One would think that you are trying to show how the Democrats are really worse than the Republicans. All I have to say is "Is that it?". I'm quaking in my boots at the throught of "permanent legislation" (has anyone ever seen permanent legislation excepting a constitutional ammendment?), and Pelosi calling for what she's always called for.

Compare to a $400B compassionate prescription drug boondoggle, and what will end up being a $1T half-fought war in Iraq.

This must be Linzy trying to be funny again.

Respectfully,
Kendall Justiniano

Here's another one:  Legislation introduced to impose a permanent ban on oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.  Thanks, Democrats.  Just what we need....

... is now demanding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Hsiekovians cheering. She should run for President in 2008. Then the Hsiekovians can vote for her. Rather than, say, Giuliani. Yup, makes sense. Makes one moral, & demonstrates one's understanding of Objectivism, for sure.

Linz

My attempt to lighten the mood. Sorry if it didn't work.

Y'all apparently missed the best part:

"You're immoral only when I'm in a bad mood."

Yes, I thought I made it painfully clear that I wasn't inferring dishonesty. And let me know if you follow up on my suggestion re Yaron/Peikoff.

Later, folks.

> when you question my good faith, as you & Phil were doing yesterday. Call me anything you like. Call me dishonest & you'll get your effing head bitten off.

Linz, I said it was a distortion, not that it was a deliberate or intentional distortion.

You managed to blank out why Phil was supporting me and substitute your own, far more credible reason: that Phil always supports immorality, which by implication makes me immoral, too.

You're immoral only when I'm in a bad mood. You may be sure you'll put me in a bad mood when you question my good faith, as you & Phil were doing yesterday. Call me anything you like. Call me dishonest & you'll get your effing head bitten off.

Linz

There's an easy way to settle this, you know. Email Yaron and ask him to relay the question to Peikoff (Yaron, in the meantime, will reassure you that you're insane.), whether anyone who disagrees with him and doesn't vote dem across the board is thereby immoral.

Would Peikoff really get so worked up over such a banal tautology?!

If all it amounted to was "if you agree with me that it's immoral not to vote for Kerry, then it's immoral not to do so," you would have a case. What's clear from that excerpt is that he's addressing people's apathy about voting despite their (apparent) recognition of the greater danger from the right. It's such people he was addressing in that lecture, and the only person I see getting worked up over it is you.

And of course a twerp like Phil Coates supports you because he routinely excuses things like plagiarism, character assassination (for instance, of Rand by the Brandens, to whom he is in thrall), Scumbarrian backstabbing, and deception (of me by Rowlands, for instance), etc.. Phil is an amoral, sanctimonious humbug. You're welcome to him.

Wow, you really have me there. You managed to blank out why Phil was supporting me and substitute your own, far more credible reason: that Phil always supports immorality, which by implication makes me immoral, too.

Couldn't you just ask for his opinion on a given issue ahead of time (to make sure you're not siding with the sanctimonious humbug) and spare us all the effort of actually reasoning our way to a conclusion?

You can apologize for being an asshole after you get Peikoff's response via Yaron. I don't know whether to take you seriously anymore, so I can't pretend to be insulted at your latest string of epithets.

That's it for me, gents. I've had a lovely time with some of you, and you have my sincerest wishes for a happy new year. I may come by and destroy one of your arguments from time to time, and you'll know it because you'll be walking bow-legged and wishing you hadn't worn that beautiful dress.

(Well, Boaz, I know why you're apoplectic. Weren't we here a week ago, or did Linzy miss my previous post on this topic? And Linzy accuses Hseikovians of having no humor. Now THIS is funny.)

Linz, Objectivism 101 buddy. Check the Lexicon under "Errors of Knowledge vs. Breaches of Morality." Or is that a tautology too? Every time you quote Peikoff you seem to leave off the qualification that sqaurely corrals his statements, based upon this principle. Now you are implying that whenever he speaks in the context of voting B v.K that he inherently is addressing everyone with his morality accusations, all statements to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more glaring case of begging the question in my life!

What is really banal about this argument is that Linz has yet to find a "Hseihkovian" who'll defend any sort of across the board imorality claim on Peikoff's part, but now he's lecturing us on what Peikoff *meant* to say. Linzy, you mean he didn't say what he said, but you have special knowledge of what he *meant* to say? Maybe we should issue a "Turandot Challenge" of our own to Linzy. Find us one statement by Peikoff where he proclaims immorality, in an unqualified manner (i.e. no "given"'s, no "for those who see the issue"'s). If in fact that's what he meant, he must have said it once, without qualification. The qualifications have to mean something Linzy, else he wouldn't keep using them. For you to claim that the qualifications mean nothing, makes one wonder, why he keeps putting them in there? I've always known Peikoff to select his words pretty carefully.

There is one form of dogma that Linzy seems slow to accuse, doesn't he? That's the form that calls itself "individualist", keeps itself outside of any formal "established organization" because said bodies are enclaves of "conformity". This dogmatism doesn't manufacture messiahs who issue fatwahs, but instead it manufactures anti-christs and throws pot-shots. It's just an anti-reason as any other form of dogmatism, using the smear, not the pronouncement, as its weapon of choice. And in fact these individualists run for cover when you point out to them that they now have their own gathering places, say the same things amonst each other, and even have their own conferences (oh wait, that was cancelled, wasn't it?). Sort of reminds me of those pathetic, ear pierced, tattoo'd punk rockers who all claim to be espressing their individuality and non-conformity, until you point out that they all look alike and say the same thing.

Truth of the matter Linzy, you want Peikoff to have said it that way, you need Peikoff to have said it that way. The irony is that it is ONLY Peikoff's detractors who place him in such light. I think it was Phil Coates who in the Philosophy and History thread said the debate about the disagreement as such is a sideshow. Amen brother. Would that the Linzinski's could stop making it one, agree with the Hseihkovians that Peikoff simply didn't make the pronouncement that way they demand he did, and get on with the debate of the specifics of Peikoff's characterization of a choice between "enfeebled killer" and "stronger killer". Now that is an interesting debate.

On better, unaffiliated forums, this banal argument died out long ago for lack of interest, even when folks like me made cases for voting Republican, even given Peikoff's characterization as true (which would make me the most imoral of the bunch)  http://forum.objectivismonline...

"Jesus, Boaz"? No, "Jesus, Linzy..."

Respectfully,
Kendall J

Linz, you don't even come close to getting what Peikoff is saying. He didn't say ANYTHING about not voting for Kerry being immoral. Yikes!

But that's what he MEANT (he made his comments in the context of Bush vs Kerry, for which maggot he was urging folk to vote). It's YOU who are not getting it. Or rather, you do get it, but won't face the concrete application of Peikoff's own rubbish concretes. And of course a twerp like Phil Coates supports you because he routinely excuses things like plagiarism, character assassination (for instance, of Rand by the Brandens, to whom he is in thrall), Scumbarrian backstabbing, and deception (of me by Rowlands, for instance), etc.. Phil is an amoral, sanctimonious humbug. You're welcome to him.

Here it is, in a nutshell: if you understand that the choice is between an M2 (Bush) and a D1 (Kerry), meaning that you grasp the difference between the kind of movement Bush represents as opposed to the stale, unmotivated left -- if you understand the choice in those terms -- it is an immoral evasion to sit out the vote because "both are bad."

Believe me, Boaz, I got that the first time. And it's rubbish. "If you understand the choice in those terms" means "if you agree with me that it's immoral not to vote for Kerry, then it's immoral not to do so." Would Peikoff really get so worked up over such a banal tautology?! Face it—his agenda is to condemn any Objectivist who doesn't vote Dem across the board as immoral. *I* understand the issues. *I* would not vote Dem across the board. I would die before I did that. So I'm immoral? To Peikoff and his mindless minions I say, "The hell with you. Put Saddam back in power [or lament his demise, you Saddamite maggots]. Vote for Hillary. Vote for Kerry. Vote for the political incarnations of Stanley Fish. Do so with my utter, utter contempt, you treasonous weasels."

Linz

On Dec. 24th Jack Wakeland wrote the following on The Forum:

"I now have a caviot in my support of Mr. Bush. He and his administration have failed to function since sectarian violence flared after the Samara Golden Mosque bombing in February. They have failed to function since the decision to open a path to "negotiations" with Iran over its nuclear weapons program in June. They have acquessed to Gen. Musharraf's "peace" treaty with the pro-Talian, pro-al-Qeada tribes of Wiziristan in September (if I recall it correctly the peace agreement was signed in September). This is a change in my evaluation of Mr. Bush and it is brought on by a major change in Mr. Bush's behavior. For the first time since he began leading the fight, the president has repeatedly demonstrated an inability or reluctance to continue the fight.

This has been going on for no more than about ten months. Because I have not had the time to write much about the war in the past six months, I've commented very little on this change--but that is the ONLY reason why I have commented very little.

I am not withholding judgement. The Bush Administration has quit the battlefield. This makes Mr. Bush (and his people) guilty of taking half measures that--for the first time--*actually are* worse than none." (emphasis JW's - I would have however emphasized this entire last paragraph).

Jack Wakeland: A New Traitor?

Incidentally, I disagree with Wakeland. The incompetence of our "War on Terror" has been going on for *much more* than just the last ten months. What Bush has been doing is therefore hardly just "for the first time" worse than nothing. That is something of course that *Peikoff* understood right from the start and he wasn't afraid to say so on national TV - giving heart attacks in the process to Rita Cosby, Geraldo, and O'Reilly. But in our eagerness to support the administration because it was doing "something", most of us - myself included - didn't agree with him.

Thanks, Phil.

Linz: Are you saying that all Peikoff is saying amounts to no more than "It's immoral for anyone who thinks it's immoral not to vote for Kerry not to do so"?

Linz, you don't even come close to getting what Peikoff is saying. He didn't say ANYTHING about not voting for Kerry being immoral. Yikes! Here it is, in a nutshell: if you understand that the choice is between an M2 (Bush) and a D1 (Kerry), meaning that you grasp the difference between the kind of movement Bush represents as opposed to the stale, unmotivated left -- if you understand the choice in those terms -- it is an immoral evasion to sit out the vote because "both are bad."

This is the context in which his comments re morality of voting should be assessed. (From Section 15A 40:00 until about Section 15B 1:30)

I should note, too, that he hardly spends any time on this side-issue of voting. He recalls his exasperation with Objectivists who either like Bush or recognize the danger of the right yet choose to abstain from voting.

I don't agree at all with his diagnosis of Bush as M2, incidentally.

Boaz, you're right. That is a distortion. Qualifying a statement is important and is part of the context.

Are you saying that all Peikoff is saying amounts to no more than "It's immoral for anyone who thinks it's immoral not to vote for Kerry not to do so"?

And probably doing Leonard a disservice with your back-pedalling on his behalf on the "immoral" thing. He's full-on with it in this lecture, especially in the Q & A—it is an "immoral evasion" not to vote for Kerry. Wow!

Wow indeed. Could you kindly explain why you left out the part immediately preceding, where he clearly says it's immoral (to sit out the election) for anyone who sees the issues? (Paraphrasing) "To anyone who sees the issues, I don't see the least moral justification for sitting out the election...that is a total, in my opinion, immoral evasion."

If I didn't know you better, I would call that a deliberate distortion. But I suspect you just don't get it. It just goes in one ear and then out the other.

Hi Michael,

Sincerest apologies for the length of this post.

Chapter One: Huh?

I wrote: Suppose Peikoff really intended it as pressure for arbitrary agreement. That would certainly be wrong. Does that mean that each of his supporters must then prove that they DON'T feel pressure?

You responded:

Boaz, you made a number of similar statements and there is an obvious error in it...For instance, say a speaker at a conference throws out an argument from intimidation at the audience. If none of the audience members are actually intimidated, does that make it any less an argument form intimidation?...

You're right, of course. Evaluating an argument has nothing to do with evaluating how certain people respond to it – and that was my very point in the quote you excerpted. Conversely, there might be some people who are all too willing to swallow whole anything Peikoff says – but that doesn’t prove anything about his argument, e.g., whether he’s employing AFI (arg. from intimidation). Sycophants can exist without puppet-masters. It was Jason who conflated those two issues, not me.

What I was addressing, Michael, was your claim that certain SOLOists were succumbing to pressure (real or imagined). With all due respect, I think you were out of line. Can you even name one “Hsiehkovian” ex-Soloist who didn’t depart from Peikoff’s position, other than Diana herself, or perhaps Tom (he only argued one issue)? My point isn’t that disagreeing with Peikoff is somehow a mark of virtue; nevertheless, people had their own views (clearly apart from and predating Peikoff’s statement) on why they were voting democrat. Mostly, they were in accord with the view that Bush’s war policies was worse than nothing -- e.g., Fred, Marnee, Craig, Mike.

They didn’t necessarily agree that theocracy was around the corner, that voting for any republican anywhere was a bad idea (i.e., across the board), or that voting for republicans was immoral. Time and again they made their disagreements clear, and time and again Linz would rail on and on about these supposed traitorous hsiehkovians who refuse to disagree with Peikoff. Diana was the only person prepared to defend Peikoff’s full view, so Linz should have directed his questions specifically to her; instead, he forestalled debate by suggesting she was a blind follower, regurgitated straw-men and looked elsewhere for some chimerical “hsiekovian”: Have they demonstrated that the sins of the Republicans justify a blanket vote for the Fascists of the Left? No. Have they demonstrated that unless the Republicans are toppled a Christian theocracy is imminent? No. Have they demonstrated that not voting for the Fascists of the Left is immoral? No. Have they demonstrated blind loyalty to Leonard Peikoff? Yes.

