RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Ayn Rand, Libertarianism, and ARI

Friday
April 6, 2007

Ayn Rand, Libertarianism, and ARI by Tibor R. Machan

In a recent letter to the editor to The Los Angeles Times, Jeff Britting of the Ayn Rand Institute writes as follows:
"Ayn Rand did not write novels of "uncompromising libertarianism." In her view, libertarianism has no philosophy to uphold uncompromisingly.
Libertarianism rejects the need for a consistent, objective, philosophic defense of liberty and regards politics as primary. Rand was a defender of reason and recognized that political freedom requires a philosophy of reason and egoism. That is why Rand repeatedly condemned the libertarian movement, regarding herself, instead, as a "radical for capitalism." For further explanation, see Rand's novel of uncompromising objectivist, not libertarian, ideas — "Atlas Shrugged" — celebrating its 50th anniversary this year." (Letters, March 30, 2007) (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (84 messages)

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 9:30am

John, the heavy sarcasm in your posts leads me to believe that not only is your mind closed, but a foot-stamping temper tantrum is about to erupt. That being said, I'll give this one last shot.

Cutting-and-pasting definitions does not an argument make. The definition you pasted contained the word or, so there could logically be two definitions: a society without government OR a society without law. You should know that only nihilistic punks posit a society without law as a good thing, and that these people are not the adversaries you face on RoR. So either you haven't bothered to even listen to the arguments the anarchists are making, or you are simply engaging in sophistry.

I have no dog in this fight (i.e., I am not seeking to reinforce preconceived notions, but rather to discover the truth), but I am not satisfied with the answers you've been giving concerning an "objective code of laws". It would seem that by "objective" you mean "static". In other words. laws that do not change, and are therefore an objective frame of reference. But this is different from laws that are determined objectively. We could draw up an erroneous multiplication table (i.e. 4 x 5 = 26), and test a classroom of children based on this table. If we are consistent, i.e. we do not subjectively grade some children with a different key than others, the we can say that we are being objective, however, this in no way implied that the answers themselves are objective.

United States may deem 1000 dollars of theft warrant 2 years in jail, in Great Britain the punishment could be 4 years in jail. Point being a jurisdiction must not have conflicting or contradicting laws. A jurisdiction must decide on one set of laws to be applied to it.

And my point is that having one set of laws, i.e. an objective frame of reference, does not mean that the laws themselves will be objectively based on the facts of reality.

If laws are objectively based on the facts of reality, and the facts of reality do not change from one geographical region to the next, then one, if not both, of you examples you gave above must be objectively wrong.

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 11:34am

Steve: "For example, would you advocate expending energy and time fighting back and forth between the open versus closed systems of Objectivism to the exclusion of attempting to work together to bring about increased freedom?"

That's an entirely different question from the one I was responding to, and I don't really care to address that now.

My response was to Tibor Machan's strange claim on an Objectivist board that "clearly" some other religions or philosophies defend freedom and capitalism. My only point was that while other worldviews may SEEM at first blush to defend capitalism, they really don't. That's because their more fundamental theories (the beliefs on which their "defense" of capitalism rests, which are always revealed in their arguments) actually undercut their position in favor of a capitalist social system. In other words, their case doesn't make logical sense.

Anyone who thinks, for example, that the Christian viewpoint provides a firm base for capitalism is mistaken. Similarly, anyone who considers a person who explicitly "defends" capitalism with religious dogma to be a valuable ally in the fight for freedom is misguided.

If that comes as a shock to you, then you really haven't read enough Ayn Rand.

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 12:47pm

Jon,

Thank you for suggesting I go back and read more Ayn Rand. Suggestions like that always add so much to the conversation. Perhaps you missed what I wrote in my last post:

I don't entirely disagree with you. It would be a mistake to ever compromise our principles and get into bed with, say, Republican conservatives in hopes of furthering freedom. But note that Tibor's article is about the amount of squabbling between factions who are not disimilar at the metaphysical or empistemological base.

Tibor was discussing the squabbling going on between Libertarians and ARI Objectivists. Perhaps you can tell all of us, "At what final level of comprehensive agreement is it acceptable to join forces for limited political goals?"

You said in your last post:

Anyone who thinks, for example, that the Christian viewpoint provides a firm base for capitalism is mistaken. Similarly, anyone who considers a person who explicitly "defends" capitalism with religious dogma to be a valuable ally in the fight for freedom is misguided.

