Dr. Peikoff on Objectivism Versus Applications Thereof

On Monday, Dr. Peikoff released a podcast with the following question:

Do you distinguish official Objectivist doctrine from Ayn Rand's personal views?

His answer was excellent: it's a brief but clear explanation of the meaning and implications of the "closed system" view of Objectivism. That's what I advocate, what I practice, and what I defended in my recent blog post. If you're interested in these matters, I recommend listening to his answer. (It's only 2 minutes, 31 seconds long.)

Here's the transcription, courtesy of D Jason Fleming:

Philosophy is broad principles, about the nature of the universe, the means of knowledge, the nature of man, and then the value doctrines that all that leads to. All this is interconnected. In a proper philosophy, it's one system, as in Objectivism.

Now that does not mean that every specific application of that philosophy is inherent in the philosophy. A philosopher can hold views that do not necessarily follow from the philosophy, but are its application to a realm where facts are established by science, or observation, or some other appropriate means.

Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes. For instance, take my theory of history presented in the DIM book. I make a definite distinction between official Objectivst doctrine and Peikoff's theory of history. Now, I believe that my theory is based on Objectivism, but it does not follow from Objectivism, it is not therefore Objectivism as such. It is my application and each person has to decide is this the correct application or not? It is not subjective, but it's still not a question of what is the philosophy, but what is its applications? And in that regard, Ayn Rand and I and others can disagree without anybody contradicting the philosophy.

Remember also that there are personal options in applying broad philosophic principles. You can say that, for instance, "sex is good" is a philosophic principle, but that does not necessitate any special particular position or clothing, et cetera. It does specify that the general principles of morality apply, such as fraud, force, evasion, et cetera. But as apart from that, there are many different interpretations and complete options which would be personal, not official.

So: yes, but without that implying a contradiction or a subjective viewpoint.

Hear, hear!

Read more...

On Some Recent Controversies

Yesterday on Facebook, I was alerted to a new web site attacking me: CheckingPremises.org. The web site claims to be "in response to the danger that some, who may seem in agreement with the philosophy, are in fact subverting it." It has pages on "The Brandens," "David Kelley," and "Libertarianism," with a few perfunctory links. Then, under "Current Controversies," you'll find six pages on me, albeit with little of substance. The site claims:

We believe [Diana Hsieh] has revealed herself to not understand and/or to not agree with certain aspects of Objectivism. In addition, we have serious concerns about the nature, frequency, and tone of her public disagreements with Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

The purpose of the web site is clearly to attack me, and I was expecting that something like that might happen. As many of you know, a handful of people have been loudly condemning me on Facebook in recent weeks, demanding that our mutual friends un-friend me, and so on.

The site is not something that I can take too seriously. A handful of people -- none of whom I know, except to barely recognize a few names -- think poorly of me. Mostly, I regard the site as an embarrassment to Objectivism: it deserves to disappear into the ether.

For obvious reasons, the creators and supporters of this web site are not welcome in my life, including online. They are not entitled to post belligerent comments on my Facebook wall or in these NoodleFood comments, as happens periodically. They should have had the good sense to unsubscribe themselves from my OLists, rather than obliging me to remove them. Most of all, they're not entitled to violate my rights, such as by reposting video segments from my webcast without my permission. (Happily, I was able to remove such a video with a DMCA takedown request.)

Here, I'd like to explain my views on some of the controversial topics, so that anyone confused by this brouhaha can know where I stand and judge me accordingly. If you have any further questions, please e-mail me privately.

For me, discussion between thoughtful and friendly Objectivists -- not just on the proper application of our common philosophic principles, but on a wide range of practical topics -- is a huge value. In such discussions, reasonable people will disagree from time to time, particularly on complex topics. Such disagreements can provide an excellent opportunity to question assumptions, consider new facts, understand opposing views, and more. That's a value to me -- and to many others too.

Such friendly discussion doesn't happen automatically: it requires purposeful effort. The people involved in the discussion need to focus on the substantive issues. They need to strive to be rational and benevolent, including in their assumptions about and treatment of others. They need to give others the necessary time to think through the issues on their own. They need to consider the judgments of experts carefully, yet come to their own rational, independent conclusions. By such means, disagreements can be friendly, or at least civil, and even a passionate disagreement need not cause rifts among good people.

I learn lots through such discussions with my fellow Objectivists, and I hope that others do too. That's part of the purpose of the various OLists, and I'm proud of the success of those lists.

If Objectivists don't nourish and protect that kind of rational culture, then a self-destructive culture of suspicion, hostility, and dogmatism will take its place. Then, any disagreement -- even if trivial, even if outside the scope of Objectivism -- will become grounds for denouncing someone else as dishonest and attempting to ostracize them. Any connection with a condemned person will be grounds for your condemnation too. People will fear speaking their minds, and some will even forego thinking for themselves.

That kind of repressive culture actively undermines the virtues of rationality, justice, and independence. It's not compatible with the fundamental principles of Objectivism, nor is it the kind of culture that can revitalize America.

To promote a rationally benevolent Objectivist culture does not mean eschewing moral judgment, nor that every Objectivist will join hands to sing kumbaya. A person may falsely describe himself as an Objectivist, meaning that he rejects core principles of the philosophy in word and deed. Such people, as well as the dishonest critics of Objectivism, should be judged and treated according to their merits (or lack thereof). Moreover, some Objectivists just might not wish to work together due to personal conflicts. That's to be expected -- and while sometimes unfortunate, that's hardly unusual for intellectual movements.

As for me, I occasionally disagree with other Objectivists -- including with scholars and intellectuals who I like and respect -- on various topics. When their publicly-stated views are relevant to my projects or of sufficient interest to me, I might discuss my disagreement publicly. That's been my longstanding policy. People familiar with my history know that I've spoken out on controversial topics before, and that I've sometimes taken heat for doing so. That's nothing new for me.

Of course, I'm always interested in substantive arguments against my views. I'm happy to change my mind when I see that I'm wrong -- or at least to accept that my opponents have a better case than I realized. However, I'll never accept someone else's say-so, nor hide my views because I think they might be unpopular. That's just not the kind of person I am, nor the kind of person that I'd ever want to be.

As it happens, Dr. Peikoff has said some things in recent podcasts that I disagree with, sometimes very strongly. Twice, I've made my disagreement known -- in my webcast discussions of compulsory juries (May 2011) and the transgendered (Oct 2011). (In the debate about the NYC Mosque, I blogged my view before Dr. Peikoff's podcast on the topic, and I continued to disagree with him on that issue.) Given that Dr. Peikoff and I happen to share some similar interests in practical philosophy, such periodic disagreements are hardly surprising.

On the whole, I've tried to be careful in my tone and manner, as is evident from my writings on the NYC Mosque and John McCaskey's Resignation. Alas, I didn't take proper care in my discussion of compulsory juries. Unfortunately, some people wrongly interpreted my enthusiasm for the topic as enthusiasm for criticizing Dr. Peikoff. I didn't intend any disrespect, and I regret that I could be interpreted that way. (I say more on this later.)

Because I expect to disagree with other Objectivists from time to time, particularly on applications of the philosophy, I don't regard my occasional disagreements with Dr. Peikoff as of much significance. I almost always agree with him, so disagreements are a kind of interesting philosophical mystery that I like to unpack. Sometimes, after further reflection, I find that I was wrong, and that Dr. Peikoff is right. But that's not always the case.

Of course, I regard Dr. Peikoff's books and courses as a huge value: I've learned more from him over the past two decades than I can properly express. As I routinely tell people, anyone who wants to deeply understand Objectivism simply must read his books and listen to his major courses. Nonetheless, I've never thought myself duty-bound to agree with Dr. Peikoff, nor to be silent about any disagreements, due to that appreciation for his work. To remain silent would not be respectful: it would be either patronizing or cowardly.

Unfortunately, a few Objectivists seem to regard any disagreement with Dr. Peikoff as some kind of personal attack on him. That's wrong. To criticize a person as wrong -- even very seriously wrong -- on some particular issue is not the same as condemning the person. Good people can be very seriously wrong sometimes. To personalize mere disagreements over ideas by interpreting them as personal attacks is unwarranted, as well as unfair. It's also toxic to the Objectivist movement, as that approach erodes the much-needed culture of independent thinking and rational judgment.

Notably, my occasional disagreements with Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivists are not disagreements about the principles of Objectivism -- like that humans have free will or that integrity is a virtue. At most, they concern the application of Objectivist principles to circumstances and questions not considered by Ayn Rand. As such, they're outside the scope of Objectivism. They are the kinds of peripheral issues about which Objectivists sometimes disagree, and when they do, they should do so civilly, particularly if they wish to succeed in their own lives and change the culture.