Have they demonstrated any of those things? No, because most of them didn’t subscribe to those ideas in the first place. Here’s Fred, who was singled out for his blind Peikoff-worship: As for where I stand on all of this, I don't agree with Peikoff. We're not in any imminent danger of literal theocracy, even if the Republicans actually increased their majorities…True, they'll try and nibble their way to it by e.g. restrictions on abortion such as "parental notification" and banning late term abortions. But I don't see a return to a total ban except maybe in scattered parts of the heartland…Nonetheless, I can't support the Republicans for all the reasons mentioned…

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Sorry to have retread this old ground, but I’m concentrating on your (and others’) claim that various unnamed people were caving in to pressure.

Chapter Two: Theocracy

And Tom, the longer you stretch the time frame, doesn't the conclusion of theocracy become even less credible? For instance, I may be able to make predictions of a stock better in the short term based on revenue streams, earnings, the growth into other industries, etc. But what about stock predictions decades from now when management changes, overall economic forces change, regulations may change, etc etc--doesn't it become a hell of a lot harder to predict?...

This is a valid objection, and it underscores why theocracy isn’t what governs my outlook.

Here, very briefly, is my view: (a) the republicans are actually worse on foreign policy than the democrats, and their damage is twofold: their half-measures serve the wrong policy-aims – a net loss – but they’re perceived as hawks. (b) Given how badly discredited their war efforts have been, they won’t be trying anything fancy, and they won’t do anything the democrats wouldn’t do: the dems will do just as little to protect us, but less to actually hurt us. (c) The trend within conservative ranks, so long as they continue to win, seems to favor evangelicals (and others, e.g. Santorum) whose primary motivation in politics is the further institutionalization of Christianity. I don’t see how their grip on the party can be lessened without at least a couple of election defeats. I’ve seen enough of the younger crowd republicans and their activists, and in my view they pose enough of a short-term (15-20 years) threat on various “pro-life” issues. Theocracy, in terms of religion-based and inspired law, would come later -- if they stay in power long enough.

As for the democrats, I expect them to behave very much the way Clinton did in his second term (minus the fellatio). That doesn’t mean they won’t do plenty of damage, but they’ll continue to sell out their left-fascist brothers.

Furthermore Boaz, a question I am particularly interested in and I can't seem to get anybody on your side to answer is: how **exactly** does Peikoff pinpoint his time frame? What makes it 15-25 years as opposed to 5-10 years?

I suggest you ask him, or at least listen to what he’s had to say in the DIM lectures. You’re a very intelligent guy, Michael, so I don’t see why you don’t hear out the full argument before you decide that it’s arbitrary. It’s clear, for instance, that he doesn’t view 5-10 years as the likely timeframe.

Chapter 3: “Given the choice…”

let's say I agree with you that it requires a mens rea or mental state of knowledge. Would it not mean that if you DO have knowledge of the choice, you would be immoral? But, of course, the question is: knowledge of what? Simply the choice boiling down to an enfeebled vs. dangerous killer?

No. You have to understand which is the enfeebled vs. dangerous killer. There’s some inherent ambiguity in the language, I suppose. But I would say that "choosing chocolate vs vanilla ice cream" clearly implies that you choose what you understand to be the chocolate flavor. The italicized portion is redundant.

If Peikoff turns out to mean that anybody who understands the republicans to be the safer option is thereby immoral, that would certainly not be ok with me.

"Is it worth my while taking the trouble to itemise them all?"

Please do. And if you did it on the DIM thread, that would be greatly appreciated.

Jeff

I just managed to listen to Part B of Peikoff's DIM Lecture 15. You Hsiekovians have been holding back on me. And probably doing Leonard a disservice with your back-pedalling on his behalf on the "immoral" thing. He's full-on with it in this lecture, especially in the Q & A—it is an "immoral evasion" not to vote for Kerry. Wow! And then, "I'm sorry, I get so exasperated I just can't discuss it." Well, I know that feeling, and I sympathise. But as far as I can see he's just flat wrong on any number of matters in this presentation. Is it worth my while taking the trouble to itemise them all?

Linz

Edited to add—mark you, there was much that I loved. Many of his observations, his passion, his statement that he finds it impossible to retire from the fight for the right ... Stirring. KASS!

Looks like you won't have to convert to the One True Faith. I've tried uploading a real pic of me a number of times and the rat photo keeps returning. Must be God's joke on me for hanging around you folks.

We've got your photo up. That's proof of miracles. I got baptised this afternoon, then fast-tracked to sainthood by our mutual friend Ben.

Padre Perigo

Good to see you here and addressing some of the arguments. I think most of this has been already covered, but I'll reiterate the rebuttals on some of these topics.

(1) You write:

This is a petty, question-begging charge. Why should every ARI-supporter always have to prove that he doesn't operate under fear of Peikoff's divine retribution, or lust for his imprimatur? The onus is on you to show where there is any such fear or pressure. (Duh!) Just because YOU read Peikoff's alleged voting injunction as intimidation, doesn't mean others do. AND

Suppose Peikoff really intended it as pressure for arbitrary agreement. That would certainly be wrong. Does that mean that each of his supporters must then prove that they DON'T feel pressure?

Boaz, you made a number of similar statements and there is an obvious error in it. To evaluate the intended impact of an argument, you look at the plain English meaning of the words and the form of the argument, you don't go running around trying to peer into the consciousness of the intended audience.

For instance, say a speaker at a conference throws out an argument from intimidation at the audience. If none of the audience members are actually intimidated, does that make it any less an argument form intimidation? NO, because the argument of intimidation was established from the plain English meaning of the words and the form of the argument. Whether people are actually intimidated or not is up to them and their own independence.

So what kind of burden of proof are you establishing here? That in order to establish my claim I have to go around to each member of the intended audience and try to peer into their consciousness (or ask them) to see if they were actually intimidated? C'mon Boaz.

Just look at Rand's article on the argument from intimidation, she focuses is the form of the argument where she establishes the intended psychological impact from the structure of the argument and the plain Enligh meaning of the words. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to establish--from the plain English meaning of the words and the structure of the argument--how it does NOT fit the form of the argument. You can't hide in the consciousness of the intended audience. By the way, the statement I was referring to was the following one from Peikoff (and the one Jason kindly relayed from Diana's article):

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

(2) On the time frame for theocracy issue, you made the same argument as Tom Rowland did awhile back. Here's what I wrote in response to that:

And Tom, the longer you stretch the time frame, doesn't the conclusion of theocracy become even less credible?

This underscores many things, the most important of which is that human beings have free will and it is extremely difficult to predict trends, especially long term cultural trends in a free country. You just don't know what kind of events will take place, what kind of intellectual leaders will appear, etc etc between now and then that will substantially effect the course of the culture. And the frantic hysteria over a blanket vote for the Dem's in a midterm election lacks all perspective and sense of history in this country.

Furthermore Boaz, a question I am particularly interested in and I can't seem to get anybody on your side to answer is: how **exactly** does Peikoff pinpoint his time frame? What makes it 15-25 years as opposed to 5-10 years? As opposed to 50 or 100 years? The fact that your side can't be pinned down on a specific time frame and, more importantly, the reasons for that time frame--it strikes me as nothing more than an arbitrary assertion.

(3) On the "Given the choice...." statement, Boaz, let's say I agree with you that it requires a mens rea or mental state of knowledge. Would it not mean that if you DO have knowledge of the choice, you would be immoral? But, of course, the question is: knowledge of what? Simply the choice boiling down to an enfeebled vs. dangerous killer? If I understand this choice, but disagree with which represents which, than am I immoral?

Don't you see Boaz, even if I accept your analysis of the statement, it merely changes the scope of who is branded immoral. Instead of all Objectivists who disagree, it becomes those Objectivists with knowledge who disagree. But it is no less a test of morality. Tell me, Boaz, is this acceptable to you?

The real problem, which my side has been arguing over and over again, it the evaluation of the evidence that brands one party an enfeebled killer vs the other as a dangerous killer. Peikoff offers no evidentiary support in his statement, which is ok (I guess) because it is a short statement in answer to an email question. But after reading Diana's essay countless times, plus all the debates raging everywhere--it seems the evidentiary issue is an enormous problem for that side.

As AR stated, in forming a correct conclusion, you must make sure you have included ALL relevant evidence, and included nothing that is irrelevant.

These have been repeatedly violated. We have sodomy laws cited as evidence of "an ambitious killer", when they have been decriminalized in the past 30 years. How exactly does the prescription drug benefit represent "ambitious strides" and nationalizing the entire healthcare industry represent "ambling steps"? What about other relevant evidence like speech codes, Dem's on the Court supporting the expansion of eminent domain (and conservative's opposing it), what campaign finance reform, what about the multitude of environmental impositions like Kyoto, and on and on.

The evidentiary problems are monumentous, while we were promised that DIM would cut through the "sea of concretes". It cut through them alright, by completely ignoring counter evidence and other relvant evidence. And say an Objectivist has an understanding of the choice Peikoff offers, but because of these evidentiary issues disagrees with it (ie. he HAS knowledge and would NOT be "unwittingly" sending the US on a disaster course according to Peikoff's evaluation)--does he then not meet the Peikoff's standards of knowledge and therefore grounds for branding said Objectivist as immoral? If so, would you see such a judgment as just?

Regards,
Michael

Thanks for the laugh. Don't get many laughs, if any, from the Hsiekovian side. At least, not intended ones. But you misread me. I'm not blaming ARI for low SOLOC turnout, just ARI-aligned SOLOists who were talking to each other a lot. The turnout was never going to be huge, but would have been comfortable for the accommodation selected, and the event would have been a typically KASS SOLO one.

There's no "schism" from my side. Folk have opted to leave, not been booted, and have used the openness of this forum to explain at length why they have done so. They have used SOLO to join the Brandens in calling for a boycott of SOLO! But the ARI, refreshingly, does seem to be above that sort of nonsense on this occasion.

I don't mind folk saying "imminent" means "non-imminent," "theocracy is around the corner" means it's not around the corner and "Hillary for President"—and that it's morally incumbent on all Objectivists who truly understand Objectivism to go along with all that. They can say it right here, and did. I do reserve the right to say what I think of it, and them. Especially on my own site, oddly enough.

Let the boycotters boycott and the shunners shun, as the TOCians did in the wake of PARC. I'm happy for all of them—so glad they found true love at last! Only I never knew romance was for babies!

Linz

Linz-
That does it! After reading this thread, I've decided to leave SOLOPassion.

...for about a week, til I'm back from my roadtrip to FL. You won't be rid of me that easily. The fact that Peikoff's imperative to vote Democrat across the board is astoundingly inane does not justify a paranoid blaming of ARI for low SOLOC turnout. But none of those absurdities warrant a schism from what is still a pretty kick ass Objectivist site.

Happy winter solstice and Newton's birthday to y'all.

If he meant as you say, why did he need to qualify his statement at all.  Take out the "given" and it directly says what you say it does...

Respectfully,
Kendall Justiniano

Linz: So Diana applauds Peikoff's excoriation of understanding-deficient Objectivists whose understanding-deficiency leads them to vote immorally.

Does she applaud Peikoff's "excoriation"? most certainly.
Does u-d lead them to vote immorally? well, that's begging the question, isn't it.

Diana rejects that view, so adding it into your characterization of her actions is improper.

Linz: Peikoff doesn't separate the lack of understanding from the moral status of the vote—it's left to Diana to do that on his behalf, after there's been a brouhaha. Why, I wonder, if Peikoff meant what Diana says he meant, did he not formulate his position this way?

a. Objectivism separates lack of understanding from moral status pretty clearly. Does Peikoff need to start from A is A for you every time he utters something?

b. There wasn't any brouhaha when he wrote the piece either, so must he be omniscient and include points in anticipation of your failure to apply basic Objectivist principles?

c. The grammar simply doesn't need the added phrase. Only you do. The "Objectivist in error" rejects the metaphysical Rep-Dem characterization, and rejects the choice as a false alternative. i.e. there is no choice between A and B, therefore the subsequent evaluation of such a choice doesn't apply. Peikoff's statement in no way claims his moral evaluation exists, if the choice does not exist as characerized. That's what the "given" means.

If Peikoff meant as you say he did then the proper way to phrase it would have been.

"Given the choice between Democrat and Republican, it is immoral to vote..." This clearly means that anyone who votes, regardless of wether they see the two parties as "enfeebled killer" and "stronger killer" is being immoral. That is simply not what he said.

Respectfully,
Kendall Justiniano

by the way, interesting board you've got here. Reminds me of the flamewars of the a.p.o. days.
"Sense of Life" Objectivists? hardly. No wonder the saner ones have left.

Peikoff urging that everyone vote consistently Dem-scum across the board. I do repeat, that looks like ridiculous voting advice. Prima facie, on its face, ridiculous. But I suppose there's an argument for that advice as well that has to be addressed.

To get this away from the stupid and pointless subject of how to vote and look at it from the question of what would happen with one of the two major parties predominantly in charge, we have Peikoff saying (yes?) that if Dem-scum were elected across the board, that we avert at leat one disaster. I can't imagine anything other than a pretty disastrous scenario were the Dem-scum given basically free reign -- e.g., a rapidly accelerated move in the direction of socialism, for starters. Well, not merely for starters; that's pretty much it. The enviro-scum, the pomo-scum, Europhile-scum, Islamophile-scum, it's all about socialism anyway. I can only hope that Peikof means that Dem-scum should be the ones with a majority, but that Repo-scum (well, Repo-non-scum) should have enough votes and clout to gridlock things. This is why, to also repeat, that this goes well beyond what happens in an election or which scum-party happens to be in the majority. It goes to the country's fundamental values of capitalism, individualism and freedom being implemented by elected officials of any party -- which we're not going to get whatever election outcome these days. It's a matter of fundamental philosophy.

