Rand and her works.

However, the Brandens' and Rothbard's views on Rand have tainted her reputation in Britain - even in classical liberal and libertarian circles.

I would be ridiculed as a "Randroid" if I called myself an Objectivist. In practice, I tend to use "individualist" or "egoist" instead. "Laissez faire" is not specific enough.

Ooo hit a nerve there, did I? Ok Shayne, I see you're still much smarter than everyone else in the world, so I won't try to get in the way. I can imagine how difficult it must be for a genius like yourself to have to talk down to us little morons. I guess I'm too stupid to get the subtlety of "What a pile of rationalism," and "But the rest--rationalist nonsense."

Craig writes: "And what he "actually wrote" immediately after that was: "So on this Labor Day we're all workers and entrepreneurs." "All." His choice of word. So he's open to the criticism that was brought here."

Just proves you can't read without dropping context. What he meant by "entrepreneur" was made perfectly clear in the preceding writing. But since you're an intrinsicist, you ignore the context and use your personal definition of "entrepreneur". Then you become offended. Amusing. Kinda like watching a dog chase its tail.

If Hudgins equivocates on the meaning of "entrepreneur," that hardly means Craig dropped any context. Regardless, context dropping isn't really a big indicator of intrinsicism. And even if it were symptom numero uno, committing a one time error doesn't make one an intrinsicist. But then again, there is a probably a hidden subtlety in "Kinda like watching a dog chase its tail," that went way over my head.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Libertarianism is the Objectivist politics. You may not like that, but it is the case. Objectivists aren't 'republicans' or 'liberals' or 'democrats' politically, and to call yourself a capitalist is not so much to stake out a political position as primarily an economic one . . .

Actually, the full designation that Rand gives it is "laissez-faire capitalism," and the full designation is a politico-economic one. If it were only about economics without a normative component, you might as well call it "markets" (as the very KASSless would do). Peikoff makes a remark in OPAR that politics is to economics as mind is to body; I think the "laissez-faire capitalism" designation captures the whole of that "mind-body" integration. "Laissez-faire" properly designates the nature of the whole political system.

About the best I can make out, the criticisms of "libertarians" as a class would need to specify the meaning of "libertarian" as something like, "Concerned primarily just with liberty and not with the philosophy necessary to defend it." Now, that may actually be useful! But, it's very strange usage and ultimately bound to invite misunderstanding to use the term "libertarian" for that.

The term "libertarian" is a label. If you're going to employ the label in discussion, it's best to define your terms. Me, I just regard it as a label typical of many labels applied to political ideologies: they have limited usefulness and can easily have shifting meanings. Some folks call themselves "libertarians" but are anarcho-collectivsts. Some folks call themselves "liberals" when they're anything but. Some folks call themselves "progressive," which says basically nothing except as a label for "liberals" to hide under. Still others call themselves "conservative," and, well, you know.

Really, the only good way to determine whether someone who identifies their politics as "libertarian" is of much use to an Objectivist is to discover their context -- namely, whether they have a basic respect for ideas or not. The good ones will find their way on over to Rand eventually (or at least demonstrate a basic respect for her).

There was a time that I liked the term "libertarian" and figured it applicable in the context of any discussion on political philosophy. Sometimes it's still useful in certain discussions with folks who recognize that we both mean the same thing by the term. But I've long since given up trying to urge the label on anyone. Plus, I think "laissez-faire capitalism" carries all the necessary KASS, and Rand was characteristically perceptive about this. You'll notice that IOS/TOC/TAS typically shies away from that now, substituting some generic "freedom" in its place. More and more, IOS/TOC/TAS resembles a vaguely generic libertarian-style operation, as the Hudgins op-ed bears out. (Now, it's even reducing its byline to some mushy-headed sounding "We celebrate human achievement." Yeah, so?)