No one said that the Christian viewpoint is a firm base for capitalism. No one said that religious dogma is a valuable ally. It is really annoying to be attacked for what I did not say. It seems quite rude, as if I were being used as a moral target so that you can vent righteous anger at the enemies of Objectivism. But the problem is that before you open fire you first hang a target on me, and on Tibor - targets that don't belong on us - those words weren't ours.

Sunday, April 8, 2007 - 1:51pm

Steve: "Thank you for suggesting I go back and read more Ayn Rand."

I didn't intend to single YOU (Steve) out with that comment. I was using "you" in the general sense, as in: If any reader of this post is shocked by what I've said, he or she should read more Ayn Rand. I admit that wasn't clear in the context of my message, however, since I started out quoting a question you had asked me.

Steve: "No one said that the Christian viewpoint is a firm base for capitalism. No one said that religious dogma is a valuable ally. It is really annoying to be attacked for what I did not say."

Um, who was trying to attack anything YOU said, Steve? I wasn't responding to you; I was responding to Tibor.

Did Tibor say that Christianity was a firm base for capitalism? No, I used the Christian religion as an example. What he did say was that other philosophies or religions defend capitalism. I replied that they really don't.

As far as "venting righteous anger at the enemies of Objectivism," I don't think that objectively describes what I've written on this thread. I am surprised though that a philosopher would make the above point on an Objectivist board saying it's a "clear" fact.

Of course, Dr. Machan seems to exclusively focus on politics --as though changing our political system from a mixed system to a true capitalist system is even possible without first addressing widespread false metaphysical/epistemic/ethical beliefs (a position that Ayn Rand rejected repeatedly and passionately). So this is just par for the course, I guess.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 4/08, 8:01pm)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/09, 7:22am)

Monday, April 9, 2007 - 7:03am

Mr. Dickey and Mr. Armaos both relied on the folksy "dictionary" (wiki) meaninging of the word "objective" and that usage is a philosophical dead end in the context of Objectivism.

Mr. Morotta either has a learning disability or is being intellectually dishonest for the sake of a sad attempted at an attack on me to try to make himself look good. Anyone who reads what I have been saying and uses more than 1/2 of a brain cell to process that information knows full well that I am not talking about objective law as derived from an objective morality but am in fact talking about a code of laws written down and objectively applied. In fact "objective code of laws" is a rational way to refer to an established list of laws that are applied equally without regard to social status, wealthy, race, etc.

Words, Mr Morotta and others, are tools used to convey ideas, and as such have their limitations, you should always extend a basic amount of neural processing power to try to understand what idea someone is trying to convey, and not expend so much effort on twisting the idea they are attempting to convey into what you want them to be saying merely so you can goad them into a irrelevant debate.

If I had said "objective law" you might have a case, but neither I nor John A said that. We said "objective" (which I provided a useful and common definition and use of the word for) and "code of laws". A search for "code of laws" in google returns over a million hits. While "objective laws" which is generally what you are referring to, returns 50,000 hits.

A search for "code of laws" AND "objective morality" (implying a connection between an objectively defined morality and a subsequent code of law based on that) returns only 53 hits, clearly "code of laws" is VERY RARELY used in connection with "Objective Law" or "objective morality" and is ALWAYS used to refer to a LIST OF ESTABLISHED LAWS. Clearly most people philosophically are still concerned with identifying an objective morality and not so much concerned with writing it down yet; codifying it.

Of course I all ready said ALL OF THIS in post 15:

John was clearly not speaking of the 'one true' objective code of laws, but merely a code of laws that are objective (formal and equally applicable) It was clear to any rational reader he was not speaking of the 'one true' objective code of morality (and laws) because he said 'at least the democrats and republicans have an 'objective code of laws' (that is laws that are written and applied without bias) Anarchists can make no such claim since they have NO LAWS, let alone laws that strive to be equally applied.

Stop being PRETENTIOUS PRICKS about word usage when you KNOW DAMN WELL what we are talking about, assuming you are rational people who possess a useful brain cell or two.

Monday, April 9, 2007 - 10:57am

John, the heavy sarcasm in your posts leads me to believe that not only is your mind closed,

I'm sorry, is the term "closed minded" now considered to be a vice and not a virtue? If I was closed minded for example, about the idea of legalizing child rape, I suppose you would just chastise me for being "closed minded"? Ok so I will now be open minded about any disgusting and repulsive philosophy that comes my way.