I don't mind the idea of granting that Peikoff's DIM analysis shows that Dem-scum in charge is better because they're more enfeebled (or, further, that they're less-worse on balance when it comes to fighting Islamo-scum), but there's got to be some gridlocking, meaning that we need some Repos around to keep a check on things. What kind of Repos would be the best? Well, the ones who are predominantly defined by their economic and fiscal records. I'm thinking of the likes of Dick Armey or Jack Kemp. Theocratic Repos in gridlocked-opposition would be useless at best. (Well, I'm not sure on this. Just having them in opposition may be enough to do the important job of creating gridlock simply along party lines.) But I don't see the rationale for not having the "good" kinds of Repos in office at least as a sizable minority.

The Dem-scum are "enfeebled" only if they don't actually have free reign on power, and are up against considerable opposition. Give them full reign on power, and they'll wreak their havoc on the premise that they have a mandate from the people. Peikoff could call them "enfeebled" now because they are -- they don't have strong enough clout in the realm of ideas to appeal to a majority viewpoint and win elections. Their mid-term victories weren't a victory for them so much as a defeat of Bush. But already you have the Dem-scum treating this as a mandate for (socialistic) "change" on any level other than the Iraq issue. We've got something reasonably resembling a gridlock situation now -- Repo-scum White House, Dem-scum majority in the House, a split Senate. Let's just hope that the Dem-scum aren't encouraged much further -- by big future election victories and majorities -- into actually doing their own damage against America.

I do really want to get around to hearing DIM very soon, to see if and how it sways my views on this....

You left out the sentences immediately preceding:

... an Objectivist who thinks that today's Republicans are less evil or as evil as today's Democrats fails to grasp the fundamental ideological commitments of the Republicans and the real life meaning thereof, particularly the totalistic crushing oppression of life in a Christian culture and under Christian government.

Moreover, I'm glad that Dr. Peikoff was so blunt, even though some were insulted. Many Objectivists needed to hear those shocking words. They needed to be told in no uncertain terms by the foremost expert on Objectivism that their understanding of the philosophy is seriously deficient. If Dr. Peikoff had stated his views in less stark terms, most pro-Republican Objectivists would have dismissed them without much consideration. Others would have remained oblivious to the enormous differences underlying the positions advocated by Yaron Brook, John Lewis, Craig Biddle, and Leonard Peikoff on one hand and Robert Tracinksi, Jack Wakeland, and Harry Binswanger (at least in 2004) on the other. A wake-up call was needed. Yes, it's blaring -- probably because the softer alarms weren't often heeded.

So Diana applauds Peikoff's excoriation of understanding-deficient Objectivists whose understanding-deficiency leads them to vote immorally. Peikoff doesn't separate the lack of understanding from the moral status of the vote—it's left to Diana to do that on his behalf, after there's been a brouhaha. Why, I wonder, if Peikoff meant what Diana says he meant, did he not formulate his position this way?:

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer—and given that one undertands that choice—it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."

Instead he made the statement without the qualification I've added while making it clear that the "ever-stronger killer" was the Reps & the "ever-weaker killer" was the Dems, so that one would be immoral not to vote for the Dems or vote for the Reps. I'm assuming this was an e-mail Q & A so that Peikoff was not just sounding off off the cuff?

Overall, I haven't the slightest doubt that anyone chancing on Leonard's site or any other where the fatwa is writ large will come away with the impression that he's saying, "Vote as I tell you or you're understanding-deficient and/or immoral." Diana applauds him for "blaring" so loudly. Ordinarily I might agree—KASS & all that—but in this instance I think the kicks were misplaced.

And when the real-life result is a President Clinton rather than a President Rice, that's tragic.

That's me for now—I'm off to rellies for a couple of days. Merry Xmas all—Hsiekovians too! Fred Weiss—love you too. Kissie kissie kissie.

Linz XXXXXXXXXX

PS—Scott, thanks for your kind words and your advice. I'll be giving it serious consideration.

When I point out that you've misquoted or gotten something quite wrong about Diana's article, you can go ahead and acknowledge that mistake on your part anytime.

Obviously, a person who fails to properly understand Objectivism is not thereby dishonest or immoral. However, some of Dr. Peikoff's most vehement critics have interpreted him as saying just that -- wrongly, I think. Dr. Peikoff wrote:

In my judgment, that claim of immorality presumes that a person understands the choice in question basically as stated, i.e. between an ever-weaker killer and an ever-stronger killer. If a person fails to understand that despite serious and honest effort, then his failure to vote for the Democrats would not be a moral failing, although still a serious mistake...

(http://www.solopassion.com/nod...)

She's hardly "applauding" his failure to invoke the error/evil distinction.

You can keep asserting without evidence that it's a "fatwa" all you like, whether you mean it literally or not. But if you're not interested in discussing whether or not it really deserves all those rhetorical gems of yours (and I LIKE your humor, Linz, so stop wailing about it), i.e., whether as a matter of fact it really does morally condemn all who vote for republicans, then I can only conclude that your attitude is both frivolous and, err...dogmatic. A weird combination, true enough.

[Peikoff]

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster...

This is how Peikoff ends his statement.

Unwittingly -- unknowingly, innocently, mistakenly. Without knowledge or intent. All valid and well-understood synonyms.

It most certainly is splitting hairs and it most certainly doesn't qualify as adequate recognition of the error of knowledge/breach of morality distinction, Boaz, especially in combination with the full-on moral condemnation elsewhere in the fatwa.

You've asked for textual support, I'm giving it to you. (How else would you like to read his statement? Or do we just shrug off the details?) At the very least it shows major ambiguity. So even if you're right, and there is some kind of "full-on moral condemnation elswhere in the fatwa," then he's contradicting himself.

But you're sweeping aside my major point. Is this supposed to be Peikoff's full-on moral condemnation? Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

Two things:

(A) "Given the choice...it is immoral" is not a moral condemnation. It's a rule (albeit a truism) that tells us how to evaluate a particular choice.

(B) "Given the choice...it is immoral" cannot be understood outside of a moral theory. (What moral theory does Leonard Peikoff subscribe to these days?) A choice without relevant knowledge -- without an awareness of what the alternatives really are -- is no choice at all.

Peikoff didn't explicitly invoke objectivist moral theory, but he didn't explicitly invoke MANY things. That doesn't mean we should assume he wanted to contradict all of those other things, too, just because he didn't go into full-blast philosophy mode in a SHORT BLURB ABOUT THE ELECTION.

I'd appreciate it if Jeff or Michael or anyone else would weigh in on this issue as well. I don't think it's a trivial matter.

Jeff, I'm not ignoring your reply to me, but I don't have time to engage in every angle of this debate. I'm primarily concerned with how this whole debate went wrong on the meta level. My main point about Turandot, for example, is that it forces people to defend a position they don't necessarily agree with, while sweeping aside their actual positions. (Just so we're clear, I think you've raised many valid issues and made excellent points along the way. I've enjoyed reading you.)

Jeff, I suspect you are right that those who might be interested in (intelligently) discussing DIM (or for that matter, intelligently discussing anything) have left (instead you have a lot of blathering morons like Scott DeSalvo). You can thank your esteemed leader for that.

I can't discuss DIM because I haven't heard it. But I don't think it's particularly relevant to the main issue which has led to this rift. A number of us clearly stated that we don't agree or completely agree with Peikoff anyway, e.g. myself, James V., Marnee. Nonetheless that we think his views should be treated respectfully has made us "traitors" and "mindless regurgitators".

So, go fuck yourselves and enjoy reading cretins like Scott instead.

Incidentally, I just mainly wanted to say something in support of brave Boaz and might want to occasionally make a comment in the future. But don't assume that I'm going to be actively engaging in the debates here and I therefore might not respond to questions directed at me. Again, thank your esteemed leader for that. He even chased away James V. with whom he had developed a personal relationship.

Virtually every Objectivist falls into one of two categories:  Leader or Follower

The trend for Followers seems to be that they choose a side based on personal relationships, time of allegiance, or perceived correctness of their Leader, without particular regard for the facts, or with a demonstrated willingness to accept the Leader's version of facts.  They tend to argue from allegiance.

The trend for Leaders is: make pronouncements, and suggest that anyone who disagrees is stupid, ignorant, or dishonest (sometimes they are).  Some leaders excommunicate those who transgress.  Others don't.

There is a third category: Independents.  Most are utter fucking lunatics, but some are men and women of good conscience and reasonable minds who understand O'ism and have the correct sense of life. 

So Dr. P makes a pronouncement about voting straight ticket Democrat, and says that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand O'ism.

Linz points out that such a pronouncement is hogwash.

Dr. P 'excommunicates' Linz, and Dr. P's followers leave in droves, out of loyalty to Dr. P.

Linz points out that a bunch of people run and hide in pathetic allegance to their master, in fear that if they don't they are next.

Then self-pronounced non ARI-cultists leave because Linz identifies that the first wave left out of fear of being excommunicated, and HE is the bad guy?

I almost want to laugh about this.

I especailly want to laugh when somone says that they are ARI-aligned, and they don't agree with this or that which is an ARI edict, and then hang around to kick Linz in the balls over this or that, or support the ARI position on a particular issue.  You silly bastards, don't you understand that on that basis, the ARI doesn't WANT you, and considers you an enemy?  They have amply demonstrated that in their world, you toe the line or you are an infidel.

ARI formally erases people, excommunicates people with whom they have one disagreement.

But Linz is the bad guy who doesn't address reality and facts?  And goes off on tirades and tantrums with no basis?

Dresssing whim in intellectual terms does not change its nature.

Linz always seeems to be to have done his thinking before booting someone off the site, and he tends to have actual evidence when he tells them that they are full of it.

He will occasionallyly fly off the handle, and when he does, he has apologized for it when it was necessary.

ARI makes pronouncements and brings loyalty oath pressure to bear on the friends of the excommunicated--'it is us or them.'  Linz does not interfere with your making up your own mind.

Who is the wacko here, again?

I'll tell you, most of you people are just fucked up beyond repair.  I do not mean that to sounds as harsh as it is--there are some fine, fine people who post here and elsewhere.  But by and large, it seems that the majority are so emotionally or intectually dependant on TOC or ARI or (for the love of god, the Brandens/MSK site) or the artificial little world you have assembled in which you have some sort of social standing or are well regarded intellectually, that reality has taken on a purely secondary or tertiary significance.

And the TIME and ENERGY you people waste to justify utterly retarded positions that don't really matter anyway.  I have noticed that alot of the 'New Wave" ARI'ers (as well as Brandenites) would post and post and post and post volumes and volumes and win arguments by sheer dint of unrelenting effort.  Any of you actually getting PAID, in any way, for the hours of senseless babble?

Repeating stupidity ad nauseum does not make it true, but the dim might be impressed by it.

Do you think Ayn Rand or Dagny or Roark or Rearden or Galt would waste their fucking time trying to win an argument with a bunch of socially retarded dolts?  Some of you could have earned college or trade degrees or built a successful business if you applied as much time and effort to the real world of facts and reality than the warped internecine world of 'which Objectivist group is correct."

You people wonder why no one like Obectivists, or why the term Randroid is cited with a chuckle?  Why serious philosophers think O'ism is a cult of lunatics? What modern intellectual school of thought does this sort of thing?

Linz, at this point, you might need to sit down and author a book making it explicit as to where Objectivism and Objectivists have fallen, and divorce yourself and your ideas from the whole thing,  The term Objectivism is so polluted, so tained, that it might be beyond repair.

The primary Objectivist organizations are just too bizarre, and in the case of the ARI, they have perfected the sort of fascist yet child-like behavior Ayn Rand exhibitied in her life, but which also betrays her written works and her philosophy.

A philosophy for living?  A philosophy of heroic accomplishment?  No, and no. 

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"The fuller statement is the DIM Lectures which of course is being totally ignored and which obviously Peikoff is taking for granted as his context for his seemingly outrageous claims." Fred Weiss

For anyone who cares to discuss them, I've finished the DIM lectures (though I skipped a couple, on literature and art).

I asked a couple of questions on that thread and received no response. I suspect those who might be interested, such Mike Mazza, have decided to leave, but I hope he -- and others, such as Dan Edge and Diana Hsieh -- will reconsider.

Linz, if you'll re-sticky the DIM thread, I'd be willing to start the ball rolling again.

(Not incidentally, there is
a discussion of DIM on The Forum which may interest some in the Metaphysics and Epistemology thread. Many questions were posed and some gave their attempts at explicating how the DIM hypothesis would answer them. There is, in particular, a post by Janet Busch (which references Dr. Bernstein's Analysis of Evil) which discusses DIM and the influence of religion in American culture compared to other influences.

Well, you gotta admire him, even if he is wasting his time (as I'm sure he realizes), at least in terms of penetrating the thick skulls of the Linzinki's.

I'll just add to his otherwise right-on-target comments that "the 'you don't understand objectivism' part" in Peikoff's statement is just as contextually innocuous as the rest and it's being just as bent out of shape in order to satisfy their lust for ARI and Peikoff-hatred.

The only other thing I don't think anyone has yet pointed out is that it's just a brief summary statement and it's being subjected to the same "lifting out of context" as innumerable Ayn Rand (and ARI affiliated scholars') statements have over the years by the Seddons, Campbells, and other "ants" of their ilk to make the cheapest possible points.

The fuller statement is the DIM Lectures which of course is being totally ignored and which obviously Peikoff is taking for granted as his context for his seemingly outrageous claims. Now, you don't have to agree with the conclusions he reaches in the Lectures but they can't be dismissed out of hand. It's not as if he's making unsupported and arbitrary claims which on the other hand is precisely what his opponents are doing (and which in fact is their stock-in-trade).

As for Linz's reference to "a course of action that is potentially disastrous for western civilisation". What course is that? What the Republicans have been doing? Let's completely ignore, shall we, everything that I and others have said to address that very point - and then keep claiming that the points aren't being addressed.

