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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I don't think founding the Libertarian Party is of much significance."

I'm not convinced of some aspects of their approach (eg. focusing as much on the presidential election as opposed to really going grassroots). However, they have made inroads at getting libertarians in local offices (several hundred nationwide - small, but nontrivial), and have certainly been a mechanism for exposing people to laissez-faire ideas.

"I think the LP actually makes libertarian ideas sound crazier than hell. Harry Browne was going to release all drug offenders from prison by executive order on his first day in office."

Are you arguing that such a move would be unethical/wrong, or just that he should have kept it secret?


Post 21

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lyman Bradford wrote: "Why are they all hippie liberals? Because conservative/libertarian capitalists aren't willing to make $35K a year teaching a bunch of know it alls the ins and outs of microeconomics."

Your point is well-made.  One adjustment is required.
A part-time community college professor makes about $40 per hour.  A fulltime faculty person at a university will make a shade more in wages, but be treated to generous benefits from healthcare and double-matching retirement funds to free tuition for their children. 

That said, you are right, the mentality of a college professor is generally different from that of an entrepreneur, though not always. 

The lure of scientology is not that it will "change society" but that it empowers the person.  Again, my only window to this is a CD of jazz and modern music called The Joy of Creating.  You make your own world.  "Smile and you will soon find something to smile about."  On the other hand, Objectivism is easily satirized as college philosophers denouncing the psycho-epistemology of New Coke. 


Post 22

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To your first point: The only elected libertarians I've ever known occupied "trivial" government offices such as the "soil and water" commission...or as they called it...the "mud board." It was all about getting people on the "mud boards." The sole exception being the state representative in New Hampshire (?) who challenged Browne in 96 for the LP's nomination. Of course, I can't remember his name. All in all, the LP has been downright lousy at advancing libertarian ideas. It really is just a miserable entity.

To your second point: Yes, it would have been a terrible idea. The appropriate measure would have been for Browne to urge Congress and state legislatures to repeal laws that criminalize drug use/possession...attaching retroactive clauses...and for Browne to sign such legislation as it came across his desk. This process allows the People to reverse the drug laws via their elected representatives. This is, after all, this is a country based on self-government...or the right of the people to determine how they will be governed by way of republican democracy.

As an aside, this was one of the hardest lessons I had to learn as a younger "college libertarian," i.e. that "self-government" in this country doesn't mean "the right of the individual to be free so long as he doesn't infringe the rights of others..." Self-government simply means the right of the people, en mass, to shape their government and its laws via their elected representatives. Time has proven this to be the case...and time has proven this to work to some extent. Allowing Browne to disregard the People's right to "self-government" by utilizing the executive order power...even contrary to current U.S. laws...would have been a terrible start.



Post 23

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lyman Bradford wrote:
All in all, the LP has been downright lousy at advancing libertarian ideas.
The only evidence for this that Lyman offers is that the LP has not elected many significant candidates.

While it is true that elected Libertarians would be an indicator that libertarian ideas have been accepted, the lack of elected Libertarians is not evidence that the LP has not been advancing libertarian ideas.

Post 24

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick...buddy...great pic by the way...look, it's not on me to prove that the libertarian party "hasn't" done something. It's on you to prove that is has. Obviously, you can't prove significant electoral successes. You can't show significant utilization of libertarian materials in public or private universities (I've been to a few of them and the closest you will get is Milton Friedman or Robert Nozick), you can't show big time celebrity endorsements (Penn & Teller notwithstanding), there really isn't much to point to. Even the CATO institute is still referred to in mainstream media as a "conservative" think tank. The only mainstream discussion of "libertarian" that I encounter is usually about "civil libertarian" stuff which is equated to pro-abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. I mean, if you can point to something significant, I'm all eyeballs. I just don't think its there. And its definitely not on me to put it there.

