Here it is, in the middle of (my) night, when I 1st read this 'official' response of yours to MSK's article...and I see that there are already 55 responses. I neither need to read all of them, nor have the time (at the moment) to know what my response to your official response is.
Your response was nowhere near necessary.
Clearly Michael is showing a personal 'take' on O'ism, and such is already clearly being dealt with in the responses (which *I* haven't yet given; I don't know where to start, yet, actually), to his arguments there and, re 'rights' in the "Coase vs Rand" article.
Methinks you need worry not re his arguments being interpreted by others ('honest' others, anyway) as SOLO's, or even Rand's 'interpretations' of her philosophic views. An 'official' leader
in SOLO he clearly is, and, he should be. But, anyone familiar with SOLO should recognize by now that all viewpoints by any are clearly 'solo'd views not necessarily representing that of the founder/'LEADER'/Final-Arbiter.--- Methinks also, your 'argument' should definitely have been made, but, properly have been merely added to the response-threads to his article, rather than made as a separate article-announcement of...apparent 'distancing.'
I agree mostly with what you said, and hope to show it in the thread of his article...but....so many subjects, so little time.
I give MSK kudos, not at all for his arguments, nm 'conclusions', but that he was forthright in his views of such 'similarities,' and that he sees them as substantive (which, I don't; but, that later...on HIS thread); and, to you, for allowing such 'near-heretic' views being able to be discussed, here, as nowhere else.
I AM... HE WHO IS -> J:D
(I just came back from...another...site, and, couldn't resist this closure; sorry)
P.S: I implied I hadn't yet dealt with Mike in "Coase vs Rand"; sorry. I meant that I hadn't FINISHED dealing with him on that subject of 'rights.' My mistake.
(Edited by John Dailey on 10/25, 6:49pm)
(Edited by John Dailey on 10/25, 6:52pm)