...but a foot-stamping temper tantrum is about to erupt. That being said, I'll give this one last shot.

(Hey since we're just insulting each other now....)

And I'm preparing for the typical onslaught of weasel words and obfuscation from you.

Cutting-and-pasting definitions does not an argument make.

I'm sorry Jonathan. I didn't realize there's a difference between typing in individual words letter by letter from a keyboard was all that much different from cutting and pasting text with a mouse? I guess arguments to you should be considered valid based on the computer peripheral we use or whether they're in our own words?

The definition you pasted contained the word or, so there could logically be two definitions: a society without government OR a society without law.

Or for christ's sake! And it's been discussed ad nauseum in these boards that a society without government is a society without laws. These are not mutually exclusive. One cannot exist without the other.

You should know that only nihilistic punks posit a society without law as a good thing, and that these people are not the adversaries you face on RoR.

They dress differently no doubt. But they are the same as in they are both an intellectual mess of contradictions. The end result is the same from both "kinds" of anarchists. The destruction of liberty. Both to me espouse an evil idealogy no different than a Marxist or a Fascist. Hence you see my utter disdain for them because they advocate something that threatens the things I value most, my freedom, my life, my loved ones, my happiness. This is why I show righteous anger to something that threatens my life.

So either you haven't bothered to even listen to the arguments the anarchists are making, or you are simply engaging in sophistry.

You honestly mean to tell me after thousands of posts on these forums by dozens of Objectivists over months at at time who repudiate anarchism as nothing but meaning the total destruction of man's rights, that I'm now, after months of discussing at great length what ought to be a settled issue, that I'm engaging in sophistry, while anarchists which you seem to be sympathetic towards, are not engaging in obfuscation, and evasion? You seem to think this thread exists in a vacuum? As if no one ever discussed the subject matter at great length?

Give me a break Fauth

How many times do I and other Objectivists need to demonstrate the fallacies of anarchism?

I have no dog in this fight (i.e., I am not seeking to reinforce preconceived notions, but rather to discover the truth)

At some point you're going to have to grow up, be a man, and pick a side. If you don't have enough information at this point after months of discussions on these boards, and the vast amount of literature on the subject matter out there, you're not interested anymore in the truth. You are interested in making the subject more complex than it needs to be. It's no different than creationists, astrologists, marxists, and any other kind of pseudo-intellectual obfuscating the truth.

but I am not satisfied with the answers you've been giving concerning an "objective code of laws". It would seem that by "objective" you mean "static". In other words. laws that do not change,

This is what I'm talking about when I say you're obfucating the issue. I never even discussed the "temporal" aspects of the rule of law or whether they should be static. Did you really think I meant that? I meant to say you cannot have multiples sets of laws contradicting each other in one territory. (ok, count this as the 5th time I'm explaining what I meant?)

Would it make any clearer Jonathan if I said this a 6th time? And you wonder why I show frustration and annoyance?

We could draw up an erroneous multiplication table (i.e. 4 x 5 = 26), and test a classroom of children based on this table. If we are consistent, i.e. we do not subjectively grade some children with a different key than others, the we can say that we are being objective, however, this in no way implied that the answers themselves are objective.

United States may deem 1000 dollars of theft warrant 2 years in jail, in Great Britain the punishment could be 4 years in jail. Point being a jurisdiction must not have conflicting or contradicting laws. A jurisdiction must decide on one set of laws to be applied to it.

And my point is that having one set of laws, i.e. an objective frame of reference, does not mean that the laws themselves will be objectively based on the facts of reality.

You're missing the point. The answer to what is an appropriate punishment for a crime are no where near as obvious as a mathematical problem. People can disagree on how many years a criminal should be sent to jail as retribution for a crime but we all can't follow everyone's idea on what is appropriate. We have to pick one. That's what we mean by laws must be objective.

If laws are objectively based on the facts of reality, and the facts of reality do not change from one geographical region to the next, then one, if not both, of you examples you gave above must be objectively wrong.