Now, faced with the flight of many of the best people from this group, Linz keeps lamely repeating that he's just being his ever lovin' "hyperbolic" self. And then Mr. "Shaking-with-Anger" has the audacity to accuse us of being "crimped, humorless". Uh, huh. I see, the "shaking with anger" and the accusations of "treason" and "mindless regurgitation" was what then? An act? He "didn't really mean it"? He was just trying to be funny?

So, tell us Linz, when can we count on your meaning what you say and when not? Is that what KASS means? B.S.?

Btw, if anyone qualifies for KASS and always has, it's Peikoff (just as was Rand herself of course). When Peikoff is being KASS, he fucking means it. Maybe that's the very thing that pisses you most off about him. Ya think, mebbe? Now that would be ironic, wouldn't it?

First of all, that's not quite true (though I suppose it's easy to miss): If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster... Call it splitting hairs, but I don't think that qualifies as a moral condemnation ...

It most certainly is splitting hairs and it most certainly doesn't qualify as adequate recognition of the error of knowledge/breach of morality distinction, Boaz, especially in combination with the full-on moral condemnation elsewhere in the fatwa. But it's progress for you—I'm glad you're finally citing the actual fatwa, even if you had to rely on me to provide it.

Now Boaz, fatwa is quite clearly, unabashedly, hyperbolic. A valid literary/rhetorical device. Duh! It's funny (and oh my, we can't have that!) while making a valid point with its deliberate exaggeration: that those who disobey the fatwa are absurdly deemed to be going to hell in the crimped, humorless, Hsiekovian cosmos. To which cosmos you are welcome. It ain't the cosmos of SOLO, thank Galt. Or Francisco.

I guess I'm being applauded for naunce. Heh. Look, "tribalist" and "dogmatist" and "blind obedience" either apply to Diana (and others, HINT, HINT!) or they don't. You'll have to explain to me what you mean by "tribalist behavior". Personally, I don't see anything benign in behaving like a tribalist. Say what you mean and mean what you say, already.

You are being applauded for neither naunce nor nuance. My point was more abstract than you grasped: that mistaken ideas can lead to behaviour we would deem to be immoral if the mistake were known, understood and willfully embraced but would not if the mistake were not known, understood and willfully embraced—the very point you try to invoke when grasping at Peikoff's "unwittingly" straw, but disallow when insisting that I'm calling Diana, you et al immoral for your Vote-Dem-Scum garbage.

But understand, I'm not just being cute with all this. You Hsiekovians are seeking to bestow moral respectability and the sanction of Objectivism on a course of action that is potentially disastrous for western civilisation. Ultimately, indeed imminently, this isn't remotely funny.

Hillary for President indeed!

Linz

This is getting really tedious.

Certainly, Objectivists (at least the non-Randroid ones) allow for the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. But Peikoff didn't invoke this distinction in his fatwa.

First of all, that's not quite true (though I suppose it's easy to miss): If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster...

Call it splitting hairs, but I don't think that qualifies as a moral condemnation -- especially not when it comes from someone as adept at issuing moral judgments as Peikoff (a common enough lament from the prissiholics). If I were to say that you were "unwittingly helping something bad" happen, I would certainly trust any reasonably intelligent person to understand that I'm invoking the difference between error and evil. This just isn't rocket science.

But you're changing the subject. We're talking here about what Peikoff meant -- what we can reasonably take him to mean, and what he would expect knowledgable objectivists to understand. (Should he baby-proof every nook and cranny of his argument, attending to every possible ambiguity?) If you agree with the meaning I ascribe to him, it's enormously disingenuous of you to keep harping on about "injunctions," "papal encyclicals," "ex cathedra," and, worst of all, "fatwas". No matter how enamored you are of your own rhetoric -- hard to resist, with your talent, I admit -- this is just bullshit. Your problem with his statement wasn't really that it isn't clear to newbies, so that's a red herring. Ok, fault him for not being clear to newbies. Not clear to newbies = fatwa? Come on!

And Diana, in her essay, applauded him for precisely that failure! [of distinguishing between error and evil]

False! The very opposite: she explained the fair (read: not insane) interpretation. She did, however, applaud the "you don't understand objectivism" part which I've already criticized.

Is this the same Boaz who just told us, There's no such thing as a mistake that leads to 'tribalist behavior'?

I guess I'm being applauded for naunce. Heh. Look, "tribalist" and "dogmatist" and "blind obedience" either apply to Diana (and others, HINT, HINT!) or they don't. You'll have to explain to me what you mean by "tribalist behavior". Personally, I don't see anything benign in behaving like a tribalist. Say what you mean and mean what you say, already.

Boaz:

It is EQUALLY a truism that a person is only immoral, according to this same formula, if he chooses the worse. That means he recognizes it as the worse option. Ditto if he fails to vote for one or the other, if he recognizes the difference. This means not only that voting for Republicans isn't per se immoral; it also implies that voting for dems isn't per se moral. The crucial ingredient here is knowledge.

Is this the same Boaz who just told us, There's no such thing as a mistake that leads to 'tribalist behavior'?

Certainly, Objectivists (at least the non-Randroid ones) allow for the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. But Peikoff didn't invoke this distinction in his fatwa. And Diana, in her essay, applauded him for precisely that failure! Is some newbie stumbling across the fatwa for the first time supposed to infer this distinction?! Is it supposed to hit him over the head with its self-evidency? Are we talking intrinsicism here or what?!

P.S. "much sooner than fifty years" doesn't mean imminent. If you ask people to defend an absurd proposition, you're unlikely to find many takers.

Much sooner—nay, frighteningly, much sooner—doesn't mean imminent? Then what, pray tell, does imminent mean?

Now, since the Hsiekovians are clearly unwilling/unable to respond to the Turandot Challenge, let me help them out here:

1) Demonstrate that a Christian theocracy is indeed imminent, bar toppling the Republicans now.

A Christian theocracy is not imminent, nor as big a threat as Islamo-Fascism or enviro-Marxism, but we need to maintain vigilance and ideological warfare against all of the above and all other forms of unreason.

2) Demonstrate that the sins of the Republicans justify a blanket vote for the Democrats.

They don't. One should vote—or not—according to the individual merits of individual candidates: who is most likely to most promote/least damage the cause of individual freedom?

3) Demonstrate that not so voting is immoral, and illustrative of a deficient understanding of Objectivism.

It isn't. That was just Leonard having one of his blood-rushes to the head. He's a great and brilliant guy, really, and we love him dearly. We'd take him out more ... if we could take him anywhere.

Linz

"'much sooner than fifty years' doesn't mean imminent." Boaz

Imminent: About to occur; esp about something bad (OED)

At worst Linz is guilty of some exaggeration here, but as a short hand term I don't see it as distoring Peikoff's position. We can quibble about whether he meant 5-10 years or 15-20. (I believe both Paul and Diana Hsieh have argued that less than 40 would not be an unreasonable hypothesis). But, suppose (despite use of such words as 'much sooner') he meant 'not sooner than 49'.

No one -- though Diana has presented some evidence -- has presented compelling evidence that theocracy is anywhere near even that close. (Not to mention not providing any sort of criteria by which we could even hope to judge how close or how far away such things are, or what determines the rate.)

More importantly almost all the evidence pointing the other way has been virtually ignored or dismissed as inconsequential.

And on what basis has this weighting been made? That philosophy is fundamental and therefore it is -- if there's no change in the basic principles guiding current events -- inevitable. It has been blithely asserted, not shown that all the other important influences in American culture (skepticism, moral relativism, socialism, viropaganism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, not to mention less fundamental but still important influences such as the present educational system, the decades of Democratic weakening of the military, etc) have somehow rapidly become 'impotent', 'ideologically dead', etc.

But the basic principles don't -- as Dr. Peikoff has himself said in the past -- determine the concretes, the form, or even the time frame of such changes.

Yet, we are (were) encouraged to vote a particular way now (then) -- presumably to help the form along, and to affect the time frame. This somehow translates into determining the long term trend that is supposed to be fundamentally determined by philosophy?

You ask:

As to blanketly voting Democrat irrespective of any individual Republican's stand on theocratic issues, that would be a stupid voting recommendation. Do you have a direct quote from Peikoff on that, however? You did produce direct quotes on these other things, but not this, and, curiously enough, I don't have any recollection of Peikoff even saying or suggesting this.

Read his effing statement!! It's plastered all over this site, including at the top of Diana's own article that you're defending in this thread. Why am I having to do everyone's homework today?! Here we go:

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a "good" Republican.

Clear enough?

Then you ask:

... what's the argument that the Right being in charge wouldn't lead to theocracy in, say, 20 years? (Maybe that's burden-shifting, but Diana's put forth an argument, yes? So the burden shifts to a rebuttal, unless you think Diana's argument is so wild and arbitrary as not to have met minimal burden standards.)

Yes, Diana put forward an argument, but I and several others have already, long since, counter-argued. She produced a litany of the Republicans' shortcomings (later morphed, in the case of Bush at least, to outright "evil"). What she did not demonstrate was that these amounted to an imminent theocracy or justified a blanket vote for vicious, treasonous, enviro-fascist, politically correct, neo-Marxist (and in many cases Christian!) Dems. Remember, Diana explicitly said she'd be voting Hillary for President in 2008 if it came to that. Even if Condoleezza were running for the Reps, presumably. That's insanity. And everything that has happened since the Dem victory underlines the insanity of it.

Linz

Look, at this point it's quite clear to me that you've stopped listening. Just as I've read just about everything on the election threads here (I might have skipped one or two or twenty of Tom Rowlands' posts), I suggest you re-read my "Last Word...?" again later when you're in a more generous mood. There was sarcasm and meaning there that you seem to have missed.

I will respond to this, because its a glaring and underlying error on your part:

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [that's the Dems, Boaz], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [that's the Republicans, Boaz] [Kiss my ass!] it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

Clear enough?

Given a choice between bad and worse, it is immoral to choose worse. (This assumes, of course, that we're talking about important alternatives, not just different flavors of ice-cream). Peikoff is trying to emphasize just how crucially more dangerous one of the alternatives is. That's the only reason, as far as I can tell, that he includes this paragraph in his Q&A. It's basically a truism.

It is EQUALLY a truism that a person is only immoral, according to this same formula, if he chooses the worse. That means he recognizes it as the worse option. Ditto if he fails to vote for one or the other, if he recognizes the difference.

This means not only that voting for Republicans isn't per se immoral; it also implies that voting for dems isn't per se moral. The crucial ingredient here is knowledge. Peikoff has done a lot of work on moral judgment, and this is really, really basic stuff. Inane, even. Just think for a second about what your interpretation means: if Peikoff says that it's immoral for YOU to vote republican, no matter your context of knowledge, he means it's immoral for everybody. So it's immoral for a 20 year old veteran of Iraq to vote for Bush, because he hasn't read Peikoff.

Look, are you guys serious? If Peikoff means what you think he said (i.e., if he's issuing a fatwa), then I'm Mickey Mouse.

And if he was issuing a fatwa, I hope it would go without saying that we would all oppose it.

Incidentally, Diana spent about half a paragraph on this very simple issue (in her "Why I'm voting for DemScum" essay). Pray tell, did you not read it?

P.S. "much sooner than fifty years" doesn't mean imminent. If you ask people to defend an absurd proposition, you're unlikely to find many takers.

More importantly, though,

P.P.S. I'm well aware of the illustrious history of TuranToad. I regard your use of it as pompous because I don't believe it deserves the status of a rallying cry. I think it misconstrues the issues. If you want people to continue defending the proposition that the republicans should be defeated in a big way (in order to disempower Christianist republicans), you should go ahead and demand that they so argue. From the get-go, however, I haven't seen you argue back much. Not with anything substantial. You've largely made straw-men of your opponents' views.

P.P.P.S You need to apologize (and not to me).

Peikoff's "frighteningly, much sooner than 50 years" does suggest a time frame that makes 5-10 years a decent and reasonable interpretation. But let's say that Peikoff means something more like 15-25 years. Fine. The basic point is still there.

Now, Peikoff isn't saying that theocracy is this "imminent," not as long as the Right isn't given the free reigns of power. Imminence suggests both a close time frame as well as a significant degree of threat. That threat is there as long as the Right is in charge. So let's say that the Right was given full, free reign of power for the next 15-25 years. Every reasonable interpretation of Peikoff's statement is that, under those conditions, we'd see disaster and theocracy. Now, is Peikoff's statement itself unreasonable? That appears to be what this whole debate hinges upon. And it's in that arena that I thought Diana was perfectly willing to debate this on its merits, independent of any supposed authority or pressure.

As to blanketly voting Democrat irrespective of any individual Republican's stand on theocratic issues, that would be a stupid voting recommendation. Do you have a direct quote from Peikoff on that, however? You did produce direct quotes on these other things, but not this, and, curiously enough, I don't have any recollection of Peikoff even saying or suggesting this.

As to voting for the stronger and more ambitious killer as "immoral," Peikoff made two errors: (1) (This requires a sarcastic "Peikoff's only error" kind of preface) Peikoff's only error was not making clear at every turn, so that he doesn't get misinterpreted at every possibility, that a breach of morality implies a state of knowledge, i.e., that one knows the Repo-scum to be the stronger and more ambitious killers than the Dem-scum. Not everyone knows that, so clearly he doesn't mean to charge everyone who votes Repo-scum with immorality. It would be bizarre, for instance, for Repo-voter James Valliant to fall under such a broad statement. So surely Peikoff couldn't mean that. So his error was an error of clarity at every turn. (2) The error I've kept railing on, having to do with morality involving cause-effect, means-end efficacy, which the act of voting doesn't involve (i.e., it doesn't enact the desired result).

So that basically leaves us back at square one: that the Repo-scum being firmly in charge would lead to disaster, i.e., theocracy in a short period of time. Voting one way or the other isn't a solution from a causal standpoint, and blindly, blanketly voting Dem-scum isn't, either. So point 1 of the Turandot Challenge remains the only point of interest. And, so, what's the argument that the Right being in charge wouldn't lead to theocracy in, say, 20 years? (Maybe that's burden-shifting, but Diana's put forth an argument, yes? So the burden shifts to a rebuttal, unless you think Diana's argument is so wild and arbitrary as not to have met minimal burden standards.)