Ironic tagline Mazza. Well, maybe it's that you're intellectually unskilled and not dishonest. Of course it's hard to fathom how someone could be quite so unskilled as to jump to a conclusion about why someone left a forum or why he chooses to use his initials instead of his full name with such scanty evidence. And by the way, I *did* supply an argument about the intrinsicism, it just a little too subtle for your 22-year-old mind. Just like my arguments RE open/closed. Anyways, you're sloppy, you've made that quite obvious, and the onus is not on me to try to correct your sloppiness. Maybe you'll grow out of it.

At least you have an excuse. And you're at least a little clever. I can't say that I was any better at 22. I can't say the same for the aged Ceely, who ought to be wiser by now. He knows I'm right. In evidence is the fact that he's now stooping to correcting stupid spelling errors. Ironic--he made the first error, calling me "WSJ". He can't type 3 letters in the right order and his best argument against me is that I mispelled something. It's a foolish old man who resorts to that kind of insult, it's obvious to any "buffoon" that anyone can misspell.

"Libertarianism is the Objectivist politics..."

I would say that capitalism is the Objectivist politics. I wouldn't use the term "libertarianism" b/c of the reasons that I have stated. Again, to me it is more useful trying to establish capitalism as the moral and practical social system than trying to redeem or reform the concept libertarianism.

"In my mind there's no need for the dichotomy between political and philosophical activism that too many 'armchair' Objectivists have, too many ridiculous excuses not to engage in political activism, or to protect your values from the political jackals. By leaving the field of political activism to others, you leave the others to define the terms."

I will think about this more. Its not so much that Objectivists argue against political activism, but that its currently too early as the intellectual / cultural landscape is not prepared for it yet. Best to focus on the development of young minds. But you have made an interesting argument and I will consider it more in my own thinking. Thanks.

Thanks for your reply.

You say, "It sounds as if you are trying to make libertarian synonymous with Objectivist." In fact, I'm explaining how libertarians are seen in New Zealand -- and that's because here we have made libertarianism largely synonymous with Objectivism, and with Objectivists here we've helped make them aware that political activism can be fruitful.

As we NZ Libz have said here before on this matter, one's method of activism is largely a 'horses for courses' matter: in NZ for many reasons (including the small size, more 'concrete' thinkers, the greater interest in politics, and the electoral system favouring small parties), political activism has proven more fruitful as a means of promoting ideas than any other.

Unlike the view of too many Objectivists, I suggest there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

As Chris notes below (and you won't be seeing any defence of Rothbard from me, BTW), Rand had said she is not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but an advocate of egoism, and not primarily an advocate of egoism but an advocate of reason. It's in the defense of reason that the battle for capitalism lies, not in out-of-context "defenses" of rights. And that's quite right. And that's what we try and do with our political activism, and at the same time with our philosophical activism: to promote an integrated approach to our activism, and to seek recruits and interest at all levels, and at all of those levels to promote reason, and with it the promotion of Objectivism and the ideas of Ayn Rand as the primary value.

To my mind there's no need for the dichotomy between political and philosophical activism that too many 'armchair' Objectivists have, too many ridiculous excuses not to engage in political activism, or to protect your values from the political jackals. By leaving the field of political activism to others, you leave the others to define the terms.

And so they do.

You also say, Bill, "Libertarians (small l as well as large) are not Objectivists and do not ground their ideas in principles, even when they have good ideas. I think their entire approach to ideas necessitates subjectivism which is why I think that they are a lost cause."

Why on earth does it "necessitate" subjectivism when the Objectivist politics itself is libertarian (as you recall, even Schwartz who conceded Rand's "conclusions" had been "stolen," meaning at least that they'd been adopted, even by US libertarians), meaning Objectivists do hold essentially the same political views, and Objectivists do defend them on an Objective basis? So why "necessarily" subjectivist?

Libertarianism is the Objectivist politics. You may not like that, but it is the case. Objectivists aren't 'republicans' or 'liberals' or 'democrats' politically, and to call yourself a capitalist is not so much to stake out a political position as primarily an economic one (which is ironically what you accuse libertarians of). Contra Rand's refusal to give up the field of philosophy to the barbarians, the political apathy of American Objectivists has allowed the barbarians to take over what should have been their political territory.