Remember, Objectivism does not encompass all philosophic truth. It's the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand, and it's a closed system. Hence, even the best scholarly work done by Objectivists since Ayn Rand's death cannot be regarded as part of Objectivism. As Leonard Peikoff himself explains in Fact and Value:

"Objectivism" is the name of Ayn Rand's achievement. Anyone else's interpretation or development of her ideas, my own work emphatically included, is precisely that: an interpretation or development, which may or may not be logically consistent with what she wrote. In regard to the consistency of any such derivative work, each man must reach his own verdict, by weighing all the relevant evidence. The "official, authorized doctrine," however, remains unchanged and untouched in Ayn Rand's books; it is not affected by any interpreters.

Objectivism doesn't have a theory of induction or a theory of children's rights. It doesn't tell us who to vote for in 2012 or whether Agora was a good movie. Many Objectivists have views on these topics, and those views might be more or less consistent with Objectivist principles. However, there is simply no such thing as "the Objectivist position" on the NYC Mosque or "the Objectivist position" on gun rights or "the Objectivist theory of induction." (People often loosely describe new philosophic works that are consistent with and based on Objectivism as "Objectivist," and that's fine. However, such works are not part of the "official, authorized doctrine" of Objectivism.)

To claim that my few disagreements with Dr. Peikoff on issues outside the scope of Objectivism prove that I don't understand or don't agree with Objectivism is just plain wrong. Although Dr. Peikoff understands Objectivism thoroughly, he's not immune from error, particularly in the application of Objectivist principles to current events or new questions. Everyone must judge for himself the truth of Dr. Peikoff's claims, as well as their consistency with Objectivism.

Personally, I take the closed system view of Objectivism very seriously, particularly because I thought long and hard about it some years ago. (See my essays Ayn Rand on David Kelley and The Open System, One More Time.) I'm an Objectivist because I agree with and practice the principles of Objectivism. I don't claim to speak for Objectivism, nor do I regard my new philosophic work as part of Objectivism. (That's part of the reason why my webcast is "Philosophy in Action," not "Objectivism in Action.") I regard my philosophic work as compatible with Objectivism. But it is my own work, and others can and ought to judge its compatibility for themselves. As always, I welcome substantive comments and criticisms, particularly from an Objectivist perspective.

As for some of the particular objections raised against me, I'd like to explain a few points that might not be apparent from a distance. (I've explained much of what follows to people who inquired with me, usually to their satisfaction. A person's action and motives are often not what others suppose from afar. That's why justice often requires inquiring with a person about the facts in a civil way before judgment.)

NYC Mosque

All of Paul's and my blog posts are collected here, in reverse order: NYC Mosque.

This issue was hugely controversial among Objectivists. It is a complex and difficult subject, partly because the debate concerned what people ought to do given that our government refuses to do the right thing, namely protect us against terrorist threats from Islamists by declaring war against states that sponsor terrorism. With the proper course closed off, our only options were "bad" and "worse," and Objectivists were arguing over which was which. (That's similar to debates about the proper rules for government schools: since government schools ought not exist, plausible arguments can often be made both for and against some proposed rule.)

I stand by the concerns that Paul and I raised in our blog posts, but I understand -- mostly thanks to Amy Peikoff's posts -- why others saw the matter differently. I was, and still am, disturbed by Dr. Peikoff's manner in his podcast discussion, and I found much of his argument unpersuasive on its own.

Mostly though, I think that Objectivists ought to be able to disagree about this kind of topic in a friendly or at least civil way.

John McCaskey's Resignation

Paul and I have already said all that we wish to say about this matter in these posts. We think that our concerns about Dr. Peikoff's letter were warranted, and we think that the dispute between Dr. Peikoff and Dr. McCaskey could and should have been handled better by ARI.

Compulsory Juries

As I said earlier, I should have been more careful in how I expressed my disagreement with Dr. Peikoff in my webcast discussion of compulsory juries. As my regular webcast viewers know, I love wrangling with difficult issues, particularly when I think I can cut through them clearly. I was enthused about this particular topic, and I knew that my arguments on it were solid. I didn't intend any disrespect to Dr. Peikoff: I was too focused on the substantive issues to even think about that. That was a mistake, of course, and I don't intend to repeat it. (It's easy to make such errors in speaking extemporaneously, as everyone who speaks extemporaneously knows.)

My views on the issue have not changed: I do not think that compulsory juries are compatible with individual rights, particularly given Ayn Rand's clear rejection of the draft and compulsory taxation. Moreover, a compulsory jury is an attempt to force men to think, and that's something that Ayn Rand knew to be impossible and dangerous. Also, I think that my summary of Dr. Peikoff's stated views was fair. Mostly, I quoted him at some length. Although he was uncertain whether juries would be used in a free society, he clearly stated that they could be compulsory, if so.

Dr. Peikoff didn't offer any substantive justification for his views in his two podcasts. After my webcast, Amy Peikoff attempted to defend his view in this blog post by appealing to tacit consent to a social contract. Her argument fails for the reasons given in this comment by NS. (When preparing for the webcast, I thought that Dr. Peikoff's remarks perhaps suggested an appeal to social contract. However, I never would have attributed that view to him, not even provisionally, because I've long known that social contract theory is wholly incompatible with individual rights.) Also, for more on the errors of social contract theory, I'd strongly recommend reading Harry Binswanger's April 29th, 2011 post to HBL. (That's only available to subscribers of HBL, but it was sent to me as the "HBL Monthly Enticement" on May 30th, 2011.)

I've not yet seen any plausible defense of Dr. Peikoff's views, and I hope that he reconsiders his position at some point.

Anencephalics

I discussed the rights of the the severely mentally disabled in a May 2011 webcast. My basic view is that normal children, as well as mentally impaired children, have all the usual rights to care from their parents. However, in the rare cases of complete mental incapacity -- such as in the horrifically tragic cases of anencephalic babies, where only the brain stem exists -- rights cannot apply. Rights are not inherent in our DNA; they're based on the role of reason in man's survival. Hence, if a child is proven in court to have zero current or future capacity to reason -- or, as in the case of the anencephalic, not even the potential for consciousness -- then that child could be humanely enthanized by its parents.

On hearing this view, any thinking person will immediately inquire about the logical implications of saying that anencephalic babies have no rights. Consider the extreme cases: Does that mean that they could be treated like any other animal, e.g. used for medical experiments, kept as a pet, or even eaten for food? (UGH!) The thought is repulsive, undoubtedly, but that's not a reason to refuse to think about it. An honest person's thinking is guided by facts, not emotions, and refusing to examine the logical implications of views under consideration is just evasion. (I was asked about this very issue in a discussion over dinner with some Objectivist friends prior to the webcast. It's a natural question.)

In the webcast, I said that using such babies as a food source, even if legally permitted, would be morally horrifying. That feeling would be pretty near universal, however, so I couldn't imagine that any kind of widespread problem with that would ever exist. That wasn't a pleasant thing to say, but I didn't want to evade the question.

Later, someone seemingly determined to misrepresent what I said in the webcast -- as if I was all in favor of eating babies for breakfast -- questioned me about my views. Part of that discussion showed up in these NoodleFood comments. I found the whole discussion pointless and irritating, but I was thinking through my views as I posted comments. Hence, some of what I said earlier in that thread is definitely wrong. My current view can be found in this comment. Basically, I can imagine a few far-fetched scenarios in which consuming human flesh would not be horrifyingly immoral, provided that no rights were violated in doing so. (I'm still uncertain about Case #3: I feel an overwhelming sense of revulsion at the thought of doing that, but I'm uncertain that every rational person would necessarily feel that way. When in doubt, I will not condemn.)

The whole topic is so ridiculously far-fetched that I just can't see any point in further discussion of it. I'd be far more interested to hear a well-reasoned defense of some kind of legal protections for anencephalic babies, even if not rights. (That could have fascinating implications for laws pertaining to the treatment of animals.) Of course, any such attempt would have to be based on the Objectivist theory of rights, as opposed to the intrinsicist view. That intrisicist view says that rights are inherent in human nature, and it leads to granting rights to zygotes.

If anyone wants to assess my understanding of rights, I'd recommend reading my two published writings on the nature and basis of abortion rights, both co-authored with Ari Armstrong:

• The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception, particularly the section on Individual Rights and Abortion (2010)
  
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties (2012)

I'd also recommend reading my two graduate papers on the follies of animal rights:

• Animal Wrongs (PDF, 2004)
  
• On the Margins of Humanity (2005, PDF)

The second paper discusses what rights humans without any capacity for rational thought might have, and the implications of that for claims about animal rights.

The Transgendered

I strongly disagree with Dr. Peikoff's moral condemnation of the transgendered and their surgeons. In this December 13th, 2010 podcast, he claims that transgenders are engaged in "a war against reality." He also says that the doctors who perform sexual reassignment surgery are "corrupt without qualification," and he likens them to the doctors who performed experiments in Nazi concentration camps. In this June 20th, 2011 podcast, he claims that a person's sex is immutable, that sexual reassignment surgery does not change it, and that such surgery destroys a person's capacity for sexual enjoyment. In this January 2nd, 2012 podcast, he says that transsexualism is a "metaphysical assault on reality" and "a thorough corruption" that he would "never voluntarily associate with." He thinks that gay groups should be opposed if they welcome transsexuals. (Note: This third podcast was posted after my webcast discussion.)