Boaz—your post, "My Last Word ...?" persuades me that you've actually read very little of the material in the various threads around Peikoff's fatwa, as Bill Tingley so aptly describes it. But at least you've given the Turandot Challenge a whirl. Let's go through it:

A word about your Turandot. I've taken to calling it "The Turandot Farce". Who and what, exactly, are you trying to argue against or challenge?

As I remarked in the essay at the top of this thread—one of the many things you clearly haven't read—"When I read Leonard Peikoff's papal encyclical re voting in the 2006 elections, I was aghast, for reasons that have been well canvassed on other threads. Here was a new instance of precisely the kind of authoritarian dogmatism I had been assured had been discarded, in the service of low-life Democrats; to dissent from it was to be branded as possibly immoral and definitely deficient in one's understanding of Objectivism. My 'Turandot Challenge' seeking validation of Peikoff’s bizarre nostrums was completely evaded in favour of ... umbrage! PC hurt feelings!! His ex cathedra pronouncement was disgusting, and I said so. I still say so, with all the reason and passion I can muster." The TC was an opportunity for us all to go back to the drawing board with the onus of proof placed where it belongs—on the Hsiekovians—so that we could take the argument from there. No Hsiekovian has been willing to step up. All they've done is whine about being insulted, behaving like the worst kind of California Crybaby Therapy Culture Brandroid, all the while dishing out insults themselves, throwing hissy fits and urging that SOLO be boycotted.

1) No one is saying that theocracy is imminent (5-10 years). I don't grant you that that's Peikoff's position.

Then what, pray tell, does he mean by the following:

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner?

Had you actually read Peikoff's fatwa, Boaz?

Then you add:

(And a great deal needs to be said about what Peikoff's (and others') notion of theocracy really entails.) The question should be discussed and the challenge reformulated appropriately.

Fine. Go ahead and discuss Peikoff's notion of theocracy. I'm all ears. If I see a need to reformulate the TC "appropriately" then I'll do it.

2) Many have indeed already attempted to answer this one (why republicans need to be toppled): Some of the arguments square with Peikoff's position. Others don't. You should stop bitching about it and show them where they're wrong. If they're wrong, it doesn't make them Peikoff clones. For my part, I'm not going to spend five hours writing an argument that will largely echo Craig Biddle's position on the subject.

Sorry, the precise formulation of Q 2 was: "Demonstrate how the sins of the Republicans justify a blanket vote for the Democrats." That's what the fatwa says, and this doesn't cut it. No one on my side is arguing that the Republicans generally are not disgusting; what your side, Boaz, has failed to demonstrate is how this can be fixed by blanketly voting for people who are more disgusting at a time when there's a war against Islamo-Fascism going on and the latter folk are intent on capitulating to it.

3) a. Peikoff isn't saying that voting for republicans per se is immoral. Show me how he is. Without being a moron.

Oh my, Boaz, resorting to insults are we?! I'll survive. Let's try this for size, from the Peikoff fatwa that I suspect you haven't read:

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [that's the Dems, Boaz], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [that's the Republicans, Boaz] it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

Clear enough?

One final word. YOU, Linz, are in no position to issue pompously- named operatic challenges to all and sundry who disagree with you. You've made no substantial argument of your own throughout this whole debate, relying instead on Jeff and others as proxies; you've provided nothing by way of a defense of your support for Bush, only mantras ("Bush is fighting the war, blah blah, the dems are against it, blah blah"). It's perfectly fine for you not to argue your position. Just don't take credit for other people's arguments and accuse your opponents of failing to answer said arguments to your satisfaction.

Again, you just haven't done the reading, Boaz. I haven't "relied" on anyone as proxies; I have not taken credit for anyone else's arguments, and indeed have paid handsome tribute to others who argued at greater length and in more detail than I; and I have said far more than "Bush is fighting the war, blah, blah." You should take the trouble to read it sometime.

The point I keep repairing to is this—Peikoff's fatwa is startling, to put it mildly, on its face. It makes assertions that require validation. The Turandot Challenge distills those assertions and asks the Hsiekovians to supply the validation. If that validation were within easy reach, I can't imagine why it's proving to be so elusive!

Or perhaps I can.

Linz

PS: Boaz—"There's no such thing as a mistake that leads to 'tribalist behavior'." You might want to think about that.

PPS: On the name "Turandot Challenge" being "pompous"—it began as three questions. After having to repeat them several times already, I said it was starting to sound like the Three Riddles from Turandot. Thereafter I called it the Turandot Challenge. A bit of humor, Boaz, not pomposity. I should have remembered Randroids are notoriously humor-challenged.

PPPS: On the matter of "group-think"—if the usual suspects did a better job in their defence of Peikoff's fatwa—if they made the slightest effort to mount a decent response to the Turandot Challenge—then the suspicion of group-think—however innocent and well-intentioned the loyalty such group-think would bespeak—would recede markedly.

This really is an agree to disagree kind of discussion because I think I can make good rational guesses about these things. Hopefully our discussions in the future will be more fruitful.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

If you really think that Peikoff is trying to intimidate people into arbitrarily accepting his position -- on pain of being accused of rationalism (OH NO!!! NOT THAT!!!!! PLEASE!!!!! DON'T CALL ME A RATIONALIST!!!!) -- and if you really read Diana as trying to exert pressure by authority, then we'll have to agree to a mutual "I have no idea what the hell you're talking about" posture.

I'll just promise not to accuse you of group-think simply because (a) someone else says you're dumb if you disagree with them, (b) you agree with them, (c) you make bad arguments.

Diana's blog entry contained clear, obvious examples of pressure tactics, exactly as Michael M described. It was not merely telling someone what you think of them if they disagree, it went beyond that. This argument will just go around in circles because you are demanding that I understand a person's cognitive state before I can say whether "pressure" to conform actually exists. I don't think I need that much information to make a good guess. All I needed to see is pressure from the top to conform to a set of nonsensical ideas, and then absurd attempts to do so. I saw both.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

And of course, to add to my last post, presuming that someone says something due to "pressure" rather than conscious conviction would be another form of invalid mind-reading and psychologizing:

presuming you know the only alternative which could possibly explain their motives and that you know they are bad, morally flawed ones.

Another reason why that suspicion should exist is because the pressure itself exists.

You have to show where there's any undue pressure. Telling someone what you think of them if they disagree with you = pressure? What is this, nursery school?

No one should put up with this kind of nonsense, and when people do it leads me to believe that they accept that kind of "leadership" as being a legitimate part of how an Objectivist group should run.

Sorry, but you keep begging the question. In order for them to "put up with" pressure, they need to interpret it as pressure.

And you're ignoring the larger issue, here. There are clearly people who DON'T see it as pressure or succumb to it as such, who don't deserve to put up with YOUR intimidation. E.g.., "if your argument isn't good enough for me, it's likely you're a dogmatist."

> Too many people are all too willing to attribute immoral or unflattering motives to their philosophical opponents [Boaz]

I want to add that my view that it is unjust and psychologizing to do what Boaz just described doesn't only apply to it being unjust and psychologizing when I did it yesterday toward Lindsay Perigo.

I have in the past, and will continue, time permitting, to criticize Diana, Fred and many others -very harshly and in strong language- for smearing people, being unfair, character assassination, rationalism, sloppy thinking, being irresponsible... and a bestiary of other errors. But for one of my opponents to issue what I consider an unfair or smearing attack or unphilosophical essay or misperception of politics does not mean that the person doing it (i) is aware or sees clearly that it is invalid or false, (ii) is -knowingly- choosing to be sloppy or irresponsible - as opposed to lazy or having some rationalism or being blinded by anger or lacking certain cognitive skills or a range of other possibilities.

So, since I will often condemn *mental processes or errors*, etc. as shameful or irresponsible or disgusting or reprehensible, let me point out that while my charges may be anger-provoking ...and highly unflattering... that does not mean that I have evidence that they are conscious, willful, deliberate moral errors. (For example, as a teacher, one can view the lack of effort or sloppiness of students one has had as shameful, irresponsible, etc...but that can be laziness or failure to apply oneself as opposed to a character flaw or a denial that A is A or the evasion of a fact right in front of one.)

That is:

Immorality means deliberate attempts to evade or twist reality, to deny what one knows to be true. Bad motives means an intention to do what is wrong, unjust, or false. Or simply the profound character flaw of not caring about these things. It's *possible* that there are people in the Oist movement who systematically do one or more of these three things. But my hunch is that they are very, very few within ARI, TOC, Solo, etc. And that it is far more likely that they do not understand and make honest errors. Albeit -horrendous- and sometimes -massive- and -revolting- honest errors. (Including, as major examples, compartmentalization, sloppy package deals, emotionalism, etc.)

There is a very important distinction to be made here which people, not merely Objectivists, often blithely ignore or skip past too hurriedly. Ithas been ignored on both sides of this very thread and time and again between warring sides who share the same philosophy:

You can be highly unflattering in your criticisms of the mentality, attitudes, psychoepistemology of a person without viewing the person you are criticizing as evil, dishonest, an evader. There are too many other possibilities.

I'll just add :

Another reason why that suspicion should exist is because the pressure itself exists. No one should put up with this kind of nonsense, and when people do it leads me to believe that they accept that kind of "leadership" as being a legitimate part of how an Objectivist group should run. Instead of being critical of Diana's petty, obvious pressure tactics, many of her defenders simply brushed it aside.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

No I can't but I won't lose that suspicion until some of these people come out with serious arguments for their positions. Lindsay's questions were meant to bring the "Hsiehkovians" back to earth so that they could present their case. No one (beyond Diana's seriously flawed initial blog entry) has tried this. That is why I am very suspicious about group think and follow the leader apologists being present. The combination of pressure from above and the (in my opinion) absurd notions being advocated lead me in this direction. Are ALL of LP's supporters guilty of this? You are right, I don't have any evidence to prove that. I have come to that conclusion about several of the "Hsiekovians" here on SOLO and I think that there IS enough evidence to back that claim.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

I disagree with Diana. But frankly, that's neither here nor there, because my point is that you don't know if it's true of your opponents that there was any pressure on their part. And let's get something straight: authority and pressure is a two-way street. Suppose Peikoff really intended it as pressure for arbitrary agreement. That would certainly be wrong. Does that mean that each of his supporters must then prove that they DON'T feel pressure?

"Jason Quintana agrees with Michael Moeller: I could see that some Objectivists, maybe not so confident in their own reasoning and convictions, think to themselves: "Well, Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivists much more knowledgeable than me are saying X and the failure to understand X means ignorance"—and then feel drawn to that conclusion because of the psychological pressure being exerted.

This is a petty, question-begging charge. Why should every ARI-supporter always have to prove that he doesn't operate under fear of Peikoff's divine retribution, or lust for his imprimatur? The onus is on you to show where there is any such fear or pressure. (Duh!) Just because YOU read Peikoff's alleged voting injunction as intimidation, doesn't mean others do."

It was an obvious example of exactly the tactic that Michael described.  I recognized it, and Diana certainly recognized it because she amplified it to a new level.  Here is an example from her "Why I'm voting for the Democrats" blog.

"Moreover, I'm glad that Dr. Peikoff was so blunt, even though some were insulted. Many Objectivists needed to hear those shocking words. They needed to be told in no uncertain terms by the foremost expert on Objectivism that their understanding of the philosophy is seriously deficient.If Dr. Peikoff had stated his views in less stark terms, most pro-Republican Objectivists would have dismissed them without much consideration. Others would have remained oblivious to the enormous differences underlying the positions advocated by Yaron Brook, John Lewis, Craig Biddle, and Leonard Peikoff on one hand and Robert Tracinksi, Jack Wakeland, and Harry Binswanger (at least in 2004) on the other. A wake-up call was needed. Yes, it's blaring -- probably because the softer alarms weren't often heeded.
"

Now if that isn't an obvious example if what Michael was describing I don't know what is.

 - Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

For the first time, and perhaps not the last, I will echo something Phil Coates has repeated time and again. Too many people are all too willing to attribute immoral or unflattering motives to their philosophical opponents in knee-jerk, emotionalistic fashion, without the slightest glimmer of evidence (and many times in petulant, childish defiance of contravening evidence).

Jason Quintana agrees with Michael Moeller: I could see that some Objectivists, maybe not so confident in their own reasoning and convictions, think to themselves: "Well, Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivists much more knowledgeable than me are saying X and the failure to understand X means ignorance"—and then feel drawn to that conclusion because of the psychological pressure being exerted.

This is a petty, question-begging charge. Why should every ARI-supporter always have to prove that he doesn't operate under fear of Peikoff's divine retribution, or lust for his imprimatur? The onus is on you to show where there is any such fear or pressure. (Duh!) Just because YOU read Peikoff's alleged voting injunction as intimidation, doesn't mean others do.

Which brings me to my second point. Not every anti-Republican argument is an argument in favor of Peikoff's full (or even partial) case. Objectivist hostility to Bush and the republicans has been building up for some time. Peikoff's voice has been the most prominent, and his views are clearly influential. I agree with most of what he's had to say -- but I've come to that view after making similar observations and reflecting on them. So if you're anything like me (or Mike or Diana or Fred or Dan), and you've been giving this some thought for a while, what the hell would you feel when your arguments are immediately dismissed as part of some giant borg monolith that arose overnight at Peikoff's urging? You would ask for an apology.

Linz:

Look, Diana, you can go on insisting I'm accusing you of immorality all you like. If it makes you feel better, I will. You're immoral. You're a vicious evader. You're a blind loyalist and tribalist. You're evil through and through. There. Only thing is, I don't think it or mean it. I think you've made a mistake. A biggie. One that has led you to tribalist behaviour when you *should* have been tapping Lenny on the shoulder and mixing him that drink.