To refuse political activism on this basis just seems an incredibly dichotomous position to hold, on the basis of which you seem to want to dismiss all political activism as worthless, and all libertarians as "interested primarily in economics" or "only in rights" or in isolated concretes only, or to say they are all "unprincipled."

They're not "all" like that you know. And neither is libertarianism itself "necessarily" that way.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Diana once made me raise a puppy for a whole year. At the end of the year she told me to kill it, and I did. She's a horrible person.

Don't think that went unappreciated. That's gone in for the award.

Ah, the "if I don't get it then it's floating" fallacy, but clevered up with a little disguise.

Actually, since you made NO argument that anything they said was rationalism or intrinsicism, there was nothing to get. Do you really want to be embarrassed by a 22 year old kid in this kind of argument again?

For anyone who doesn't know, I kicked Shayne's ass in an argument about the nature of proper names and abstract particulars so bad that he changed his screen name and didn't post on the forum for months. Apparently, he's decided to pop up again and display his monumental ignorance of all things Objectivism. In fact, Shayne's rationalism is so bad, that he winded up advocating a position that implied an infinite number of existents popping into and out of existence instantaneously just to keep hold of some strange view of names. Why would someone want to hold a view like that? Well, because he’s got a weird grudge against Diana, who advocates the correct view of names and abstract particulars. Here's a link to the relevent thread. If you've taken a metaphysics class, Shayne's view of names strikes me as similar to (maybe moderate) modal realism.

As I said when I first met you, you've learned well from Master Hsieh.

Diana once made me raise a puppy for a whole year. At the end of the year she told me to kill it, and I did. She's a horrible person.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Shayne blathered: "Yeah, I accuse you of dropping context, of being an intrinsicist, and of being a feeble-minded, foaming-at-the-mouth sychophant and embarrasing excuse for an Objectivist. I'd spell out exactly what you missed but it's so damn obvious at this point I just can't bring myself to do it."

In other words, you can't, so you won't. No surprise there. And learn to spell first, you piece of shit little punk. Start with "embarrassing."

Linz, you really need to have someone seconded to handle my light work.

Fred Weiss & Jennifer: Thanks

Peter:

"here in New Zealand, where a libertarian is now seen as one who is pro-liberty, pro-republicanism, pro-self defence, and one who explicitly grounds their politics in Rand's rights theory..."

It sounds as if you are trying to make libertarian synonomous with Objectivist. I can only say that I hope you are successful. In America, that would be impossible and unneccessary. ARI's approach is the best that I have seen for intellectual activism. Spread the right ideas from the start and laissez faire will follow. To get libertarians in America to accept reason in all its facets would be impossible even for Hercules.

Chris: I agree with you totally concerning American libertarians and Ed Hudgins. I'm not so sure though that this is merely an issue of labels as you and Peter are suggesting. I think it is an issue of cognitive methodology. Libertarians (small l as well as large) are not Objectivists and do not ground their ideas in principles, even when they have good ideas. I think their entire approach to ideas neccessitates subjectivism which is why I think that they are a lost cause (as an ideological and political movement; individuals, of course, can be well worth fighting for if they are a value to you and have shown a serious committment to rational thought).

I'm not saying that they have no value whatsoever. For economics propper, many libertarians are very useful. But for ideas relating to the branch of political economy and specifically to capitalism as a social system (not just an economic one), libertarians are just too unprincipled to be of value. And they have been like that since their start. That is why I don't see anything relating to libertarianism worth fighting to redeem.

Shayne said: "Ah, the 'if I don't get it then it's floating' fallacy, but clevered up with a little disguise. As I said when I first met you, you've learned well from Master Hsieh."

See Mike, I told you that I was your puppetmaster! Now stop being so damn disobedient... and start folding my laundry!

(I have no idea why Shayne would mention my name, other than for purposes of random smearing. Perhaps he'll explain.)