I briefly registered my strong disagreement in this webcast discussion: Restrooms for the Transgendered in Transition. I regard Dr. Peikoff's views on this subject as terribly ill-informed and his moral condemnations as unjustified. I was particularly disappointed because his moral condemnation of transsexualism seems exactly like the moral arguments against homosexuality that used to be common in Objectivist circles.

Given that I know some transgendered Objectivists -- and that OHomos @ OList.com welcomes transgenders -- I didn't want to remain silent about these repeated public condemnations of the transgendered, particularly not when I was answering a question on the transgendered in my webcast. Others have spoken up too, and I'm glad of that. People -- particularly the transgendered -- should know that Dr. Peikoff doesn't necessarily speak for other Objectivists on this topic. Also, I wanted transgender Objectivists to feel welcome in the forums that I manage.

In the webcast, I said that Dr. Peikoff's comments on this topic are "horribly ignorant" and "armchair philosophizing." I stand by those remarks, strongly-worded as they are. Dr. Peikoff doesn't seem to be aware of the basic claims about the psychology of transgenderism. He would likely disagree with those claims, but a fair judgment of the transgendered and their doctors requires some familiarity with them. His remarks are premised on other critical factual errors, as Trey Givens discusses in this blog post. Moreover, in light of the strength and vehemence of Dr. Peikoff's repeated condemnations of the transgendered, I don't think my language was out-of-proportion. Of course, my criticisms are limited to his comments on this particular topic, which I regard as a striking exception to the keen insight that I've enjoyed in Dr. Peikoff's lecture courses, time and again.

Privacy Lies

For many years -- probably more than a decade -- I've been interested in the question of the morality of lies to protect one's privacy. That's part of my broader interest in the virtue of honesty -- as evidenced by my two published papers on the topic: "Dursley Duplicity: The Morality and Psychology of Self-Deception" in Harry Potter and Philosophy and "False Excuses: Honesty, Wrongdoing, and Moral Growth" in the Journal of Value Inquiry. Privacy lies are of particular interest because Objectivists often disagree about them, and I enjoy sorting through such moral tangles. However, there's more to the story.

For many years, I knew that Nathaniel Branden condemned such lies in very clear terms in his "Basic Principles of Objectivism" course. (That course was originally given at NBI, and it was approved by Ayn Rand.) However, the version of that course available to the public (which I own) was actually re-recorded after his break with Ayn Rand. I worried that, particularly on this issue, Branden might have changed the content. Recently, I was able to get my hands on a rarity: the original lectures recorded at NBI. To my surprise, the discussion of privacy lies was exactly the same as in the publicly available versions. Moreover, Ayn Rand didn't seem to change her view later in life: her remarks in the Q&A of Dr. Peikoff's "Philosophy of Objectivism" course indicate that she still regarded lies for the sake of privacy as wrong in 1976.

However, Leonard Peikoff has claimed that lies for the sake of privacy are justified. He discusses the issue in Understanding Objectivism, and he has a line about it in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. When I asked him about the issue during an OCON Q&A, he wasn't able to offer a suitable example of what he meant. (I don't mention that to fault him, but rather only to indicate my longstanding interest in this topic, including my attempt to get a better understanding of Dr. Peikoff's views.)

Personally, I'm fascinated by this apparent difference of opinion between Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. I want to consider what each side has to say in depth, and I'd like to see if their views can be reconciled. Mostly though, I want dive into the substantive question, then develop a clear and cogent analysis of these kinds of lies from an Objectivist perspective.

My own view has long been that privacy lies are dangerous (like other kinds of lies) and unnecessary (provided that a person thinks ahead). Ultimately, if Dr. Peikoff disagrees with Ayn Rand on privacy lies, I won't consider that any reason to cast doubt on his understanding of and committment to Objectivism. Given that the topic is so narrow, that would be silly and wrong for anyone to do that.

When I was playing the relevant segments of audio from the tapes of the "Basic Principles of Objectivism" to create MP3s on my computer, I posted a quick status update to Facebook on the topic. I said, "I've been doing some fascinating historical digging on Ayn Rand's view of 'privacy lies' today. Her view, in contrast to that of Leonard Peikoff, was that such lies are wrong, and often downright vicious. And she's right!" In the first comment, I said, "Hopefully I'll have the time to put together a blog post on this topic sometime in the next week or two." Later in that thread, I said more about my sources and my own views.

I thought that people might be curious about the issue, as I was. Naively, I never imagined that people would get upset about the matter. (Alas, I've learned that anything that can be taken out of context via unfavorable assumptions about my motives probably will be. Recently, I posted a simple quote from Ayn Rand on rights. Much to my amazement, some people interpreted that as "quoting Ayn Rand out of context as a weapon against Leonard Peikoff.")

According to my critics, I'm culpable on this issue of privacy lies because I've not yet blogged about it. Of course, if anyone had asked me why, I would have given them a very simple answer: I've been very busy of late, and I have about 20 blog posts that I'd like to write at any given moment. I will blog about it -- although I'm not sure exactly when -- precisely because privacy lies have been such a longstanding topic of interest for me. In the meantime, anyone else can investigate the matter for themselves, as all the sources are public.

Objectivists ought to be able to discuss -- and disagree on -- the morality of privacy lies in way that respects each person's independent judgment and context of knowledge. Ultimately, I suspect that a person cannot coherently advocate for the morality of privacy lies and uphold the virtue of honesty. However, that's far from self-evident, and some might argue that privacy lies don't aim to gain a value but only to keep it. Among Objectivists, any such claims will have to be argued carefully and chewed over thoroughly, as people think through a wide range of cases in light of the virtue of honesty and other relevant principles. Objectivists can foster that kind of discussion by scrupulously respecting each person's independent judgment, rather than demanding deference to experts. I'd like to see that happen, and I hope that my future writings on this topic contributes to that.

* * *

Objectivists will disagree with each other on occasion: that's inevitable. To be happy in our own lives, as well as promote rational ideas in the culture, we must keep those disagreements in perspective. We must take care to practice the virtues and respect them in others. By doing that, we can create a vibrant, healthy, and friendly community of Objectivists. That will attract others to our ideas, and enable us to be better advocates for Objectivist principles in the culture.

I'll continue to promote that kind of Objectivist culture -- and to fight for reason, egoism, and rights in America. I'm proud of what I've accomplished so far, and I'm eager to do even more in the years to come. Surely, I'll err on occasion -- but I'll always strive to correct my errors and do better in the future. I appreciate substantive arguments against my views, but I'll pass on the circular firing squad. I've got too many positive values to pursue and too much statism to fight for that kind of silliness.

Again, if you have any burning questions, please e-mail me privately.

Read more...

Atlas Shrugged Movie Filming

Much to my dismay, the movie of Atlas Shrugged has begun filming. Otherwise John Aglialoro would have lost his rights on Saturday.

The long-brewing feature version of author Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has begun shooting in Los Angeles as a $5 million indie produced by John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow.

Cameras began rolling over the weekend on a five-week shoot for "Atlas Shrugged Part One" with Paul Johansson directing from Brian Patrick O'Toole's script. Aglialoro would have lost the feature rights if the film wasn't in production by Saturday.

A spokesman for Aglialoro -- the CEO of exercise equipment producer Cybex -- said there will be at least one more "Atlas Shrugged" shot after the current film's completed. Rand's massive novel is divided into three parts, each consisting of 10 chapters. ...

Johansson ("One Tree Hill") portrays Galt. The lead role of railroad executive Dagny Taggart has gone to Taylor Schilling ("Mercy) and the part of Henry Reardon is being played by Grant Bowler ("Ugly Betty").

Michael Lerner ("A Serious Man") portrays lobbyist Wesley Mouch and director Nick Cassavetes has signed on for the Richard McNamara role. Other key cast include Matthew Marsdan as James Taggart and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt.

"Atlas" also stars Edi Gathegi, Jsu Garcia, Rebecca Wisocky, Ethan Cohn, Patrick Fischer, Neill Barry, Christina Pickles and Nikki Klecha.

From what I've read, the movie seems to be a low-budget, haphazard rush. That means that it's sure to suck worse than I'd imagined. But perhaps, unlike a Hollywood blockbuster, they'll stick closer to the novel. I'm not hopeful, and I fear the movie could do more harm than good in terms of spreading Ayn Rand's ideas in the culture.

Some harm -- potentially substantial -- could come from the fact that John Aglialoro is a supporter of and associated with David Kelley and his pseudo-Objectivist Atlas Society. Just imagine David Kelley interviewed about Objectivism in the DVD extras, fumbling and stumbling through basic ideas in Objectivism, as in this interview, then advocating his frankenstein notion of "open Objectivism." (See my two essays on that: Ayn Rand on David Kelley and The Open System, One More Time.)