I think it would be interesting to poll libertarians as to how they first learned of libertarianism and what, if any, influence the LP had on their ideas. My bet is that libertarians were introduced to the ideas by Rand's books or they were simply pissed of Republicans looking for an alternative. I don't think you'll find many people who will admit, "yeah..I was cruising around the mall and this kwirky dude with an uncle sam hat asked me to take the World's Smallest Political Quiz...I scored libertarian and have been in love ever since!"

Post 25

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Will address Browne/drugs/executive-activism later.

I do know people who were introduced to libertarianism and even Objectivism via the LP. Only a couple, but if that scales at all across the country, they've probably done a lot more awareness raising than you, I or Micheal M have. I don't think any of us have gotten any pro-freedom dog-catchers or 'mud-board' officials in place either.

It sounds like you've been involved in the party and became very disillusioned and disappointed it wasn't doing more. I too am disappointed since I think it could be more, but that doesn't make what it is now insignificant and miserable.


Post 26

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have been reading up on some of these so-called ideas.  My overall conclusion is that the answer is "none whatsover" - as in this pseudo-scientific-spiritual-sci-fi cultism has nothing whatsover in common with Objectivism.  Some of it makes for interesting reading, though, and amazement that it still exists.

Post 27

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ED SNIDER certainly is a big name in Philadelphia...
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 7/18, 1:44pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lyman,

I was turned on to libertarian and Objectivist ideas via the Libertarian party.  During the 2000 presidential campaign, I happened upon the party's national convention on CSPAN and was intrigued by a group that was promoting freedom so consistently.  That was my first introduction libertarian ideas.  The party attracts its share of wackos, as does any political party, but I think that having a voice for liberty within the political dialogue is a good thing, especially in light of the big government conservatism we've seen from the Republicans lately.  Last I heard, no Objectivists have gotten off their asses to start an 'Objectivist' political party, so the LP is pretty much the best thing we've got. 


Post 29

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nothing in common, they started at uh, right about the same time... that's uh something.

---Landon


Post 30

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 6:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No one is talking Scientology any more, but I spent awhile reading some of  "A Piece of Blue Sky" and it was very disturbing, to say the least.  Here are the Scientology Axioms, clearly utter nonsense:

The techniques of Scientology are loosely embedded in a sometimes tortuous philosophy. At the core of this is a relatively simple cosmology which starts with the first three "Factors of Scientology." These give Hubbard's explanation of the origin of life:
1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.
2. In the beginning and forever is the decision, and the decision is TO BE.
3. The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint. 1
From this viewpoint the universe is perceived. The first "Axiom" of Scientology is "Life is basically a static," which has "no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive."
The Life Static is most usually called a Thetan. The Thetan is immortal and does not owe its origin to God. It is perpetually individual. 2 After the beginning, Thetans generated "points to view," or "dimension points" which caused space to come into existence. Thetans agreed that other Thetans' dimension points existed, and that agreement brought about Reality. Reality, indeed the entire universe, is an "agreed upon apparency," and all matter, energy, space and time (MEST) exists because Thetans agree it exists. But for continued existence there has to be a lie ("alter-is-ness") in the fabric of these aspects of Reality, for if anything is seen exactly as it is ("as-ised") it will cease to exist. Reality, to the Scientologist, is a communal daydream


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lyman: "Cato Institute makes significant libertarian contributions. Same with Reason Magazine. But I think, all in all, there aren't that many impressive objectivist or libertarian entities. Its probably because organizations such as those don't appeal to the "men of industry." Donald Trump isn't going to stop developing land to become the director of some local think tank on real estate. Same with Bill Gates. Same scenario with college professors. Why are they all hippie liberals? Because conservative/libertarian capitalists aren't willing to make $35K a year teaching a bunch of know it alls the ins and outs of microeconomics."