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Craig writes: "WSJ: You ignore what the man wrote, immediately after the quote you used to make your own point, but you call me clueless?

You evade the fact that Hudgins moves from declaring that everyone "should" regard himself or herself as an entrepreneur to "we're all entrepreneurs," and you accuse me of dropping context?"

Yeah, I accuse you of dropping context, of being an intrinsicist, and of being a feeble-minded, foaming-at-the-mouth sychophant and embarrasing excuse for an Objectivist. I'd spell out exactly what you missed but it's so damn obvious at this point I just can't bring myself to do it.

Linz: "Normally they keep him secure in the kennels at KASSless Society HQ with that other mad dog, his mentor Badinutta."

Heh, true to form with the outright fabrications. A remnant of the Marxist past of yours perhaps? If you say a lie enough times then people start to think it's true? Or maybe I misunderstand. Maybe you merely intend to be insulting. In any case, it's one of those things that tipped me off about you. No one who actually loved individual rights would so recklessly spread lies about another, or sanction the spreading of such lies. It's one thing to insult; it's quite another to insult by spreading lies.

But you're right, I'll be going back to my "kennel". You guys are a waste of time.

Mazza: "His comments about Bill and Craig's supposed rationalism and intrinsicism fall under what I've dubbed "rationalistic rationalaism," by which I mean his "understanding" of rationalism is completely floating."

Ah, the "if I don't get it then it's floating" fallacy, but clevered up with a little disguise. As I said when I first met you, you've learned well from Master Hsieh.

Linz,

I see you pointed out that sjw is Shayne Wissler. I totally missed that. His comments about Bill and Craig's supposed rationalism and intrinsicism fall under what I've dubbed "rationalistic rationalaism," by which I mean his "understanding" of rationalism is completely floating. He's just using them as insults. Coming from him I doubt they have any more content than his "moron" comments.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Any reason to believe that Hudgins is familiar with the course?

I recall Diana mentioning that he was familiar with most Peikoff courses. I don't remember which thread it was on. Of course, "being familiar" and "understanding and applying" need not go hand in hand.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

You've got to remember Hudgins' background. He's a libertarian formerly of the CATO Institute. His approach is pretty well characteristic of that of tons of other non-Objectivist, mainstream, politics-focused libertarians. It oughtta tell you something that this is what David Kelley brought on to the organization. It's a pragmatic approach that has been tried and failed -- to try to be all friendly and appeal to the current mainstream of thought in its own terms. The LP has been a dismal failure, and the TAS is similarly wasting its resources. I haven't really looked closely into Hudgins' qualifications as an Objectivist, or what might show that he understands it indepth, but nothing I've seen indicates that he has much. I don't think that there's any way he could understand Objectivism much and go on about things the way he has. I said it over on another thread: if you haven't taken and learned Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course, then you have some issues of basic credentials for Objectivist-leadership positions. Any reason to believe that Hudgins is familiar with the course?

I have.

Don't worry about Shayne. Normally they keep him secure in the kennels at KASSless Society HQ with that other mad dog, his mentor Badinutta. They let them both out occasionally to froth & foam & yap. This must be one such occasion. Enjoy while it lasts.

Linz

WSJ: You ignore what the man wrote, immediately after the quote you used to make your own point, but you call me clueless?

You evade the fact that Hudgins moves from declaring that everyone "should" regard himself or herself as an entrepreneur to "we're all entrepreneurs," and you accuse me of dropping context?

You brought up the word "moron," fuckhead. Not me.

"Intrinsicist," my ass. Get a life.

I've hashed and rehashed to death on many an online forum the whole "Objectivist vs. libertarian" thing, and it's a huge expenditure of time over a rather trivial matter: labeling. There are things that Rand said on the subject that are just fine, that aren't synonymous with what Schwartz said. (And I basically agree with your assessment of Schwartz's piece -- it has pretty much served to discredit what legitimate message Objectivists should be trying to convey. To put it KASSly, I consider it as much a sloppy and anti-conceptual hash as I have all these past years -- twisted words out of context, lumping by inessentials, reification of labels, etc. There are and have been much clearer, much better ways of stating the point, which Rand did just fine.)