Kelley's IOS/TOC/TAS has been dying since its peak around 2003, when I cut ties. Lately, it's been on life support, courtesy of a few remaining donors. However, the organization has done nothing of note for years, except employ people. In 2009, they didn't have a summer conference because they were going to focus on upgrading their web presence. Guess what? They still have the same crappy web site!

I fear that IOS/TOC/TAS will rise from the grave with this movie. I suspect they've been desperately waiting for it as their last hope. That's just pathetic: it's clear that their core idea of "open Objectivism" has been an abject failure in practice, particularly compared to the flowering of new and innovative work under the supposedly dogmatic Ayn Rand Institute. Yet, true dogmatists that they are, they're not willing to check their premises.

Ultimately, the fact that the movie seems likely to be a low-budget, haphazard mess might be the silver lining in the black cloud. In all likelihood, the fewer people that see it the better.

Read more...

A Bit of Satire for the Fools

A few weeks ago, I got the following anonymous question on FormSpring:

When you decided to jump ship, for the sake of your career, from a reality-oriented to a Leonard Peikoff-oriented flavor of Objectivism, did you use the wet finger in the air method, or the toss a candy wrapper method?

I had loads of fun writing my reply:

Actually, Paul and I used the time-honored method of paper-sissor-rock. However, we rigged the game. Seriously, who wouldn't take that offer for a 10-million-dollar-a-year position at Oxford if only I'd switch sides? Leonard offered it to me in a secret meeting in the Alps. He's very tight with that department, as you must know. It was very hush-hush!

Of course, everything that I wrote about the issues and people was complete bullshit. In fact: David Kelley is a paragon of objectivity, deeply wronged. Ed Hudgins is pure genuis. Nathaniel Branden is nothing but honest. Barbara Branden is fairness and sweetness personified. Chris Sciabarra is honorable to the core. In addition, Objectivism has no fixed nature; it's whatever the community says. Advocates of anarchism, welfare programs, environmental regulations, drug laws, and even pedophilia are stellar allies in the struggle for liberty. And Marxist professors... bless their hearts. They mean well, and that's good enough for me.

So sure, I made up everything. But I had to cover my tracks! It's really too bad that you've exposed me. I'd better unpack my bags for England. I'll have to sell the Lexus too, as I'm sure the Leonard will want his "signing bonus" money back. Damn.

You're totally right to ignore everything that I wrote on these topics. I didn't mean any of it. Seriously, why bother even considering arguments, when you know my true reasons?!? Facts, schmacts! You've seen into my greedy little soul!

...

Need I say it? Oh sure... NOT.

Whoever you are, you're so pathetic that you're actually funny. Thanks for the laugh

(Thanks to Jimmy Wales for suggesting that I post it on April Fool's Day.)

Read more...

Robert Mayhew: On Ayn Rand Answers

Robert Mayhew, the editor of Ayn Rand Answers, asked me to publish the following essay. I am more than pleased to do so.

On Ayn Rand Answers
by Robert Mayhew

In the early 2000s, I edited and prepared for publication a selection of Ayn Rand's answers to questions, mostly from question periods following a number of her lectures. The result was Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A (Penguin-New American Library, 2005).

In her "Essay on Sources", in Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (Oxford University Press, 2009), Jennifer Burns writes that Ayn Rand Answers is among those works that "are derived from archival materials but have been significantly rewritten"; and like Journals of Ayn Rand, she says, "they should not be accepted at face value" (pp. 292-93). She does not explain or illustrate what she means by "significantly rewritten".

Burns was not the first to comment negatively on Ayn Rand Answers. For instance, on June 23, 2008, Roger Bissell posted on the forum "Objectivist Living" a side-by-side comparison of what purported to be a transcript of one of Rand's Q&A and the rendering of it in Ayn Rand Answers. The differences were glaring. The problem, however, was that what he presented as a transcription of the original material was nothing of the kind. Nevertheless, his ineptness enabled him (in his own mind) to score a big hit against me and my scholarship. Not willing to let incompetent dogs lie, over a year later (Sept. 21, 2009) Dr. Robert Campbell (Professor of Psychology, Clemson University) decided to repost this inaccurate comparison on another forum ("SOLO Passion").

Campbell saw no need to check the source himself--until Tore Boeckmann pointed out the gaffe. So prompted, Campbell listened to the relevant tape, and a week later (Sept. 28, 2009) perfunctorily apologized for not double-checking. One would have thought that Campbell had learned a valuable lesson--a lesson useful to scholars--namely, always to check one's sources oneself. But that was not what he picked up from this experience, as we shall see. Rather, what he discovered in the first-hand checking that he did undertake was that I had edited some Q&As, and omitted others. Of course, he could have gleaned that from the cover of the book--from "edited by Robert Mayhew" and "The Best of Her Q&A"--or from the preface; but to him, this was a revelation.

So, armed with a sense of righteousness (and an indifference to copyright law), Campbell made it his mission to demonstrate on "Objectivist Living" the extent of my sins (see here). I spent an unpleasant couple of hours the other day reading his 'work', and the sycophantic and malevolent comments that followed most of his 'revelations'. I won't be returning.

Now it is worth pausing at this point to ask something that Campbell (and other critics) never stopped to ask: Why would Leonard Peikoff have approved of my editing such a collection? What was his aim? Surely this is necessary for an objective evaluation of Ayn Rand Answers.

When I asked Dr. Peikoff what Ayn Rand's wishes were regarding this and other unpublished material, he answered that she had told him to do whatever he wanted with it--whatever he thought was best. And he thought it best to make this material available to the broadest audience possible: to those who read Rand's novels and non-fiction, and would be interested in the additional information that such a collection contained, namely, her views on a wide variety of issues, many not discussed elsewhere. On a related point, Penguin Books would not have published and widely distributed a complete, unedited transcript of the Q&A (nor would any other non-academic publisher). Moreover, such a transcript would not be terribly accessible or as appealing to the general reader--to a typical fan of her novels. And since the book was aimed at such a reader, Dr. Peikoff also wanted to limit its contents to those Q&A that he knew to be consistent with her explicit philosophy, and in some cases to have them edited accordingly. I made this clear in my preface; I did not hide the fact that such editing was done. And of course, I knew that the transcripts and recordings were available at the Ayn Rand Archives (and that many of the recordings would become available online). I'll add, finally, for what it's worth, that Rand herself (in her 1969 non-fiction writing course) said of her answers to questions: "Sometimes, I may give an answer that's almost publishable--but not quite. It might be good for a first draft, but it would still need editing."

Campbell ignores any such considerations, and simply assumes that what the Estate should have done (if anything) was publish a complete and unedited transcript of the Q&A. This is clear from the level of editing that he regards as objectionable. The following is Campbell's transcription of one answer, followed by the edited version in Ayn Rand Answers. I've placed in bold the differences between the two. They are minor.

"I think Mr. Kissinger is the most disgraceful and disastrous Secretary of State [applause] that we've ever had [more applause]. Mainly because of his philosophical views, if you know that he is an admirer and a follower of Metternich, which was the worst of the European approach to foreign policy and to power."

"I think Mr. Kissinger is one of the most disgraceful and disastrous secretaries of state that we've ever had--mainly because of his philosophical views. He is an admirer and follower of Metternich, who represents the worst of the European approach to foreign policy and to power."

Campbell comments: "Why Dr. Mayhew toned this judgment down is known only to him." Actually, it is not known only to me (see below). In any case, Campbell clearly objects to anything beyond mere transcription. If he were more scholarly, he could have attempted to level an objection--with civility and arguments--to the very idea of editing this material, and make clear what he thinks should have been done with it. But he does not. Instead, he proceeds as if I were presenting a transcript--one that I have surreptitiously and grotesquely warped.

That a mere transcription of all the Q&A would not get a wide distribution or have a popular appeal, and that such material is already available to scholars at the Ayn Rand Archives, does not occur to Campbell. Instead, he discerns the motives for my editing in what he sees as my personal defects. He assumes that I dishonestly and presumptuously tried to pass off as Rand's my own thoughts and words, and that I omitted--without explanation, and owing to evasion ("blank out", he says)--any material that I decided was embarrassing. In his view, I undertook this editing to hide or sanitize what Ayn Rand really said. As I am affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute (Campbell calls me an ARIan, thus comparing me to a Nazi), my sole or primary concern is rewriting history to construct a barrier between the world and the flawed reality that is Ayn Rand. That I'm trying to do so despite the fact that much of this material is available (and all of it exists in the Archives), just shows (I guess) that I'm stupid as well. But I've met my match in Campbell: again and again (as he tells it) he catches me trying to pull a fast one.

Campbell and many others (e.g., see George Reisman's Amazon 'review') see no difference between Ayn Rand's Estate hiring a person to edit her unpublished extemporaneous remarks, after her death, and someone changing the wording of Rand's published works without her permission while she was alive. Of all the context dropping committed by these people, this may be the worst. Ayn Rand was not alive to edit this material (with a few exceptions--more on those shortly). I regarded the aims of the Estate as laudable, and so I undertook to prepare this material for publication in the way described, under the guidance of Leonard Peikoff (the person alive most qualified to oversee such a project).