This is bullshit. You can't just play around with phrases like "tribalist," "blind follower," "cultist," blah blah blah, and then pretend you didn't mean it. There's no such thing as a mistake that leads to "tribalist behavior". (Tribalist "behavior"? What kind of pomo-wanking nonsense is that???) Either someone is a dogmatic tribalist or he's not. And a word to the wise: not every insult is equal. Some of them mean something pretty bad, especially for people like us. Diana is an intellectual: she spends more time reading, thinking and digesting philosophy in a month than most people here will in five years. So she's liable to get justifiably furious when you tell her that her ideas are not really her own.

An apology = I was wrong to do X. And there are other people who deserve one.

A word about your Turandot. I've taken to calling it "The Turandot Farce". Who and what, exactly, are you trying to argue against or challenge?

1) No one is saying that theocracy is imminent (5-10 years). I don't grant you that that's Peikoff's position. (And a great deal needs to be said about what Peikoff's (and others') notion of theocracy really entails.) The question should be discussed and the challenge reformulated appropriately.

2) Many have indeed already attempted to answer this one (why republicans need to be toppled): Some of the arguments square with Peikoff's position. Others don't. You should stop bitching about it and show them where they're wrong. If they're wrong, it doesn't make them Peikoff clones. For my part, I'm not going to spend five hours writing an argument that will largely echo Craig Biddle's position on the subject.

3) a. Peikoff isn't saying that voting for republicans per se is immoral. Show me how he is. Without being a moron. b. I don't agree that voting republican per se means you don't understand Objectivism. As stated, I disagree with Peikoff, but there's not much to disagree with. He's given us his opinion, not his argument. I disagree with that method. I think he's wrong to do it, not because it's mean, but because unsubstantiated PUBLIC (vs. private)assertions about people's thinking errors are inappropriate. I also think it's a very hasty, overly broad generalization.

One final word. YOU, Linz, are in no position to issue pompously- named operatic challenges to all and sundry who disagree with you. You've made no substantial argument of your own throughout this whole debate, relying instead on Jeff and others as proxies; you've provided nothing by way of a defense of your support for Bush, only mantras ("Bush is fighting the war, blah blah, the dems are against it, blah blah"). It's perfectly fine for you not to argue your position. Just don't take credit for other people's arguments and accuse your opponents of failing to answer said arguments to your satisfaction.

I agree with everything Scott said, but I want to make it clear that those words he quoted are actually Michael's, which I think explain the situation perfectly.

- Jason

Jason D. Quintana is not associated with the Ayn Rand Institute -- neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

Linz may have some people pegged with that, but take his strongest opponents' strongest arguments, and can that be said? Does it describe Diana, for instance? He hasn't said it about her, and she's the most, uh, "prominent" SOLOist advocating the Peikoff view (or something very much like it).

So he's beating up on weaker opponents, which is fine for what it's worth. (We don't need yes-men in our midst posing as independent-minded Objectivists.) But he has worthy opponents as well, which should be the focus of his tirades from here on.

"I could see that some Objectivists, maybe not so confident in their own reasoning and convictions, think to themselves: "Well, Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivists much more knowledgeable than me are saying X and the failure to understand X means ignorance"—and then feel drawn to that conclusion because of the psychological pressure being exerted."

There are those with clarity of word and thought who just plain hit things right on the head.  Bravo, this does it.

It is the highest expression of indivdiualism, and is the very definition of heroism, to have the fortitude to come right out and apply those words to this situation.

Good for you, Linz.  You are always your own man, and that is why I respect you--and why many of us could never exist in an ARI or TOC structure.

You have no master but yourself, and for you, the only given is reality, and you trust in your own perception and understanding of it.

Let those with financial or emotional dependencies to ARI who are too cowardly to think for themselves lest they be damned, too, toe the line.

Their damnation is highest praise.  There will ALWAYS be people in your corner.

Scott

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Whatever you do, don't get angry and insulting, that would break my fucking heart!

Although I very strongly disagree with Linz's angry insulting approach, psuedo-selfesteem, counterfeit individualism, etc. are a motive that I do not know to be the case or a part of the real explanation. Another set of possible explanations for repeatedly being insulting, name calling, etc. (a more benevolent one--an otherwise admirable person can make these mistakes), for example, might be being blinded by rage, consumed by emotion, or even believing that one's insults are accurate.

So, when Ayn Rand flew into a rage and made or implied insults, which of these more benevolent explanations would you say applied?

Has it ever occurred to you that there could be objective explanations for why someone would express rage at something or someone? Say that some 98-pound academic commie bastard goes on T.V. and proposes, oh so politely and with a smile, 80-percent taxation on the wealthy. Oh, poor little 98-pound weakling, how dare we return his politeness and smile with name-calling and rage?

Remember Jack Nicholson's Joker character? "You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you?"

What would the Nice Guy brigade do?

> Your arbitrary psychologising of me: "Once a student of Objectivism has a modus operandi of insulting all who disagree, even intellectual allies and friends, he seldom ever changes since it's tied to his sense of 'independence' and of who he is and of being 'like Rand', wearing his heart on his sleeve, etc." ??????? I'm supposed to take this pseudo-analysis seriously? The onus is on me to refute it?! [Linz]

Geez I hate having to admit I'm wrong. I was indeed thinking of Linz when I made that remark (although it was intended to be more sweeping and apply to other people on these discussion lists more broadly to whom, if the shoe fits, wear it.)

I want to retract and apologize for my comment quoted above as applied to Linz. I thoughtlessly posted that sentence in haste and was doing THE VERY THING I CRITICIZE IN OTHER PEOPLE, namely attributing a motive for an action I strongly disagree with (angry insults and incivility).

Although I very strongly disagree with Linz's angry insulting approach, psuedo-selfesteem, counterfeit individualism, etc. are a motive that I do not know to be the case or a part of the real explanation. Another set of possible explanations for repeatedly being insulting, name calling, etc. (a more benevolent one--an otherwise admirable person can make these mistakes), for example, might be being blinded by rage, consumed by emotion, or even believing that one's insults are accurate.

It doesn't necessarily have to be propping up one's self-esteem by cutting down other people and I don't know Linz personally (and even if I did I might not be in a position to infer this) so I shouldn't speculate or claim that I have this kind of mind-reading power or key to his psychology.

So, Linz, long-winded way of saying I apologize for and retract that unjustified remark (as applied to you or any particular individual I don't have considerable knowledge of.)

Voting for the Democrats - if one agrees with that position - is not an endorsement of the Democratic position on the war. When did Peikoff or any Hsiehkovian ever say it was and thus why they are expected to defend the Democratic position? Voting for the Democrats is a way of sending a message to the Republicans, of rejecting their position. Period.

Does the recipient of the vote ie the Democratic party, know this? How does the Democratic party or for that matter the Republican party sort out the votes and determine which is which seeing as how there was not an extra place on the ballots to note that the vote you were casting was not really an endorsement of the Democrats but rather it was a protest vote against the Republicans. The only message a vote for the Democrats could send was tacit approval of their platform.

The Turandot Challenge is perfectly reasonable to me. It is not surprising that Peikoff's supporters are ducking it.

As for ARI's "accidental glitch", I do not believe it for a moment. No one else on SOLO seems to have suffered. I suspect that a significant number, like me, subscribe to ARI's lists. IMO, Linz was purged, ARI was caught out and is trying to cover it up like a naughty schoolboy. "Friendly email" from ARI indeed! There would have clenched buttocks when the send button was pressed.

My comments regarding Linz's M.O. were basically in response to Fred's accusation that Linz wasn't being honest. I don't think that's the issue. It's a matter of style, or tactics, or whatever you want to call it. There are issues -- not so much with his position, but how he's painted various others', in quite broad and hasty terms, like he just did with Mike M., who hardly even commented on anything before Linz started in with something or other about "marching orders." It works both ways as well; he's been casting aspersions on others' honesty, integrity, etc. I've noticed that these kinds of accusations, insinuations, etc. have been flung around on these parts quite loosely. Call me a sanctimonious twat if you like for my saying so. (My issue isn't with rudeness, insults, outbursts of "rage", etc., BTW. And it's definitely not issues with making careful, well-formed, objective judgments.)

All that said, I've read Linz's response to Diana and he's distinguished between what he regards as a major error on her part, and yes-man-ism. So he is at least making the distinction at times -- even if in private correspondence. So what does the problem reduce to? Linz's opponents have been taking their comments about them (i.e., their positions) a certain way, seeming to get worked up about that than about the plain merits of the arguments. If the merits of Linz's arguments (or his painting of others') are plainly faulty, then they can be easily "outed" and the ass-kicking dealt swiftly. If someone wants to post a response to the Turandot Challenge in reasonably concise, plain and bold terms, I'd like to see it. Am I going to have to take valuable time out of my schedule and do it myself?

Kenny—you should take the time to read the Turandot Challenge. It's quite brief. Not too difficult. Would take about thirty seconds. It doesn't advocate any specific voting strategy. It seeks clarification of the rationale for voting Dem-Scum across the board, and the claim that it is immoral not to so vote. In fact, Kenny, here it is right now, copied & pasted from an earlier post of mine on this very thread:

1) Demonstrate that a Christian theocracy is indeed imminent, bar toppling the Republicans now.
2) Demonstrate that the sins of the Republicans justify a blanket vote for the Democrats.
3) Demonstrate that not so voting is immoral, and illustrative of a deficient understanding of Objectivism.

My removal from the ARI list, according to ARI today, was an "accidental glitch," as reported on this very thread by me just a couple of posts ago (is it so difficult to pay attention?). I am back on their list. Doesn't compromise SOLO's independence. I will NEVER allow SOLO's independence to be compromised.

Yes, Bidinotto is obnoxious. He is what he calls everyone who disagrees with him—a guttersnipe. A guttersnipe serving the Rand-smearing Brandens. He wrote The Guttersnipe's Manual in fact.

Phil—"great refutation"? What's to refute? Your arbitrary psychologising of me: Once a student of Objectivism has a modus operandi of insulting all who disagree, even intellectual allies and friends, he seldom ever changes since it's tied to his sense of 'independence' and of who he is and of being 'like Rand', wearing his heart on his sleeve, etc.??????? I'm supposed to take this pseudo-analysis seriously? The onus is on me to refute it?! Are you really as untutored as you are sanctimonious?! Quite an achievement, Phil!

Linz

My comment appears to relate to all SOLOists who agreed with Peikoff. I was wrong to generalise. However, I cannot understand how anyone can believe seriously that America is heading towards a Christian theocracy. It is certainly not a reason to endorse the party of Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and MoveOn.

For me, big government (statism in its various forms) is the enemy rather than Jesus Christ. Sadly, the Republican Party has also embraced statism and has increased the size and budget of the federal government. In that respect, Bush is more a statist than Clinton or even Jimmy Carter.

As I posted earlier, if I was an American citizen, I could not vote for either of the main parties. On that, I will have to disagree with Peikoff and Linz. I chose not to get involved in the long thread on the elections so I have not read the Turandot challenge and cannot comment on it.

I have noticed that ARIans to post its email announcements and articles on blogs, including SOLO, even when they are of poor quality or propose the murder of innocent civilians. (Jason Quintana seems to agree on that.) It is like they are holy scripts handed down by the prophet Brook and his disciples like Epstein.

Those who disagreed with ARI's "line" on SOLO have been subjected to abuse from several of the ARIan posters. They repeated the ARI "line" verbatim on many threads. Ironically, Linz was an offender too. He has, however, now learnt a tough lesson. Dissent is not allowed and ARI has removed him from its email lists.

Mind you, Atlas/TOC is no better. Anyone who criticises the Brandens is subjected to abuse by the obnoxious Bidinotto. (I am proud to be an independent "guttersnipe", Robert.) The TOCians tend to post at Objectivist Living where the Branden cult reigns. The hypocrisy is nauseating.

I agree with Phil Coates - the schisms are permanent. To be honest, I am rather pleased as I have no love for ARI or TOC. SOLO has regained its independence and is better for it.

> being a boring, sanctimonious twat [Linz]

Well, I guess you've told me then. Great refutation.

Up yours! I'm aware of the issue of pseudo-independence and counterfeit individualism, and am guilty of neither. Though I'd rather be guilty of anything than of being a boring, sanctimonious twat.

Linz

I just posted this on the Tracinski thread, and thought I should do so here as well:

I should report here that I have just received a very *friendly* note from the ARI apologising for an "accidental glitch" that may have resulted in my being removed from the op-ed distribution list, and asking that I resend the e-mails to Yaron Brook to which he didn't reply, since he doesn't recall getting them. The latter is no biggie, but in conjunction with the former, and with both occurring from the time I took issue with Peikoff's voting "advice" ... well, what was a naughty boy to think?! Anyway, it would seem whoever's been purged, I haven't. I'll have to try harder.

Linz

After being away from SOLO for some time, I just read this from Kenny in this thread while catching up on the latest in hysterical ARI and Peikoff-bashing. (God knows why I wanted to do that.)

I'll respond to it because it really encapsulates a lot of other statements on SOLO along these lines:

"They [SOLO members who agreed with Peikoff] accepted Peikoff's ridiculous Democrat endorsement because he is Mr ARI and Rand's heir rather than agreeing with his arguments."

Is there some way I'm not aware of that you can look inside my head or those of others to determine that we're not in agreement based on his actual arguments and our own thinking about them, but rather on the basis of dogmatic agreement?

In other words, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back up this insult to me and others, Kenny? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Oh, the latter must be it.

Now I remember why I tend not to spend sustained periods of time on this site. Too many such people posting this kind of nonsense all in one place makes for an experience that too often feels not one of honest discussion, but banging your head against a wall of such banality.