Nonsense. You're making it more complex than it needs to be. If we can agree on generalized ideas of justice (which would be the easiest way to get people to agree, that being on the generalizations) as in we agree that stealing is wrong, that we both agree one must be held accountable for stealing, that we both agree that would mean some kind of retribution, restitution, so we can both agree on this. This is objective. Stealing is wrong because it destroys a value, specifically the value of life. So we both agree there ought to be a punishment for this crime, but we can disagree on what that punishment (i.e. this generalization we made) should look like when we apply it to a very specific (non-generalized) instance. This is precisely why we have an arbiter to settle these disagreements that you or I may have. Because while we can define an objective morality we have a much harder time codifying it into laws. But we can't afford to not codify our objective morality into laws. Because otherwise crimes go unpunished, we allow for our values to be destroyed, and we have a society with anarchy, (i.e. no government=no laws=no justice) And having no justice means the destruction of our values. So we have to pick, do we establish the rule of law, to protect man's rights, or do we not, and let man's rights be destroyed?

So we have to decide what those laws should like, and how they should be applied. Since reasonable people can disagree on the details on how we apply justice, we have to pick which one we are going to use, like in the example I gave for stealing 1000 dollars. There is no way to empirically prove 4 years in prison for stealing is wrong and 2 years in prison is better. Because the answer to this specific question cannot be studied in a petri dish in a lab with scientists wearing long white lab coats. But we do know a punishment is warranted, we do know that we have to pick a punishment, and we do know that we can't afford to not make a decision.

(Edited by John Armaos
on 4/09, 11:03am)

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 3:19am

John, I apologize for the temper tantrum remark, that was uncalled for.

You know it's not about computer peripherals, so what was the point of your rant?And if you were confused about what I meant by not having a dog in the fight, read what's in parentheses. You know what side I'm arguing on here. I'm going to let the "grow up and be a man" comment go without comment... I can't think of a tactful way to respond.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 3:23pm

Dr. Machan, thank you for your clear explanation of the relationship between Objectivism, a philosophy; and libertarianism, which is the Objectivist position on politics.

One reason--certainly not the only one--some Objectivists recoil from libertarianism is that it appears that most libertarians oppose foreign military adventuring, which quite a few Objectivists seem to favor.

An important reason that many libertarians back away from Objectivism is, ironically, that it offers logically coherent ideas supporting its world view. In this age of philosophical agnosticism, quite a few libertarians have been misled into believing that philosophical coherence and non-religious moral philosophy implies ruthless dogmatism. So those libertarians want to cast Objectivists out of their political world.

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 8:34am

Quite a few libertarians believe they have a good defense of their political stance from some other philosophical source than Objectivism. Some believe no such defense is required and will argue this view. (Having edited Reason Papers for 25 years, with submissions from many who favor the free society as well as from others--it is called A Journal of Interdisciplinary Normative Studies--this became evident to me repeatedly.) I am not privy to the motives of most of these persons, nor do I know very of them personally. Often, though, there is little acrimony involved, just a serious difference of viewpoints. Most of my philosophical friends actually deploy either Objectivism or some modification of it, such as neo-Aristotelianism, in defense of their belief that the free society is the most just. And there is even considerable difference among pretty orthodox Objectivists on matters of foreign policy--e.g., some want to spread freedom by example, some more aggressively, some leave that issue for others to bother with. As an individualist, which is after all a feature of Objectivism in its social philosophy, I am quite appreciative of how much diversity there can be among even those who basically agree. (Individualists tend, in the main, to lay out a case in their own idiosyncratic ways.)
(Edited by Machan on 4/12, 8:35am)

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 11:55am

I'm glad Dr. Machan finally posted a response here.

Of course, most of what he says is true and was never in question.

Then he states:
"As an individualist, which is after all a feature of Objectivism in its social philosophy, I am quite appreciative of how much diversity there can be among even those who basically agree."

Ah well, that's begging the question. How can he conclude from what he said about these individuals that they basically agree?

In fact, individuals who agree on a free-market social system but hold differing underlying philosophies and religions don't basically agree. They agree on a position that can be logically inferred from a certain philosophical view (i.e., Objectivism), but they don't uphold the philosophical view that logically defends that position.

In Letters of Ayn Rand, readers can see her communications with some high-profile leaders of the American Right (back when many conservative intellectuals really did care about free enterprise). In her letters, she repeatedly says that the free market's defenders cannot succeed without a consistent philosophical case--one that proves capitalism is the only moral system. Without such a case, she says, government controls on the US economy will continue to proliferate, because that's the logical result of people's present philosophical convictions.