Now I mentioned before that Campbell did not learn from his experiences always to investigate sources himself. This failure is especially clear in a few cases (most notably the long Q&As on Solzhenitsyn and on the mini-series Roots) in which he seemed to detect radical additions and departures without parallels in the original recordings. Campbell could have done a more thorough check, looked into the possibility that there was some other source, or sent me an e-mail asking what was going on. (I would not respond to such an e-mail now.) Not Campbell. He accepts one of the policies he falsely attributes to his enemies (the ARIans), at least in the case of his enemies, namely, that wherever there is (what he takes to be) error, the motive must be dishonesty or some other flaw (like arrogance or slavish devotion to A.R.I.). As he explains these revisions, I simply took it upon myself to speak for Ayn Rand--to invent whole sentences and give her the words she was unable to find herself. He could conceive of no other possibility.

In fact, in these few cases I made use of The Objectivist Calendar (twenty issues, June 1976 to June 1979), in which Rand occasionally published (with her own edits, cuts, and additions) some of her Q&A. (Incidentally, the revised version of the above Kissinger-answer comes verbatim from this source.) In retrospect, I should have mentioned this in the preface or in a note. But as Ayn Rand Answers is a publication aimed at the general reader, and not a transcript for historians and other scholars (nor for the many pseudo-scholars who inhabit the Objectivish internet underworld), I regard this as a minor error--surely it pales in comparison to what passes for scholarship in the mind of Robert Campbell. And I can't help but wonder whether these Q&A were the ones Dr. Burns (who spent years at the Ayn Rand Archives) was referring to when she declared that this material was "significantly rewritten".

Dr. Campbell is scheduled to give a lecture at the Atlas Society's 2010 summer conference. Its title is "Who's Answering: Ayn Rand or Robert Mayhew?" This speaks volumes about his seriousness as a scholar--and about the stature of the Atlas Society.

Read more...

Libertarian vs. Objectivist Thinking

The Cato Institute recently hosted a book forum with the authors of the two new Rand biographies, Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller, and Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns. Cato's David Boaz ran the forum, setting the context, introducing the authors, and running the Q&A.

I am interested in the two books, so I wanted to hear the authors as they presented some of their thoughts and showed their mettle in the back-and-forth. The bottom line? Burns seems honest in her scholarship and sincere in her engagement. She said a lot of interesting things, and I want to hear more from her despite some weaknesses due to a lack of grounding in Rand's system of thought. Heller didn't come across nearly as well, which left me much less interested in her work. And then there's Boaz.

Boaz began by speaking of the enduring influence of Rand, especially on libertarians and conservatives, and about the recent surge in interest in her and her work. He agreed with a Liberty magazine review of Heller's book, saying that "There can be no question about the fact that Rand remains America’s most influential libertarian, with the possible exception of Milton Friedman, and America’s most influential novelist of ideas." Extending this, Boaz characterized Atlas Shrugged as a libertarian book, and Rand as a libertarian who has done more than anybody in our time to introduce people to libertarian ideas.

What got my attention was Boaz's treatment of the elephant in the room: he chuckled that many listening may wince at his talking that way, that indeed Rand would have disagreed with being classified as a libertarian (this would be an understatement) and that "many of her fans maintain that point even now." He dismissed all of this, saying in effect that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. You see, "anybody who believes in individual rights, free enterprise, and strictly limited government is a libertarian. And Ayn Rand certainly did." QED. Yet, he informs us, somehow this impeccable logic is lost on the "high priests" of Rand's estate, who refused to let any of her material appear in his book, The Libertarian Reader.

As an Objectivist, I see a different puzzle here: Many people, libertarians in particular, clearly admire and profit from Rand's ability to analyze and integrate, to identify widespread and longstanding false alternatives and package deals time and again, and to then offer something better. So I find it odd that when they see Rand apparently ignoring the incredibly straightforward point that she fits their definition, that they don't pause to consider whether there might be some more basic reason for her balking so.

And of course there is. Here's a hint: it's an epistemology thing.

Concepts are important. They are how we organize our knowledge of the world so we can act in service to our lives. Good concepts are immensely helpful (see the basic ideas that ushered in the fruits of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution), and bad ones can really hurt us. What if, for example, your moral system left you seeing the bully and the victim who fights back as morally indistinguishable? As we've seen with pacifism, the result of such thinking is unjust and destructive to all concerned, both personally and socially: victims are morally if not legally discouraged from defending themselves, predators are only emboldened, and this view naturally translates to unjust and destructive cultural sentiments, laws, and policies like those against simply "violence". So it makes all the difference to distinguish sharply between aggressive and defensive use of force because these are in fact morally opposite things with existentially opposite effects on human lives. Examples abound, but the general point to appreciate is that Objectivists are methodologically careful about this sort of thing because they grasp that accepting any concept which treats essentially identical things as opposites, or opposite things as essentially identical, ultimately means inviting difficulty if not disaster in our efforts to successfully navigate reality.

Now consider the libertarian way of thinking about political classification. Rejecting the generally useless left-right spectrum, they offer a two-dimensional approach based on degrees of personal and economic freedom which is often shared via their educational and recruiting tool, the Nolan Chart. In this view, libertarianism is neither left nor right, and it stands fundamentally opposed to totalitarianism. This sets up the natural axis of size or extent of government as their key normative criterion, which is pretty easy to pick out in their policies and rhetoric and reactions to world events. This is also why libertarians have always had influential anarchists in their ranks: even those who might be wary of the "extreme" of anarchism have no principled objection to it because, in their own basic way of thinking, anarchism is the natural full opposite of the evil of totalitarianism -- indeed, they have framed it as the pinnacle of libertarianism.

We can now appreciate what Rand was signaling with her outrage at being grouped or associated in any way with anarchists in particular and libertarians in general: she was refusing the mental, personal, and social chaos that flows from a fundamentally flawed way of seeing things. Rand understood that the essential concept in politics is individual rights, and so she identified totalitarianism and anarchism as indistinguishable in what's important: their complete lack of an objective recognition and systematic protection of man's rights. In contrast, as noted above, the libertarian way of thinking mis-classifies totalitarianism and anarchism as moral opposites by focusing on the inessential characteristic of size. If the purpose of politics is to sort out and enact the conditions required for people to successfully live among one another, this kind of confusion is about as disastrous as it gets -- even while self-consciously seeking the good, the conceptual lens of libertarianism will drive you to its opposite.

And conversely, the libertarian framework fails to capture crucial differences. Consider a powerful government that performs all and only its proper functions in the defense of man's rights, and one that happens to have all the same laws and institutions but also has, say, conscription on the books just in case war breaks out. These two governments are all but indistinguishable (and neither is smiled on) in the libertarians' basic classification scheme based on size. But Objectivists see these two as moral opposites because one is committed to the essential task of the defense of man's rights and the other is not. Even though not currently violating any rights, the government with conscription laws clearly rejects the key principle of the field. It has no principled defense against the slippery slope to serfdom we've seen play out in history all too many times.

The politics of liberty that Objectivism advocates really does depend on a particular philosophical foundation. The Libertarian movement might be in a better position to understand this if they weren't so eager to set aside the fact that fundamental ideas are critically important.

While scholarly leaders like Boaz should surely know better, there are plenty of people who innocently adopt the libertarian way of thinking about government because it seems to line up reasonably well with fundamental American values like strictly limited government, respect for rights, and capitalism. (Indeed, I was just such a person.) But even innocent use doesn't mitigate the very real problems and dangers discussed above. So Objectivists will continue to pointedly reject the libertarian label and its conceptual basis in the interests of moving our culture toward one that genuinely values liberty.

Read more...

Atlas Shrugged Movie Update

Here's another report and then another report on the attempts to produce a film version of Atlas Shrugged. Basically, Charlize Theron was reported as interested for a few days, but now she's reported as not interested.

The good news is that the "option with the Rand estate expires if principal photography does not begin in 2010." Given the involvement of the producers with David Kelley's thoroughly dishonest and incompetent group, currently known as The Atlas Society, I very much hope that option expires.

Read more...

Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse

Paul and I just finished four lovely days of hiking in Acadia, Maine. (I'll blog some about that later today, if I can.) We've had not-so-great internet access, however, so I'm a bit behind on some internet-dependent tasks, including blogging. However, tomorrow I'll start a daily (but short) blog post on OCON.

However, I want to mention that Dr. Tom Stevens -- of the so-called Objectivist Party has written the most absurdly offensive blog post possible: Farrah Fawcett's E-Mail Reveals Ayn Rand Thought Their Sharing The Same Birth Date Had Significance. I won't pain you by quoting the pompous blog post, but basically he accuses Ayn Rand of relying faith, superstition, and mysticism because she apparently made an offhand remark to Farrah Fawcett about them sharing a birthday.