> This is such a stupid issue for a "schism" to arise over. [Chris]

Yep.

> Come on, folks. This stuff can be worked through. Put aside all the silly and irrelevant personal stuff, admit where you've gone over the line, move on... [Chris]

Good advice, but unlikely to happen.

i) Once most students of Objectivism have been insulted or treated with disrespect, they seldom forgive or forget or try to patch things up or work through them: they are far more likely to permananently sever all contact. ii) Once a student of Objectivism has a modus operandi of insulting all who disagree, even intellectual allies and friends, he seldom ever changes since it's tied to his sense of 'independence' and of who he is and of being 'like Rand', wearing his heart on his sleeve, etc.

> Just as with all the former "schisms", this is not an issue of just reasonable, alternate views of applying Objectivism. This represents a rejection of fundamental principles of Objectivism. [Fred]

Not even close to being true. So sweeping and unsubstantiated as to not be worthy of serious response.

Boaz—see my reply to Diana.

Claudia, Duncan, Bill ... thanks for your staunchness.

Bill: ... I'd rather see someone wear his heart on his sleeve than hide his agenda behind oily words. Bravo! And send your pic to webmaster@solopassion.com. I'll get my dress and fiery handbag ready for the One True Faith.

Linz

The issue of Linz's conduct has long ceased to be about name-calling, hyperbole, misdirected anger or temporary breaches of basic civility. The fact is that Linz has accused people of serious and ugly misconduct, for nearly two months. With what evidence? First he didn't have any. His evidence was his own anger. Then it was "Your arguments don't answer my Turandot challenge." Just what the hell does that prove, besides "you haven't convinced me"? Now he's upped the ante -- marching orders, purges, cultism, etc.

One needn't be "thin-skinned" to take accusations of blind obedience (to say nothing of cowardice and treachery!!) personally and refuse to engage in further discussion. I can get very angry at someone for making a weak argument, a facile analogy, a dim-witted oversimplification, misrepresenting my position, etc. I'm even angrier when it comes from someone I respect. (I've yelled at my computer screen many times here over the last year). But if I ever seriously accuse someone of parroting a party-line (gross intellectual dishonesty) -- or preaching genocide -- I won't expect to speak to that person again.

So I take Linz at his word. Diana is a "blind follower" of Peikoff; Mike Mazza (along with others) takes orders from ARI. After all, this is SOLO - "say what you mean; mean what you say".

Good! For years, I've been tired of the American, saccharine "let's all be nice and smile (and hide what we really feel)" plastic bullshit. Linz won't have any of it, which is one of the reasons I've enjoyed him so much. He was incensed that TOC expected him to play nice with people who'd libelously dragged him through the mud with the alcoholism charge. Good! He condemned them for it. Good!

Stop making excuses for him and telling us to be less thin-skinned. Follow his lead and take a fucking stand. Chris: if Linz didn't mean what he's been saying literally, he'd fucking tell us already.

I will give some of my thoughts on "Turandot" -- and why no one seems to care about it -- if and when Linz specifically apologizes for droning on and on about "dogmatist authoritarians and their yes-men". It's not funny. The value of this board, for me and probably others, hinges at least on that minimum level of respect. If I didn't like many people here, and if I couldn't respect the owner, personally I'd have no reason to come.

Otherwise, gentlemen, deal me out.

I just read some of your article on Sciabarra called Dialetical Dishonesty. Too bad you didn't have some of that same energy when you were webmaster for Branden, and that guy on the forum was attacking Ayn Rand and referring to her as amongst other things as a fascist. I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I signed on. What were you doing, at that time, posting spiritual sayings instead of getting that guy off the forum? I had to write Branden an email to get things changed. I remember telling him you should be fired for letting Ayn Rand be attacked like that. But he loved you then. He defended you heartily. I didn't seem to want to know anything I was saying. But then reality and Nathaniel Branden have an adverse relationship.

Personally, at that time, I couldn't believe someone could be so evasive of reality to not know what that guy was doing and what he was trying to do with his attacks on Ayn Rand!

Anyway, glad to hear you have matured and saw through his antics, and especially his terribly need for sycophantic followers who will treat as the great Nathaniel. But please Diana, easy up and give everybody a break. Ayn Rand is dead and you are not her!!!

I think the best thing I can do is publish the last e-mail I sent to Diana in the private correspondence she refers to:

_____________________________

Look, Diana, you can go on insisting I'm accusing you of immorality all you like. If it makes you feel better, I will. You're immoral. You're a vicious evader. You're a blind loyalist and tribalist. You're evil through and through. There. Only thing is, I don't think it or mean it. I think you've made a mistake. A biggie. One that has led you to tribalist behaviour when you *should* have been tapping Lenny on the shoulder and mixing him that drink.

Linz

_______________________________

For the record, Diana, I accept your word that no one has pressured you privately to stop posting here. Publicly, of course, Mr. Edge used the platform I provide him to urge everyone to boycott it.

And I'll continue to think of you as one of the good guys.

Linz

... it takes this Christian to objectively see what is going on among you Objectivists.

Chris writes: "Linz has some issues to work on, but alleged lack of honesty isn't one of them. That's not what has gotten valuable contributors like Diana pissed at him and apparently not talking to him right now. Linz's issues are heavily stylistic."

Linz's style has nothing to do with it. He certainly can be obnoxious, and no doubt some don't participate here because they prefer a more genteel atmosphere. But Linz's obnoxiousness has two redeeming qualities evident to anyone who has a lick of understanding of human nature. First, his insults are funny. Second, there's no malice in retorts. His anger is righteous (if mistaken on some issues). While I don't think righteousness is a blank check for obnoxious behavior, I'd rather see someone wear his heart on his sleeve than hide his agenda behind oily words.

And that brings me to the reason why people like Hsieh decamp to safer precincts when challenged by Linz. They cannot bear his contempt for dishonesty or cowardice when it comes to an intellectual row. Whether or not Linz sees it clearly in those who run away, I do. They value the cocoon of their false premises more than upheaval the truth might bring to their little worlds. Because those premises are false, they are fragile, and they won't long survive in the company of an iconoclast like Linz. So, when they run out of oily evasions, they head for the bushes.

I say all this, even if Hsieh were right and Linz were wrong on the issue of Peikoff's fatwa, character still counts. Linz gets it when comes to Objectivism. He understands thinking it means living it, and I have no doubt that he means it when he says he'll be a happy man even if he is the last SOLOist standing. In contrast, the likes of Hsieh seek the comfort of their crowd. They are the social metaphysicians. What a dreary way to live.

After all, what good are two legs if you won't use them to stand on your own?

Regards, Bill

P.S. to Linz: Looks like you won't have to convert to the One True Faith. I've tried uploading a real pic of me a number of times and the rat photo keeps returning. Must be God's joke on me for hanging around you folks.

Linz has some issues to work on, but alleged lack of honesty isn't one of them. That's not what has gotten valuable contributors like Diana pissed at him and apparently not talking to him right now. Linz's issues are heavily stylistic. He's prone, as an expression of his anger, to calling spme folks slimy little communist shit twinkle-toed cocksuckers who just singed their own death warrants, but I don't think he means it literally in retrospect. At least not about the death warrant part.

I'm fond of Linz's style, but he's certainly rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way. I recommend some adjustments.

(I'm posting this with the benefit of only having read the first [Fred's] post out of the last six.)

I have never said that Fred or anyone else endorses the Democrat positions, only what would have resulted IF everyone had voted Dem across the board. We would be pulling out of Iraq next month -- it would have been Pelosi's first act after her four day coronation ceremony was complete. Her second act: ending the protections and programs that have helped prevent terrorist attacks since 9-11.

My position remains that the 'something' that the Dems would have done if given across the board power of both houses is much worse then the 'something' the Christianists would do if things ended up the same as before (or as they are now).

Wm

Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

Fred writes:

"I'm also tired of having to deal with the constant distortions represented by William's post - or that I was getting from Jeff and then more recently from Michael."

Uh, Fred, nobody is asking you to repeat yourself, just simply answer some basic questions. If my posts were such a distortion, you could have easily corrected them, especially if the fundamentals are on your side, as you claim. I offered to debate you on 3 different threads and just about any topic in this debate; yet it was YOU who did not respond to any of my questions. My last post to you even numbered the topics, and you went silent. And some how my side is about dishonesty and distortion? Very interesting.

In particular, I asked for a specific answer regarding AYN RAND'S own seminal essay on the topic of fundamentals in the political context--and, again, you left it completely unanswered. You keep babbling about fundamentals of Objectivism, yet you don't even seem to be able to comprehend Rand's essential thoughts on the matter. That's why I specifically brought up Rand's own essay, to see how you would react to her ideas apparently in conflict with your own. But why let that get in the way when you want to declare yourself the guardian of all things Objectivist?

And in the "irony of ironies" category, you state that political philosophy cannot give you "specific implementation"--without stating precisely what one refers to when evaluating whether a "specific implementation" is proper or not. Also without stating by what means one judges a "specific implementation" and its validity. Yet, you're the one who has the fundamentals down pat. Interesting. How does this demonstrate your grasp of the fundamentals? Somehow, I guess.

And what was your response to some of these earlier arguments? Nothing, except to declare yourself the winner. Well that proves it to me!!!! You da man, Fred!!

Some of you obviously need to reread Ayn Rand's essays on politics.

Let me show how you how to correct a "distortion" and move the argument forward, Fred. You write:

"What finally made me realize that was when I trying to explain the importance of not compromising on principles - which is a basic tenet of Objectivism - I cited the extremely important scene in Atlas Shrugged with Galt and Pres. Thompson in which Galt laughed at Thompson's offer of political power.
Jeff's response to that was, 'That's your argument? A scene from a novel?'".

This is a good illustration of how much you apparently understand the arguments, which doesn't appear to be a whole lot. Jeff's retort was not disputing compromising fundamental principles, what he was saying is that you do NOT substitute the facts in a book for the facts of reality. That if you want to support your assertions, you need to appeal to the facts of reality and apply the relevant principles.

For instance, suppose you and I were arguing about a new law on protecting property rights and we had a dispute over whether it or not it was fundamentally capitalist. Suppose my argument looked at what the law said and applied it to factual situations. Suppose, as a retort, you went to a novel and restated some essentials of capitalism and said that we should not compromise these principles and therefore your position is correct. Don't you see the problem with that, Fred? Its NOT a question of compromising the correct principles, its a question of whether relevant facts are on your side and you've correctly applied the principles.

But its the same thing with you each time--burden-shifting, back-pedaling from the initial statements, and almost zero support from the actual facts. Your modus operandi appears to be argument by floating abstraction. Its like debating a libertarian-anarchist. Arguing analogies and appealing to scenes in a novel does NOT give you the relevant facts nor tell you whether you've applied the relevant principles correctly--get that straight, PLEASE.

Fred, I'm willing to put aside some animosity here and debate this topic out--even considering some of the malicious things you are stating here regarding other people's honesty. You can start by addressing the numbered issues I laid out for you on the "Bush's Testes" thread. Or is it simply enough for you to impugn people's honesty, declare yourself the winner, then scamper off?

Michael

Well, this "yes man" has also registered the insults and will not discuss this subject here, either.

I'm also tired of having to deal with the constant distortions represented by William's post - or that I was getting from Jeff and then more recently from Michael. I'm tired of having to constantly repeat myself.

Voting for the Democrats - if one agrees with that position - is not an endorsement of the Democratic position on the war. When did Peikoff or any Hsiehkovian ever say it was and thus why they are expected to defend the Democratic position? Voting for the Democrats is a way of sending a message to the Republicans, of rejecting their position. Period.

Keeping the Republicans in power is not a way to "do something vs. nothing". The "something" the Republicans are doing is *worse* than nothing.

What about that don't you understand? And here I have to completely agree with Peikoff, if you don't understand that then you don't understand Objectivism. Right down to its roots.

That was the point of my citing the scene with John Galt and Pres. Thompson and quite clearly a number of you don't understand why Galt didn't choose to do "something" and accept the offer of power. Was Galt therefore endorsing the position of those in power? Is that what the strike meant? By leaving the field to the destroyers did it mean agreeing with them? (That was in fact Dagny's position).

Some of you obviously need to re-read Atlas Shrugged.

Or maybe just acknowledge that you are not Objectvists and stop calling this a forum for Objectivists. Right now you are simply engaged in the same kind of dishonesty as the TASsels and OLLies - a number of whom are coming here and patting you all on your heads. Don't you get why?

P.S.: Some of you also need to re-read John Lewis's essay "No Substitute for Victory". Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has:

Jihad Watch

Also read the comments. As far as I can tell most of them are not Objectivists. But they have no trouble understanding Dr. Lewis's thesis. So why do you?

I'm bowing out of discussions on SoloPassion. I'd like to explain my reasons, as they bear upon the present discussion. (Plus, since Linz seems to be inventing stories of ARI orders, I'd like to set the record straight.)

When I first began posting on SoloPassion last year, I did so because I finally thought I could get a fair hearing for my arguments. Sure, some people would still twist my words or dismiss whatever I said. But enough people -- including Linz -- would actually listen, whether they ultimately agreed with me or not.

However, that is no longer the case, not with Linz.

From the very outset of this election debate, Linz's behavior has been inexcusably unjust. In multiple posts over the course of two months, Linz has accused me (and others) of blind loyalty to Leonard Peikoff, slavish obedience to authority, Randroidism, tribalism, cowardice, fawning yesmanship, cultism -- and more. He's done so without any evidence whatsoever, except the simple fact of disagreement with him. He's done so without concern for the actual thought behind the position, as evidenced in my lengthy essay on the election. He's done so repeatedly: seeming to back off, only to repeat his unjust moral accusations again in a few days. He's done so while blatantly misrepresenting my plainly-stated views time and time again; he's been utterly impervious to correction.