She was right.

It's fine for individualists to "lay out a case in their own idiosyncratic ways". But it has to be the same case in order for it to have any chance of success. And the "case" is the philosophical view that establishes/maintains the system--not the system itself.

(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/12, 2:27pm)

(Edited by Jon Trager on 4/12, 2:32pm)

Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 12:28pm

It's all too easy for me to assume that I can divine the motives of others who disagree with me. But that's usually a misleading assumption, and a waste of time.

Still, most of the libertarian friends I had in college 100 years ago (with a couple notable exceptions), who found Rand's ideas endlessly fascinating fodder for thinking and discussion, wound up as free market philosophical agnostics. In their varied ways, each seems to project the idea that philosophical insights don't have much value; and that epistemological or moral "absolutes" are dangerous and confining.

When I used to read articles on Lew Rockwell's site, every so often I'd encounter another writer hell bent on ridiculing Rand's thinking as preposterous, shrill, repugnant. I overgeneralize from these experiences.

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 4:01am

Actually, I had in mind Objectivists who do not put things exactly the way other Objectivists put them concerning the very same issue, yet agree on basics. It is in this that they often demonstrate individual variations on how they put their basically identical views. After all, if language allows for synonyms, words that mean the same thing, so that one can say the same thing with different words, this allows for considerable diversity in how people can mean the same thing as they think, talk, and write. Indeed, when Objectivists attempt to think, say, and write on a topic in identical terms, they tend to sound stale, repetitious. A "new intellectual," with appropriate independence of mind, would shy away from this and, instead, produce his or her own rendition of the truth in terms he or she considers appropriate yet also creative and inventive. (Or must all Objectivists think, say, and write exactly identically on the same topic?)

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 7:38am

Dr. Machan, how on earth could you conclude from what I've written here that I might believe all Objectivists should "think, say, and write exactly identically on the same topic?" I think that's a sloppy inference for a philosopher to make.

In fact, I specifically wrote in my last post that "It's fine for individualists to lay out a case in their own idiosyncratic ways." So I obviously don't believe Objectivists should be carbon copies of each other regarding how they choose to communicate their philosophical viewpoint.

However, you're switching the topic of discussion from one of content to one of method. The method can be different, but the content (ie, the philosophical viewpoint they're communicating) must be the same.

Regarding the libertarian movement, we're talking about advocates of a free society who include Objectivists, (evangelical) Christians, Kantians, etc. Such people are not in basic agreement. And it comes through clearly when they argue in favor of freedom, which only undercuts the case they're trying to make.

I worked for libertarian organizations for years, and I respect and personally like some individual libertarians. However, most self-identified libertarians are serious skeptics and moral subjectivists who call for a free society on that basis. Does that ultimately help our cause or hurt it?

I don't think Objectivists need to mimic Ayn Rand's personal style or insist on agreement with every public stance she ever took. Neither do I think Objectivists need to pretend that anyone who supports capitalism is our intellectual ally.

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 11:24am

Never said anyone "might believe all Objectivists should 'think, say, and write exactly identically on the same topic?'" Never. Just noted it's a bad idea.

You also say, "I think that's a sloppy inference for a philosopher to make." This is an insult--did you see me insult you? My comment was a general one, promoted by but not directed at you.

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 1:59pm

You said, "Or must all Objectivists think, say, and write exactly identically on the same topic?" Does not asking that question imply you think I might believe it--even after I specifically said otherwise? Or, if it wasn't addressed to me, to whom was it addressed? No one on this thread even hinted that Objectivists should do that. Or, if it was a general query, it makes no logical sense in the context of this thread.

Nevermind. I've made my point here well enough, I think. All that's been offered in response are statements that are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The issue here is: Is the field of politics philosophically fundamental, or merely derivative? In other words, is a political-economic system something that can be altered without reference to a more basic view of existence, or is a political-economic system (whether capitalist, socialist, welfare-statist, feudalist, etc.) merely the logical result of the dominant philosophical viewpoint of a culture?