Sheesh.

Read more...

Atlas Society Death Watch

Here's another milestone in slow death of the floundering pseudo-Objectivist group known most recently as "The Atlas Society": they're closing down their bookstore.

Once again, I'm pleased. For nearly 20 years, David Kelley and his followers have distorted Objectivism, hampered its spread, and maligned Ayn Rand and other Objectivists. (Yes, it has been that long: David Kelley's break with Objectivism occurred in March 1989 with "A Question of Sanction.") It's about time that came to an end.

Read more...

Scientology, Seizures, and Science ???

Ed Hudgins of The Atlas Society recently published a new op-ed. In the midst of a major financial crisis, not to mention the upcoming change in administration to the frighteningly mystic-altruist-collectivist Barack Obama, Mr. Hudgins decided to focus on a very, very important issue. Can you guess? Oh, I'm sure you never will.

It's ripped from the tabloids! Entitled Scientology, Seizures, and Science, it uses the death of John Travolta's 16-year-old son from a seizure as a pretext to attack Scientology. So it's not just focused on a culturally insignificant religious fringe, but it's also in poor taste.

Bravo, TAS! Every time I think you've hit bottom, you outdo yourself with another inanity!

Honestly, I just can't figure out why any person who even kinda sorta likes Atlas Shrugged could find this organization worthy of financial support. They're a joke.

Read more...

IOS/TOC/TAS Death Watch

That pretend-Objectivist organization lately known as "The Atlas Society" has canceled its 2009 Summer Seminar due to financial woes. They intend to spend the time and money saved working on their ancient booby-trap of a web site. Robert Campbell posted the letter he received from Will Thomas. Here it is, in full:

Thanks again for sending me your presentation ideas for the planned 2009 Summer Seminar on Objectivism in Theory and Practice. I’m sorry to say that we will not be holding a Seminar next year after all.

The Summer Seminar is a vital part of our community-building and academic efforts. We do not intend to abandon those goals. Actually, we envision resuming the Summer Seminar tradition in 2010.

Our decision to suspend the Summer Seminar in 2009 is due to the economic circumstances and a constructive rearrangement of staff priorities looking forward.

It’s obvious to everyone that the future lies on the internet. It has become clear to us at TAS that one of our most urgent priorities is to update, invigorate, and expand our website to make it a more powerful vehicle for outreach and education about open Objectivism. With the web, we can and do reach hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. The Summer Seminar, for all that is an intense and uplifting personal experience, can only touch, at most, a few hundred people each year. If we have to choose between the two, the choice is clear.

Making our internet plans a reality will require taking substantial amounts of staff time, including mine, away from other projects and refocusing on web projects. Even in normal economic times, we would not be able to avoid the conflict by hiring additional staff, since key aspects of the web project require the expertise of current staff.

So please look for us to put up an improved and livelier web presence in 2009, and keep an eye out next Fall for the call for proposals for our 2010 seminars. Assuming things continue according to plan, I'll be writing back to you in the Fall to see if you would like to renew your proposals. I'm sorry we won't be able to invite you to speak this year.

My best guess is that the Summer Seminar will not be resumed in 2010 -- or ever. IOS/TOC/TAS is a dying beast.

In recent years, their summer seminar has been ailing in a serious way. It went from about 300 attendees in 2003 (when I last attended) to something like 100 in 2008. (In contrast, ARI's OCON has grown from about 300 attendees in 2003 to over 500 in 2007 and 2008.)

The only other discernible activity of the organization has been its magazine, The New Individualist. That failed to draw a broad readership, as they'd hoped. More importantly, its editor Robert Bidinotto left TAS entirely in mid-October, apparently on not-so-friendly terms. (That link is temporarily unavailable, unfortunately.)

Oh, and no one seems to know what the heck David Kelley does with his time; he hasn't produced anything substantial in many years.

In short, IOS/TOC/TAS has been dying for some years now. And with the Ayn Rand Center now open and active in Washington, I don't think it can survive much longer. As someone who wasted far too much precious time with them, I think I've earned the right to say, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!"

Read more...

Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom

If you haven't yet read Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom by Harry Binswanger, published in Capitalism Magazine, I strongly recommend that you do so. It's a great article to send to people to who claim -- whether honestly or not -- that Alan Greenspan's actions over the last 25 years or so represent Ayn Rand's philosophy in any way, shape, or form.

Consider Dr. Binswanger's list of Alan Greenspan's betrayals of Ayn Rand's principles:

I can't say I knew Alan Greenspan, though, being an associate of Ayn Rand, I met him a few times in the 1960s. But by 1970--almost 40 years ago--I and a couple of other Objectivists in that circle already realized that Greenspan was compromising on her philosophy. Little did we know how far his anti-Rand journey would take him. As the years rolled on,

• he was hailed as the man who "saved" Social Security--by extending its confiscatory power,
  
• when Bill Clinton's State of the Union address called for socialized medicine, he rose to his feet, standing next to Hillary Clinton in giving a standing ovation to that proposal,
  
• he became head of the mammothly anti-capitalist Federal Reserve, directing the government's manipulation of money and credit,
  
• he provided a laudatory dust-jacket blurb for a book attacking Ayn Rand (by a woman he had "irrevocably" condemned in print in 1968). Yet he repeatedly refused to contribute to or lend his name to the Ayn Rand Institute,
  
• he wrote, in 1995, that government central banking is a necessity: "Only a central bank, with unlimited power to create money can guarantee that such a process ["a cascading sequence of defaults"] will be thwarted before it becomes destructive." (Note that we just witnessed this "cascading sequence of defaults" despite --or, actually, caused by --our central bank.),
  
• he wrote in his autobiography about coming to reject Objectivism: "as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge . . . the fervor receded",
  
• and now he has blamed free markets (as if we had them!) for his failures at the Fed. In conceding that his "ideology" was wrong, he was understood to be saying Ayn Rand was wrong--even though he had long ago forgotten or evaded every essential of what Ayn Rand stood for.

Can it get any worse than that? Yes, it can -- and Dr. Binswanger lays out the case clearly. In essence, "a man who betrays Ayn Rand, and who wrecks the economy of the U.S. in carrying out that betrayal, then succeeds in shifting the blame onto Ayn Rand and capitalism." Lovely, no?

Go read the whole thing. And then post a link to it in the comments of every annoying blogger who claims that the current financial crisis is a refutation of Ayn Rand's ideas.

Read more...

Reflections from Reason

Do we need a reminder of even how some of the better elements of the libertarian movement can be hostile to Ayn Rand? Perhaps not, but here's one that ran across my inbox a little while ago. It's a tidbit from a December 2008 Reason article on the origins of their magazine:

[Tibor] Machan: Manny [Klausner] was never an Objectivist, and even Bob [Poole] was more mild-mannered about it. I was the philosophically grounded one, but I stylistically repudiated the atmospherics of the Objectivist world. I was excommunicated back in 1963 from the Rand thing. [Oh whatever, Tibor.]

[Bob] Poole: We wanted a magazine for thinking people, not Randians. As time went on and various marketing strategies were tried it became clear that Rand was some people's cup of tea and not others', and if we wanted to be influential being an explicitly Objectivist magazine was not the recipe for doing that. [Emphasis added.]

Bob Poole's first comment is offensive as stated, but I'm willing to be generous, given that this was an "oral history." Perhaps he meant that he wanted a magazine for all thinking people, not just Randians. (I've seen Poole speak a few times; he never struck me as hostile to Objectivists. However, my memory might not be what it should on that score.)

However, it's his second comment -- that "Rand was some people's cup of tea and not others'" -- that's just so very libertarian. Reason couldn't possibly insist that their writers agree on any fundamental principles, like respect for reason, right? No way! That might alienate some people, namely people whose "cup of tea" is supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism. So anything goes -- and the result is today's often disgustingly postmodern Reason. (Or rather, that's what it became after the departure of the sensible and interesting Virginia Postrel some years ago. I've paid it very little attention since that decline.)

The libertarian movement took so many ideas from Ayn Rand, while often spitting in her face in a manner worthy of James Taggart. If only they'd learned her most basic lesson -- that philosophy matters because it's the fundamental motor of human life -- the history of the last 50 years might be different.

Read more...

A Dedication

In light of the recent discussion of my "gutter attitude toward human sexuality" on this recent thread [now moved here] of the so-called "Forum for Ayn Rand Fans," I would like to dedicate the following video to all of my devoted fans on that site:



I've never watched Sex in the City, but people so offended by my occasional use of profanity on NoodleFood will surely be aghast at the sight of "eggs whites [with] a side of cock." Goodness gracious, they might even utter some kind of forbidden word in dismay. If so, I see only one recourse for the person of integrity: gargle with soap.

Read more...