Linz is not merely rejecting my views and arguments with his usual colorful style. That would be fine. Instead, he's attacking me personally. He's attacking my moral character: my independence, my rationality, my honesty, my integrity. If such attacks were from some random person, I would shrug them off. I can't do that with Linz: he is my friend -- or at least he was. Friends don't accuse each other of immorality lightly -- as Linz has done. They don't do so publicly without so much as a word of private discussion beforehand -- as Linz has done. They don't do so contrary to their general knowledge of the person's character -- as Linz has done. They don't expect the friend to shrug off such attacks -- as Linz has done.

Despite this frankly unbelievable behavior, Linz still expects me (and others) to engage him in debate about his Turnadot Challenge. The questions he asks are legitimate. Yet the sad fact is that Linz has proven himself totally unwilling to engage in anything remotely resembling civil, thoughtful debate on this topic. Based upon what I've seen already from him, I'm quite certain that if I answered his questions, he would ignore my arguments, misrepresent my views, and accuse me of further moral crimes. Unless I agree with him, anything I might say would be dismissed and attacked as more slavish obedience to Leonard. I have too much self-respect to subject myself to that kind of pointless bullying.

Although his recent posts feign ignorance, I've told Linz all this in private -- repeatedly. He's consistently ignored all that I've written. So with much dismay, I've given up. I don't know what else to do. Until I have good reason to expect that Linz will treat me with basic fairness in intellectual disputes, I won't be posting on SoloPassion. I see no reason to expose myself to further baseless attacks from the owner of this forum.

Diana.

P.S. My hearty thanks to those who have remained focused on the facts and civil in this debate, despite major disagreements. I really appreciate that.

P.P.S For the record, not one single person has demanded, requested, or even suggested that I stop posting to SoloPassion.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Fred, the result of electing Democrats, especially if everyone in the US had taken Peikoff's advice, would have been immediate cut-and-run. This is what the Party leadership wants (just look to dailykos, moveon, etc.). I am unable to see a Dem vote as anything but admiting that America has no right to defend herself.

Fred you are in the media bubble on this 'isn't even controversial that he is loosing the war' bit. America will loose the war the moment we give up. This is what the Dems, the media, and the Islamic fith want us to do -- give up.

Every day in Iraq we kill terrorists. Yes, they kill us too, but we are killing more of them then they are of us. Should we do more? Yes. Should we cower in fear and run home? NO. Leaving now would end the progress that has been made overnight.

Bush says that we have a right to pre-emptively end threats to the US. The Democrats say we do not. Bush says that Iran, N. Korea, and Iraq represented the biggest threats to the US. The Democrats (and you) see that as Bush. Perhaps this is the hardest pill for me to swallow, since this has been the Democrat's position all along -- Bush causes terrorism, 9/11 is Bush's fault, Bush (and the US Military) is the focus of evil in the modern world -- I've heard these all before, from the traitorus Democrats and now I'm hearing echos of it from you.

Wm

Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

This is only for Chris C.'s benefit - and anyone else who is looking at this issue honestly.

The Hsiehkovians are calling for "cut-and-run"? A little surprised that we're being accused of that? And you still think Linz is honest?

As for Bush not being better than the Dems, it's our position that he is worse - far, far worse. Not only is he losing the war, which isn't even controversial at this point, he is *discrediting the very effort itself*. Just as happened with our half-hearted efforts in Vietnam he is seriously undermining any credibility we might hope to have in the foreign policy area and thereby providing ammunition for the American capitulationists and offering them one more victory. In that regard he is their staunchest ally. They may as well have handed him a rope and watched him hang himself - and us along with him.

Let's be perfectly clear about what he has done. He has sent American boys to die in the Mideast for the purpose of setting up Islamic states. That's what we've now got in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Everytime this simple fact is pointed out, Linz goes into major denial. And you still think he is honest?

Oh, but it's not Bush's fault that he lacks backbone, says Linz and his dutiful apologists. It's the Dem's. They're the ones who make him a coward. Uh, huh.

Of course the Peikoff issue is a total phoney. Just like Marnee, I don't agree with Peikoff about "imminent theocracy" and I've made that perfectly clear. So, you are absolutely right about that, just as was Dan. Linz, et al just latched onto that. But if it wasn't that, it would have been something else because he was looking for things to assert his pseudo-independence. Consider the vicious and disgusting attacks on Peikoff when it's a matter of record that he was calling for aggressive military action against the Islamists well before 9/11. And then a twerp like Linz calls him a traitor.

Just as with all the former "schisms", this is not an issue of just reasonable, alternate views of applying Objectivism. This represents a rejection of fundamental principles of Objectivism.

What finally made me realize that was when I trying to explain the importance of not compromising on principles - which is a basic tenet of Objectivism - I cited the extremely important scene in Atlas Shrugged with Galt and Pres. Thompson in which Galt laughed at Thompson's offer of political power.

Jeff's response to that was, "That's your argument? A scene from a novel?"

Does anything further need to be said about what is actually going on here?

Incidentally, considering the negative comments also made about Harry
Binswanger (chronically from Linz), I'll just note that this issue has been vigorously debated - pro and con - on HBL without either side resorting to insults or recriminations.

The "Hsieshchkovians" or however it's spelled are calling for cut-and-run in Iraq? As far as I could tell, they were calling for an aggressive stance a la the Objective Standard folks, one that the current Prez isn't willing to take. They want to see a foreign policy guided by correct principles of self-defense -- and they don't see Bush being better on this count than what the Dem-Scum appeaser candidate would be.

Perhaps you're saying that since Dem-Scum want to cut and run, and that they are voting for Dem-Scum, that they are supporting cut-and-run. I don't think it's quite that simple.

Chris:

Say that GWB really got us into a mess in Iraq and eventually decided that it can't be won, and cuts and runs then. Doesn't that leave us in a worse state than before? That's actually part of Diana's against the GOP in reponse to its alleged advantages. I don't know how or where Linz has adequately responded to this. I don't even know if the debate has gotten that far amidst all the sound and fury over other stuff.

It's the Hsiekovians who are *advocating* cut-&-run from Iraq, while evading Ayn Rand's dictum that a free country has the right, but not the duty, to liberate a slave pen, when they argue—with the easy, cowardly wisdom of hindsight—that Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq to begin with. If Bush cuts & runs it'll be with the approval of the Hsiekovians. So what are they bitching about? If, by contrast, he redoubles his efforts to establish a pro-American regime apart from Israel in the Mid-East, it'll be with their *dis*approval. Dem-Scum & Hsiekovians will be shrieking in unison if Bush rediscovers his balls in next year's announcement. They'll call it "nation-building" & say they'd prefer a Sunni/Shi-ite conflict that would result in the triumph of the Iran-backed Shi-ites. All the while they pretend to think that Iran is the real threat!!

Meanwhile there's a typically ARI lock-step distortion in Mr. Edge's claim that I say all who vote Dem-Scum across the board deserve to be murdered. What I say is that if the result of voting for appeasing Dem-Scum across the board is a dirty bomb dropped by the Islamo-Fascists emboldened by the appeasement, those who so voted have brought it on themselves. This shouldn't be controversial. Don't we Objectivists believe that actions have consequences?

Linz

Consider the number of concretes that must be ignored for one to assert this position: Anyone who was persuaded by Peikoff's argument, and voted straight Democrat, deserves to be murdered. This is Linz's explicit view. And he wonders why people are disappointed in him?

Dan, Linz has honed in with much fervor on what he sees as a traitorous attitude amongst Dem-scum to capitulate to the Islamofascists. The rest may be over-the-top hyperbole, but that's the basic source of his anger, and why he got pissed at the idea that we should rush into voting Dem-scum.

Let's try and look at it this way: the question of theocracy is a longer-term, intellectually-driven battle that goes well beyond how voting in the past election goes. The Islamofascist threat is immediate and centered on our willingess to use deadly force against it. It's not so intellectually-centered in that regard; we aren't trying to rationally persude Islamofascists, but kill them. And it's important, for this immediate and short-term aim, which of the two parties is in office. If there's a theocracy building, it isn't fundamentally, primarily due to what political parties are doing here and now; it's due to wider, deeper intellectual-cultural trends.

The better argument to make against Peikoff is that he's erroneously crossing the short term with the long term. He's proposing a short-term fix for something that can only come through long-term fixes -- and not properly focused on the differences in how the major parties respond to the major short-term threat. (Diana -- not Peikoff, from what I've heard -- has done the work of responding to the arguments that the GOP is better even at this short-term problem.)

Accusing Lindsay of dishonesty is a serious call, Dan. Care to back it up with some actual facts? My experience is that Lindsay has an heroic dedication to the truth.

See, that's the thing. It isn't a matter of any dishonesty or lack of dedication to the truth, for anyone who knows Linz. There is, however, a fervency and an over-the-top drill-instructor MO (with its unique form of motivating wayward "recruits") that have the danger of creating blind spots. (This is correctible!) Linz is rightfully angered and pissed when he hears what Peikoff said, and is disappointed that others don't share in the anger. However, as I've already suggested, getting the target nailed correctly is crucial. What Peikoff said wasn't all that bad, but Linz looks at it from the angle that the Dem scum are eager appeasers to the Islamo-fascists. From that point on, it's a question of defining the relatively threat levels -- the actual differences between Repos and Demscum on the war on terror, vs. their actual differences on theocratic aspirations here at home. The Islamofascist threat is more immediate. There is a valid issue worth considering, though: whether the Demscum's more eager, open appeasement (and immediate voter outrage at them) is worse long-term than GWB's long. drawn-out, eventual appeasement under the deceptive cover of defending America. Say that GWB really got us into a mess in Iraq and eventually decided that it can't be won, and cuts and runs then. Doesn't that leave us in a worse state than before? That's actually part of Diana's against the GOP in reponse to its alleged advantages. I don't know how or where Linz has adequately responded to this. I don't even know if the debate has gotten that far amidst all the sound and fury over other stuff.

Duncan,

Consider the number of concretes that must be ignored for one to assert this position: Anyone who was persuaded by Peikoff's argument, and voted straight Democrat, deserves to be murdered.  This is Linz's explicit view.  And he wonders why people are disappointed in him?

William,

My criticisms of Linz apply exclusively to him, and not to the rest of the SOLO staff.  Unfortunately, my judgment of SOLO as a whole is bound to my judgment of Linz as its leader.

--Dan Edge

He has about as much tact as someone like Binswanger (which ain't much) and only half of Binswanger's dedication to the truth.

Accusing Lindsay of dishonesty is a serious call, Dan. Care to back it up with some actual facts? My experience is that Lindsay has an heroic dedication to the truth. 

I'd mention that often, those criticising him for a lack of tact are really complaining about that dedication, for Lindsay is one of those rare individuals who knows the truth and speaks it ... but that wouldn't be tactful now would it?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 25% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Come on, folks. The cause of this latest "schism" isn't even comparable to the fallout from PARC. That had some actual real and crucial issues (significantly, of sanction and association) at stake. This is over a stupid, pointless issue of how to vote. Didn't I already say that in a previous post.

Anyway, Linz does have this cannon that he lets loose in the spirit of KASS. He doesn't always hit his target, but the spirit is good. If you show him the errors of his ways, he recants. He's done it time and time again, in fact. He had a legit beef with Peikoff, but I think this whole thing wouldn't have become a fiasco if he had done better to pinpoint his target exactly. If you home in right on the errors that someone is espousing, you're going to be very effective at swaying opinion. That's KASSness in execution as well as spirit. Instead, this has become a stupid debate over side-distractions -- whether Peikoff was issuing marching orders or somesuch. That's not what was happening. Nonetheless, Peikoff did poorly in his own right from a PR standpoint. He came across as an intrinsicist when declaring that people who don't agree with him don't understand Objectivism. The problem isn't with making such a bold declaration; the problem was with how or whether Peikoff backed it up.

The "immorality" thing is a red herring for the way it's been widely debated, unrelated to the issue of the futility of voting as such. The talk of immorality had to do with those who are in a position to understand the nature of the evils they're choosing between. Peikoff was not issuing a moral proclamation at all Objectivists with an implicit demand that they fall into line. On this count, Peikoff is still in error (about the efficacy of voting), but he's not intrinsicist.

This is such a stupid issue for a "schism" to arise over. I do think that both Linz and the Peikoff defenders have some fixing up of their relative positions to do. BTW, it is ridiculous to suggest that Diana, for one, of all folks, haven't given careful thought to these issues. I've noticed that for one thing she hasn't accepted the premise that "theocracy is imminent," and that there's a more precise and careful description of what the religious right is up to.

Come on, folks. This stuff can be worked through. Put aside all the silly and irrelevant personal stuff, admit where you've gone over the line, move on, and get all the KASSers back on board.

Dear aggrieved Soloists,

I appreciate Linz posting his emails on this thread for all to see. I was beginning to wonder what the hell he must've said to warrant such reactionary posts, but can see nothing in them that could remotely be called "insulting".

Amigo Marnee, shame on you. You misrepresented his emails disgracefully!

I closely followed all the threads on Solo leading up to the US elections and Linz stated his Turandot challenge again and again. No one took him up on it, no one even tried (except Lance took a bit of a stab). In the face of such a deafening silence, patiently and consistently, Linz kept asserting his challenge... only to get more silence on the matter right up until this very day.

Jesus Christ, how about a bit of loyalty to truth and a thicker skin?! If you can't handle a dose of righteous indignation from a spicey character like Lindsay Perigo - how the hell would you have coped in the presence of an Ayn Rand?

Well, they haven't quite purged me yet. I no longer get sent the op-eds, but I did just get notification that Yaron Brook is on TV tonight.

ARI now has the following tagline at the end of Tracinski's articles:

Robert W. Tracinski is no longer associated with the Ayn Rand Institute--neither as a writer nor as a speaker. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

ARI's loss.

Why It Can Happen Again, by Robert W. Tracinski