About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 12:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a new website up called
ARI Watch: a critical review of the “Ayn Rand Institute.”
http://www.ariwatch.com


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 1:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark, is this your site?  I don't understand the scorecards below the index.  It seems to be some sort of checklist with the categories missing.  One thing I would like to see on a site like this is something about the Valliant book and ARIs connection to it. 

ARI certainly says and does some things that hurt the objectivist movement, but despite that, we are all objectivists and basically on the same team.  I just wish that the ARI, being the official voice of the philosophy, was more of a big tent objectivist organization rather than something looking more like a fringe fundamentalist offshoot of the philosophy.  It would be better for them not to make a political stance in most cases and focus on philosophy.  They should be bringing us together, but they seem hell bent on dividing us.

Kat


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 2:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Based on a quick review of several of the posts on this site, it appears that the focus is on proving that Ayn Rand would disagree with ARI's positions on the Iraq war and foreign policy, suggesting that she would endorse viewpoints promulgated by leftists to the effect that the Republicans are fascist warmongers and crypto-Nazi torturers.

I completely disagree that Ayn Rand would sympathize in any way with the moral cowardice of the appeasers.  In fact, ARI's editorials on foreign policy and the War on Terrorism are, in my view, entirely consistent with Objectivism, and far superior to anything I have read on the TOC website.  I would be the last person to defend Peikoff and ARI, since I believe their quasi-religionist approach is totally wrong-headed, repugnant and destructive to the spread of the philosophy.  But this website seems devoted to attacking the one thing about them that I like..     


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Based on a quick review of several of the posts on this site, I'd say it is absolutely first rate.  The writers have read their Rand and their ARI pap.  They understand the issues, and they bar no holds, letting the chips fall where they may.  I recommend it without reservation.

Post 4

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think ARI WATCH is funny. The people that run the website must be retarted. Their theme seems to be that ARI supports neo-cons. Based on comments on the web, Yaron Brook (at OCON) gave a speech last week on the neo-cons being the greatest threat to America, good timing! LOL 

Post 5

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 4:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Intersting, but who is responsible for it?

--Brant


Post 6

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Indeed, who is responsible?

www.ariwatch.com canonical name = ariwatch.com.
Name: ariwatch.com
Address: 72.9.255.10

No reverse DNS (server can't find 10.255.9.72.in-addr.arpa: NXDOMAIN)

The IP address belongs to a server owned by Netrillium Web Hosting Services, of Richmond VA. The server is physically located in Atlanta, GA and managed by Gnax (Global Net Access). Netrillium Web Hosting Services is, among other things, a hosting wholesaler providing services to resellers, but this specific server was not used before for customer or re-seller sites, and most likely is being used by a Netrillium Web Hosting Services insider (owner, partner or staff.)

The site content is considerably out of date, and most of its criticisms date back to before Yaron Brook became President of ARI. Some (Binswanger) still hold the views for which they are criticized on ARIwatch, others (Wakeland) don't. The author at ARIwatch appears fixated on zombied-out stereotypes; he is knowledgeable but is grinding a very old, very dull axe.

Post 7

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yaron Brook and the ARI support massive foreign intervention across the middle east - but in the form of bombing nations to the stone-age rather than 'nation building'. I can't say that that's a good thing either, but it does set them apart from neo-cons.

The site is interesting. Outside of the 'neo-con' comparisons, from I've read so far I was impressed by the honesty of its criticism. eg. in the 'Rand on Past Wars' page, he quotes her comments deriding Wilson and FDRs goals in WWI and WWII. However, he also states concerning Vietnam 'Unfortunately she goes on to say that having entered the war we should not withdraw, saying that would be viewed as appeasement – evidently thinking of the Soviet Union. I cannot follow this what-will-they-think-of-us argument.' The author is obviously isolationist, even more so than Rand, but mentions this fact rather than making her words fit his own view when they are in disagreement.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, Glenn, they're "retarted."  And you'll be the next Nobel Prize winner.

JR


Post 9

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This has to be a spoof website or they are complete bozos. The concept of a "watch" site is to report what some group is doing behind their spin or who's funding them, "they are keeping a watch." These clowns are reporting that ARI supports preemption. ARI spends good money to tell people they support preemption. ARI-watch is telling people, "You know what, ARI supports preemption."
D-oh!


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 10:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sure, but what ARI-watch adds is to say, "You know what? Rand didn't."

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

There is no need for speculation about whether or not Ayn Rand supported preemption or opposed isolationism.  Clearly she did--when and if these were consistent with America’s self-interest and survival.

 

“…Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such ‘rights’ by civilized countries—just as a mob of gangsters cannot demand a recognition of its ‘rights’ and a legal equality with an industrial concern or a university, on the grounds that the gangsters chose by unanimous vote to engage in that particular kind of group activity.

 

  “Dictatorship nations are outlaws.  Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and today has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen.  Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent ‘rights’ of gang rulers.   It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.” 

      [from “Collectivized Rights”]

 

“…Just as an individual has the right of self-defense, so has a free country if attacked…”

      [from “The Roots of War”]

 

“…If some ‘pacifist’ society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral.  Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.”

      [from“The Nature of Government”]

 

“…When certain statist groups, counting, apparently, on a total collapse of American self-esteem, dare to go so far as to urge America’s surrender into slavery without a fight, under the slogan “Better Red than Dead”…the only proper answer to an ultimatum of that kind is “Better See the Reds Dead.” 

      [from“Choose Your Issues”] 

 

Given these clear principles, there can be little doubt that, if Ayn Rand were alive today, she would be advocating the same  basic approach to foreign policy presently being promoted by ARI.


Post 12

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wondering 'WWAD?' is really a bit odd, but since we're going there.. Based on her many quotes for outright war in defense, and also her quotes for isolationism and against initiating force or altruistic combat, my estimate is she'd have supported invading/bombing Afghanistan (and Pakistan and anywhere else) to hunt OBL, but not have supported the unrelated Iraq invasion or the 'nuke the whole middle east' ARI approach.


Post 13

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand's support for isolationism was contextual. Are we to conclude from your statements that the "Coalition of the Willing" initiated force against the Saddam dictatorship? Btw,  Robert Bidnotto (who now, in essence, supports the ARI critique of Libertarianism) also defended the use of nukes against Japan in WW2 - Chris Sciabarra defended the use of nukes, at least in principle. 

 As for Invading Iraq, in the battle against the Jihadists. Arron, do you know for a fact they were unrelated?  

(Edited by Wayne Simmons on 7/17, 1:18pm)


Post 14

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 1:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you're privy to some secret evidence showing Iraq was behind 9/11, then please share. Were they blessed with such evidence, the administration and mainstream media would have trumpeted that to the ends of the earth as the reason for Iraq'03.

I am not Bidinotto or Sciabarra, and my views on war in general and Iraq specifically are pretty straightforward to discern from other posts. I'm certainly not projecting my views on Rand, as I'm no fan of invading, occupying and sponsoring rival warlords in Afghanistan, despite suspecting Rand would approve of the US there. I don't see though how her contextualist (but of course) isolationism concerning WWI, WWII til after Pearl, and Vietnam would not also apply to Iraq.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.