Mr. Greenspan = Dr. Stadler

Gun Van Horn gives Alan Greenspan a much-needed ass-kicking for his repudiation of free markets. And here's the Ayn Rand Institute's press release on it:

Greenspan Has No Free Market Philosophy
October 24, 2008

Washington, D.C. --Opponents of the free market are giddy at Alan Greenspan's declaration that the financial crisis has exposed a "flaw" in his "free market ideology." Greenspan says he is "in a state of shocked disbelief" because he "looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity"--and it didn't.

But according to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, "any belief Greenspan ever had in truly free markets was abandoned long ago. While Greenspan long ago wrote in favor of a truly free market in banking, including the gold standard that such markets always adopt, he then proceeded to work for two decades as leader and chief advocate of the Federal Reserve, which continually inflates the money supply and manipulates interest rates. Advocates of free banking understand that when the government inflates the currency, it artificially increases prices and causes booms in certain sectors of the economy, followed by inevitable busts. But not only did Greenspan lead the inflation behind the .com bubble and the real estate boom, he blamed the market for their treacherous collapses. Greenspan should have recognized that what he wrote in 1966 of the boom preceding the 1929 crash applied here: 'The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market--triggering a fantastic speculative boom.' Instead, he superficially blamed 'infectious greed.'

"Should it be any shock that Greenspan now blames the free market for today's meltdown--rather than the Fed's policies, which fueled an inflationary housing boom, which rewarded reckless lenders and borrowers from Wall Street to Main Street? Greenspan didn't mention the word 'inflation' once in his testimony.

"Whatever Greenspan's economic philosophy is, it is not anything resembling a free market."

I can't possibly express the depth of my disgust at Alan Greenspan. Well, let me try. By continuing to associate himself with the free market ideas of his former mentor, even while thoroughly contradicting them in word and deed as Fed Chairman, and then publicly repudiating them based on a government-created financial crisis, the man has done more damage to Objectivism than Barbara and Nathaniel Branden.

Way to go, Alan. You've done what I thought impossible. Dr. Stadler has nothing on you.

Read more...

The Essential Difference

For anyone still wondering about the difference between the Ayn Rand Institute and The Atlas Society, I offer the following two video interviews by UFM.edu:

• David Kelley, Founder, Senior Fellow, and former Executive Director of The Atlas Society
  
  
• Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute

(Courtesy of an anonymous contributor to the Sunday Open Thread, embedding not permitted.)

The interviewer is the same in both interviews. The questions are quite similar. Yet the interviews couldn't be more different.

Yaron Brook is clear and direct. With every question, he immediately hones in on the fundamental, often a crucial moral point. He clearly conveys the importance of the ideas he's espousing, and his confidence in the truth of his answers. He knows his stuff, and he makes us eager to hear more.

David Kelley wanders and stammers in his answers. He is routinely lost in his own pointless digressions and qualifications. He speaks in terms of his own beliefs, not in terms of the truth. He displays no facility with the answers to these basic questions, nor passion for what he's saying. It's painful to watch.

(David is much, much worse in this interview than I ever remember him. It seems that his commitment to a subjectivist approach to ideas, Objectivism in particular, continues to take its toll on him.)

The difference between the two interviews is so great that even I'm shocked. Yet it's so perfectly representative of the moral and epistemological gulf between the two organizations. And that's why I'm such an ardent supporter of the the Ayn Rand Institute, particularly under the guidance of Yaron Brook.

Read more...

Objectivist Party?

Yesterday, I got the following FaceBook message from Tom Stevens. (I'm reproducing it because it's a form letter from someone wholly unknown to me.) It said:

I am the Objectivist Party Presidential Candidate and we need 9 registered Colorado voters to list as Presidential Electors. There is no obligation but if we do not get said registered voters, we will not be on the ballot.

If you could help by letting us list you, it would be appreciated.

In Liberty,

Dr. Tom Stevens
Presidential Candidate
Objectivist Party

I wrote up a quick reply, then realized that my comments might be of interest to NoodleFood readers. So I put a bit more work into it, so that I could post it here. (Be forewarned, I wrote the comments below before I realized that this guy is a Libertarian. More on that below.) Here's my response:

Tom,

I can't grant your request. While I am a strong advocate of cultural and political activism, I think that attempting to change American culture via a third party is not just ineffective but downright counterproductive.

The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day. Objectivists must work to change the culture toward secularism, reason, egoism, and individual rights. Only then can we expect better politicians to mount a credible campaign, let alone win elections.

That cultural change will be felt within the major parties -- so long as Objectivists don't sequester themselves into political irrelevance in their own unelectable political party. If Objectivists (and sympathizers) demand that the major parties court their vote, then political change for the better is possible.

The history of the political influence of the abolitionist movement bears out this analysis. Abolitionists created new political parties, some focused on the single issue of abolition and others broadly pro-liberty. All such parties failed to gather any significant votes; they had no positive impact. If anything, they had a negative impact, in that they siphoned off strong abolitionist voters that the fledgling Republican Party would have otherwise had to woo. Eventually, the Republican Party did adopt abolitionism -- due to effective cultural activism, not those minor abolitionist parties. By uncompromising moral arguments, a small band of committed abolitionists changed American hearts and minds about the evils of slavery in just a few decades. (Brad Thompson discusses this fascinating political history in his excellent lecture course, American Slavery, American Freedom. Hopefully I've remembered it reasonably accurately.)

Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they've already lost our vote. That's a license for more statism, not less.

Objectivists should follow the same model as the abolitionists: change American hearts and minds, and the politicians will follow. Political advocacy can and should be a large part of those efforts to change the culture, as seen in the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). Unlike running wholly unelectable candidates for office, that kind of activism works. And that's where Objectivists ought to be focusing their time and efforts.

After writing most of the above, I examined the web site of this proposed Objectivist Party in more detail. In my first look, I'd noticed a strongly anti-libertarian statement in the platform itself, in the form of this quote from Harry Binswanger:

The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute...In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future. (Harry Binswanger: "Q & A Department: Anarchism," TOF, Aug. 1981, 12.)

So, I thought, however counterproductive the endeavor, it didn't seem to be corrupt. That's one reason why I was willing to write such a detailed reply to the request. However, on reading the biographical information on Tom Stevens, the founder and 2008 presidential candidate, it became perfectly clear that he's a Big-L Libertarian in Objectivist clothing. See for yourself:

Dr. [Tom] Stevens is the Founder of the Objectivist Party. He was elected to the Judiciary Committee of the Libertarian Party in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He served as a New York State Delegate to the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, Portland in 2006, and Denver in 2008. He currently serves as President of the Libertarian Freedom Council, a national organization of students, young professionals and entrepreneurs and also serves as a member of the LPNY State Committee. In the Republican Presidential Primary, he was a supporter of Ron Paul and served as Political Consultant and New York State Coordinator for the Paul For President Coalition.

(I might add that I find other aspects of the biography, particularly the range of college-level courses that he's taught somewhere unspecified "during the past few years," as suspect.)

So that makes clear to me the value of this endeavor so-called "Objectivist Party." Libertarians are not allies in the struggle for liberty. So while I think that my comments above are worthwhile as general points about political and cultural activism, this request was not worth so many electrons.

Update: July 3rd, 2009: For all that you need to know about Tom Stevens' view of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, see his blog post Farrah Fawcett's E-Mail Reveals Ayn Rand Thought Their Sharing The Same Birth Date Had Significance. First, you've got to be kidding -- only he's not. And second, UGH.

Read more...

Highlights from OCON: Day 2

Here are some more highlights from the second day of the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON).

Lin Zinser on "Health-Care Activism: Saving the Life Savers," Class 2 of 3:

Today, Lin discussed some strategies for successful activism, connecting those lessons to her own experience with FIRM. (Some of her stories would be very surprising to most people -- in a good way.)

Robert Mayhew on "Thales and the Birth of Philosophy in Ancient Greece":

This lecture was a fascinating discussion of the birth of philosophy, particularly the radical departure from primitive supernaturalism that began with Thales in ancient Greece. Thales inaugurated the study of philosophy as an explicit discipline on the basis of observation and rational argument -- as opposed to relying on traditional myths to explain natural phenomena. Mayhew clearly showed the radical differences between the methods of Thales and those of thinkers in other cultures at the time. Mayhew also traced the unique factors in ancient Greek culture that made possible (but not necessary) the development of explicit philosophy.

I particularly enjoyed the lessons for the prospects for Objectivism at the end of the lecture.

(The lecture was related to Dr. Mayhew's essay criticizing Robert Tracinski's analysis of the role of philosophy in history, posted to NoodleFood in January 2007.)

Pat Corvini: "Two, Three, Four, and All That: The Sequel," Class 1 of 3:

This course examines three modern ideas in mathematics: (1) equivalent sets, (2) the postulational method, and (3) the continuum and actual infinities. Today, Pat explained the basics of Cantor's arguments about comparisons of sets, with a few hints of the criticisms to come. (I remembered that somewhat fuzzily from my undergraduate course in philosophy of mathematics.) Tomorrow and the next day, she'll lay out the standard the postulational method, and then discuss the Objectivist approach to these topics. (Very cool!)