I take the latter position (the position of Ayn Rand, reflected in the structure of Objectivism). So it makes no logical sense for me to believe that serious Christians, Kantians, or anyone else who doesn't embrace core Objectivist principles (eg, reality as objective and absolute, reason as one's only means of knowledge and guide to action, the pursuit and achievement of personal values as the path to happiness and self-esteem) can defend a free-market system effectively. They all can agree on that idea, sure, which may make for a sense of comraderie at social gatherings. But as change advocates, they're impotent at best--and destructive at worst.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 4/13, 3:38pm)

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 2:12pm

It may not be sufficient to have a strong commitment to political liberty to provide it with convincing, conclusive defense. Yet it makes a difference, politically, that there are many who do have such a commitment. I would not disassociate from them just because they aren't philosophically in full agreement, astute, interested, or have enough time to come to such a full agreement. Most of us deal with thousands of people in fruitful ways because we come to mutually accommodating terms in those limited ways without insisting that we agree on everything. The market--indeed, community life--is filled with such fruitful and peaceful transactions. It would be odd to reject them all because one doesn't find one's trading partners in full agreement with one's position, from A to Z. The same holds with politics. No one disputes that full agreement is better than partial but I dispute that partial agreement isn't to be prized more than none.

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 5:57pm

I agree with Tibor here and would make the point that there are ALWAYS disagreements. The question becomes what is the context of the particular instance and based upon that what agreement do I need to join forces or to abstain or to reject another. I haven't heard anyone describe a way to determine what agreements are unacceptable on all accounts.

I think Jon has expanded the meaning of what Ayn Rand said beyound her intended use. She has written about logically and morally supporting political candidates that are less than perfect.

We could have no organizations if we had to be in complete agreement to join forces morally. It is understood that there are boundaries and that they get tested and that there are differences of opinion on how much difference of opinion is proper.

That I'm willing to have my name appear as a member of RoR is a sign of collaboration and joining where I know two things: Some of the people have principles I disagree with. And some of the people have beliefs and backgrounds that I know nothing of. But, I look at the context and make a decsion to join.

Friday, April 13, 2007 - 10:15pm

Steve: "I think Jon has expanded the meaning of what Ayn Rand said beyound her intended use. She has written about logically and morally supporting political candidates that are less than perfect."

Yes, Steve, she did. However, there's an essential difference between voting for a political candidate in the modern electoral system and advocating for sweeping change of a political system.

In the first, voters only have a realistic choice between two candidates who aren't consistent advocates of capitalism, nevermind it's logical philosophical underpinning (ie, Objectivism). Given this limited context, Ayn Rand believed people should vote for the person who was more favorable toward capitalism than the other (though she made exceptions for candidates who demanded what she believed to be a grotesque violation of individual liberty, such as outlawing abortion).

The reason she took this position was not because she thought voting thusly would push America toward a free-market system. It was because she thought voting the opposite way would push America in the other direction--toward socialism. In other words, and this is the essential part--it was a purely defensive maneuver.

Advocating for systemic political change, on the other hand, isn't defensive; it's offensive. You're not talking about hitting the brakes on government or even trimming it; you're talking about abolishing whole agencies and radically altering the system.

This is simply not a goal that can be achieved without most people inside the system accepting basic ideas, just as most people today accept the basic ideas behind welfare statism. Consequently, acting like philosophies or religions that espouse skepticism/subjectivism or mysticism/intrincism can properly defend capitalism or be of any value in the advocacy of capitalism (which is why I posted on this thread), is to effectively help capitalism's destroyers, intentionally or not.

If you believe I've said expands what Ayn Rand said beyond her intended use, then I recommend you read again what she wrote on this topic in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. She's pretty clear on this issue.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 4/14, 9:20am)

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 12:28am

Jon,

I agree about never compromising principles. I agree about never engaging in an inapproriate liason with those whose basic premises are wrong. But we can just agree to disagree on what Tibor is suggesting. You either aren't understanding my points or we just plain disagree. And we definitely disagree on the application of Ayn Rands position. I see no reason to continue since neither of us appear to be changing our position.

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 9:15am

Steve: "I see no reason to continue since neither of us appear to be changing our position."

Did you expect that we'd see eye to eye here, Steve? That's rarely the result of these kinds of Internet discussions.

My purpose in this context isn't to convince other people I'm right about anything. It's merely to register an objection when I see a self-described Objectivist make a statement that contradicts, on a basic level, what Ayn Rand espoused philosophically (eg, that other philosophies or religions(!) defend capitalism).

Whatever anyone says in response, if anything, is up to him.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 4/15, 8:24am)