The real basic message here is rather simple: know who your friends and enemies are. Just because someone adopts the "libertarian" label doesn't make them a friend or ally even in politics. Rand had very apt words who rushed to adopt the label, rushed into political activism as a primary, and by and large served to discredit the case for capitalism with whatever assortment of loony ideas. The label itself really conveys nothing about the kind of advocate who adopts it, or what concept of freedom they're advocating. This is why Rand, quite KASSly, early on rejected the use of the term "libertarianism" in favor of "laissez-faire capitalism," since there's no unambiguity about what that represents, and doesn't try to sugar-coat things in generic language no one would object to.

The LP in the U.S. is now notorious for basically one out-of-context thing as its goal: the legalization of pot. Hasn't been known for accomplishing much else; in fact, on the whole, the party has been a disgrace and failure, as one would only expect from its approach to politics. The likes of Rothbard, Nozick, et al will have had next to no long term contribution to the advancement of liberty because they did too little to advance more basic and correct philosophical fundamentals as part and parcel of a defense of liberty. Like even Kenny says, while they don't take economics and politics as a primary, they take "natural rights" as their primary, which isn't of much greater help; when it comes to political writings, you need to tie it back to more philosophical fundamentals. Even in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, there is constant emphasis on the need to tie back to philosophical fundamentals. With Nozick or Rothbard, these matters are glossed over in their political writings.

Rand had said, she is not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but an advocate of egoism, and not primarily an advocate of egoism but an advocate of reason. It's in the defense of reason that the battle for capitalism lies, not in out-of-context "defenses" of rights. (About the best Rothbard does in Ethics of Liberty is to make some un-filled-out, vague and undefined reference to the "requirements of man's nature," leaving the whole is-ought issue glaring here to the actual philosophers to work out. Well, that really proves Rothbard's usefulness, huh?) This is why Rothbard will end up as a footnote, and noted mainly for whatever economics work he did in Mises' stead at that. The influence of Ayn Rand, on the other hand, has the potential to dramatically change the world. No thanks to the rest of the "libertarians."

Craig writes: "And what he "actually wrote" immediately after that was: "So on this Labor Day we're all workers and entrepreneurs." "All." His choice of word. So he's open to the criticism that was brought here."

Just proves you can't read without dropping context. What he meant by "entrepreneur" was made perfectly clear in the preceding writing. But since you're an intrinsicist, you ignore the context and use your personal definition of "entrepreneur". Then you become offended. Amusing. Kinda like watching a dog chase its tail.

Bill writes: "First, Hudgin's writing is so bad, its difficult to know what he is saying."

What he meant was obvious. That it went over *your* head doesn't mean it was ambiguous.

Not that I agree with Ed's approach. The typical American is more in need of a kick in the ass than a pat on the back. But I don't see you guys doing that either. At least Ed is focussed on changing the culture. All you guys are focussed on is Ed.

And before some moron cries "hypocrite" (as I see some moron has already done--as they were a Christian, "who are you to cast the first stone"), yeah I'm poking fun at the pattern I see at Solo, but this pattern has been going on for months and months, I just popped in for a few posts. There's a big difference between the Solo Fixation On "Brandenites" And Other Sundry "Enemies Of Objectivism" and that.

I'd say there is an awful lot to say actually Bill, since the number of straw men in your post are threatening to overtake its conclusions.

Can I suggest that you're guilty here (just as Peter Schwartz was) of not taking sufficient care in clarifying to whom you're objecting; of not defining or grouping by essentials, but instead of lazily 'lumping' by non-essentials -- which means your subsequent criticism don't touch those to whom they don't' apply but who still call themselves libertarians.

Crickey, you say you can't tell one 'subjectivist' from another, but apparently you can because you go on to label and describe may different variants: "minarchist," anachro-