This course is a sequel to her excellent course of last year: Two, Three, Four, and All That.

That's all for today!

Read more...

For the Record: Phoenix Objectivists

This post is simply "for the record," in light of the distortions of the facts posted elsewhere.

Last Sunday, I was perusing that Branden-worshipping cesspool of a discussion forum known as "Objectivist Living." I noticed the following announcement in a thread entitled Phoenix Objectivists start new lecture series:

Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 19 2008, 01:47 PM:

When: Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.

Where: Black Bear Diner
2410 West Bell Road
Phoenix, AZ

Admission: Attendees must buy something to eat.

Event Description: For our first meeting at our new location and the last of the month, we will listen to the first in a six-part pre-recorded lecture series done by Diana Mertz-Hsieh titled: Objectivism 101 which was a lecture Mrs. Hsieh gave at The Atlas Society's Summer Seminar in 2003.

Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged offer a unique and inspiring moral vision, but translating those ideals into daily life can be challenging. Through a mixture of lecture and discussion, Diana Mertz Hsieh will survey the basic principles of Objectivism, from metaphysics to aesthetics.

She will focus on both the theory and practice of the philosophy, contrasting it with common religious and cultural views. Ideas discussed in these six sessions will include reason as the only means to knowledge, free will as the choice to think or not, the integration of mind and body, emotions as automatic value judgments, life as the standard of value, the major virtues, the trader principle, capitalism as the only moral social system, and much more.

Mrs. Hsieh is a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

I was more than a bit surprised to learn that I was to be the lecture series! I'd not been contacted by anyone about playing my lectures at this meeting.

By way of background, the six-lecture series was given at the last Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center I attended. While I'm still reasonably proud of those lectures, precisely because I worked hard to clearly and accurately present Ayn Rand's Objectivism, I'm sure that I'd find all kinds of problems with them if I listened to them now. So as a general matter, I'm not too keen on the idea of anyone playing them before a group, particularly not without some strong warning that I do not vouch for the content and that I've disassociated myself from The Objectivist Center (today, The Atlas Society).

After some inquiries to Arizona friends, I was pointed to the web site for the Phoenix Objectivists. (That's not the same group as the Arizona Objectivists, a group that I've had nothing but good dealings with in the past.) Any possible willingness to allow my lectures to be played at the Phoenix Objectivists disappeared when I saw its page of links: it's a "Who's Who" list of dishonest pseudo-Objectivists, without a single link to anything associated with or supportive of the Ayn Rand Institute. It even lists "ARI Watch" (!!). Basically, I don't wish to provide any kind of value to the very people so invested in attacking me and mine. (I also saw from other web surfing that the group's leader Mike Renzulli is actively involved with the Libertarian Party.)

So I wrote the following letter to the e-mail address for the group listed on the web site.

From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:49:56 -0600
To:
Subject: My Objectivism 101 Lectures

Mike --

I recently saw your announcement to Objectivist Living about your forthcoming event(s) featuring my Objectivism 101 lectures. You should know that those lectures are copyrighted -- and that the copyright is held by me. (TOC's copyright expired after two years.) So you cannot play them before an audience without my permission.

Given what I've seen on the Phoenix Objectivists web site, I am not willing to grant you permission. You might be a decent fellow, but I do not wish to be associated the promotion of destructive and dishonest critics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism -- as found on your web site. (If you wish to know my reasons for those judgments, you are welcome to peruse the many essays I've written at http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/toc.html.)

If you choose to go ahead with your plans, I won't stop you. However, you should know that you would be violating my property rights. The moral wrong of that should be obvious.

You are welcome to forward this letter to anyone you please.

-- DMH

In response, he asked for documentation of my claims. Meanwhile, he began a thread on Objectivist Living entitled Diana Mertz-Hsieh nasty gram (!!) with the following:

Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 21 2008, 05:48 PM

Well Folks,

Diana Mertz-Hsieh has struck again. As it turns out, she just sent me an e-mail stating that she doesn't give me permission to play her Objectivism 101 lectures for my group's meeting coming up this Thursday.

Hsieh says that she holds the copyright for it, that TAS's copyright for her lectures has expired and, while she will not stop me, she states that my doing so would be stealing her intellectual property.

I already have a call into Ed Hudgins at TAS to see if what she is saying is accurate. I may have to bag using the lectures until the legalities of doing so are cleared up unless someone on these boards knows otherwise.

Regardless if she is right or not, its one more feather in her cap of making an ass out of herself.

As you might imagine from that "OL" crowd, the replies were even worse. (Note that Mike didn't actually see fit to post my actual e-mail, as I expressly gave him permission to do.) So, feeling less than generous at that point, I replied to his request for documentation as follows:

From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:40:31 -0600
To: M Renzulli
Subject: Re: My Objectivism 101 Lectures

You should have done your homework before you scheduled the event, e.g. by e-mailing me to inquire about any required permission. The fact that you failed to do so doesn't oblige me to rush to get you the documentation at the last minute. I'm certainly not going to do so while you and your friends on Objectivist Living are attacking me left and right for the mere assertion of my rights and other imaginary moral evils.

So here's what I'll say:

(1) My TOC contract was standard: the rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live.". TOC didn't do that, so the copyright is now held by me. You can inquire with TOC about that.

(2) The difference between listening rights and performance rights is well-established in copyright law. You're playing my lecture at a public event in a public venue, advertised on the web to anyone and everyone, not at a private party for friends. You can inquire with a lawyer about that.

-- DMH

Since then, Mike has begun a new OL thread solely devoted to wild speculations about my psychology, without the slightest bit of concern for my actual and stated reasons for rejecting The Objectivist Center, condemning people like Nathaniel Branden and Chris Sciabarra, and now endorsing the Ayn Rand Institute. He likens me to a religious dogmatist and a communist enforcer. He claims that I've sold my soul for the cause. He claims that I'm seeking to appease the ARI hierarchy for the sake of publication venues and job opportunities. Um, okay.

Mike also sent me two further e-mails. He told me that he expects an apology from me if I'm wrong in my legal claims. He said he'll do the same if he's wrong, but given his absolutely libelous personal attacks on me on OL, that's of no value whatsoever. He's also suggested that I just ask him nicely not to play the lectures. Fat chance of that: I shouldn't have to ask nicely for him to respect my rights, particularly not while he spits in my face. (Do I need to ask a car thief to please not take my car?!?)

In any case, yesterday afternoon, I finally dug up my old "Speaker's Agreements" with The Objectivist Center. The following e-mail to the relevant folks at The Atlas Society explains the exact terms of the contract:

From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:44:43 -0600
To: Gene Holloway , Ed Hudgins
Conversation: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings
Subject: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings

Ed and Gene --

Due to the plans of Mike Renzulli to play one of my past TOC lectures at a public event this week despite my protests, I recently reviewed my speaker's agreements with TOC for lectures given in 2001, 2002, and 2003. (I could not find my contract for my 2000 lecture.)

Before I reviewed the contracts, my recollection was that all rights to the recording automatically reverted to me after two years, provided that TOC didn't publish an official recording (as opposed to a "TOC Live" tape). However, that's not quite accurate, as you can see from the following quoted clause:

"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."

(The same basic clause is found in my 2001 and 2002 contracts. I presume that it is also in my 2000 contract.)

So: I hereby terminate all of TOC's (or The Atlas Society's) rights to recordings of my past lectures, except the right to maintain a copy for archival purposes.

Obviously, I can't imagine that you'd ever want to do anything with my past lectures for TOC, but I did wish to officially terminate your rights to them, in case such a strange situation ever arises again.

Also, I should mention that as far as I understand the contract, TOC has never had any right to license the work to be played in public. (As far as I know, you've not done that with Mike Renzulli.)

I have attached a scan of the relevant page of the 2003 contract.

Finally, please confirm your receipt of this e-mail and acknowledge the termination of rights.

Thank you,

Diana Mertz Hsieh

As for the question of rights to public performance, Paul found this handy summary of the relevant law (and this one and this one and this one and this one) for me. It's very clear that an event open to the public, held in a public venue, and advertised on public message boards and web sites does not qualify as a private performance on par with inviting friends over to watch a movie.

Also, I should mention that I've spoken repeatedly with two lawyers about this matters over the past few days. Both of them used to speak at TOC, and so they are familiar with TOC's "Speaker's Agreements." On both legal and moral grounds, they wholly support my right to refuse permission to play these lectures.

I don't expect any further troubles on this issue -- except more of the usual crap from OL -- but I did wish to set the record straight. To put it bluntly, Mike Renzulli hasn't a legal or moral leg to stand on. He doesn't have the right to play my lectures before an audience just because he bought the tapes. I don't have any obligation to assist a man who actively subverts my values. He's also behaved in a less than gentleman-like fashion, without any provocation. Still, I won't hold my breath waiting for that apology.

Update: On October 10, 2011, Mike posted a public apology. Thanks, Mike, that's appreciated.

Read more...