Lyman, you miss the point. No one -- certainly not I -- would want industrialists to abandon their fields and instead direct local think tanks or teach in universities. They are much more valuable to Objectivism and libertarianism where they are. Apparently you have no idea of how many industrialists and businessmen there are all over the country, who, influenced by Objectivism, are "teaching" by the manner in which they run their companies and by the things they say to their employees and their peers. Exhibit A is T. J. Rogers of Silicon Valley. And no, college professors are not all hippie liberals. Economics departments in major and minor universities are everywhere partly or fully dominated by Objectivists and libertarians; such people are teaching in philosophy departments, history, science, art, and other departments. People influenced by Objectivism have positions in government, where they are having an influence -- as they did on Ronald Reagan. They are writers and columnists and grade school teachers and doctors and engineers and architects. They are even governors of states: for instance, the former governor of New Mexico insisted that everyone who worked for him should read Atlas Shrugged, and he traveled around the country speaking out for the legalization or drugs.

Such people have brought us to the point that the ideas of Ayn Rand -- revolutionary as they are -- are now treated with at least a grudging respect even in most liberal newspapers and among intellectuals. And some of them -- such as the idea that one has the right to be concerned with one's self-interest -- are even deemed to be self-evident by the majority of Americans. One doesn't overturn a culture overnight, but the strides that have been made since The Fountainhead was published are enormous.

With James Kilbourne, I am writing a book on the influence of Ayn Rand in America and worldwide. I think you will be astonished by the range and depth of her influence, and I'm certain that you will be greatly cheered

Barbara.

Post 32

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 8:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please quit teasing me with this book you speak of.  =)

---Landon


Post 33

Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon, how else can I be certain you'll buy it?

Barbara

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think my point has been misunderstood. Perhaps it was my careless use of the phrase "objectivist and libertarian entities." By entities I meant educational/political organizations...such as the RNC, DNC, etc. I did not mean to suggest there are no significant objectivist or libertarian "individuals." That would have been an absurd statement on my part. Nor do I have any desire to see men such as Trump and Bill Gates quit their day jobs to run the objectivist center or the LP. They're fine running the "motor of the world."

My point was simply that the objectivist/libertarian community has been unable to penetrate either of the major political parties. Our values are not represented by either. The minor political parties that do share some of our values do not receive enough votes to pressure the major parties into adopting some or all of their platforms. The think tanks that share our values are far and few between and the ones that have been successful are still regarded as "conservative" ... CATO being the primary example. Even Rand herself is regarded as "conservative, right-wing" in the mainstream media/political arena.

Also, it is true that objectivists/libertarians have made strides in their private lives but they almost never attribute those strides to their value system, i.e. objectivism. Alan Greenspan's name is often used as proof that objectivists hold high-ranking mainstream positions, yet I don't recall Mr. Greenspan attributing any part of his success to his objectivist values. Indeed, most of what I hear coming out of the press is that Mr. Greenspan "was once preoccupied with Randian principles but he has since grown out of that silly little phase." Where are Greenspan's public comments defending objectivism?

Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, etc.. are constantly attributing their successes to their belief systems...to their values. And yet objectivists are much like Hank Rearden...just doing their work...keeping their heads down...not saying much...just wishing they lived on a planet full of people just like themselves. Maybe this is something Ms. Branden can answer. Did Ayn Rand tell her students to keep their mouths shut in college when a professor would say something that was totally contrary to objectivism and presented as fact? Would Rand have instructed her students to just sit there and let Professor Goofball indoctrinate the class into that famous myth that "communism is perfect in theory?" Or did she tell you to stand up for what you believed in...to challenge ignorant professors...and to attribute your successes to your values?

It's sad that 50 years after the introduction of objectivism to the world, I still have to explain to my friends/parents what exactly an objectivist stands for. It sure would be nice if Greenspan or "T.J. Rogers" or this multitude of other successful adherents would've cleared that up for them on Nightline or Squawk Box.

I take every opportunity to attribute my achievements to my values...essentially to objectivism. And if there are famous people who share my values...people with a soap box or a microphone, why aren't they doing the same thing? I catch a lot of news, both on cable and the internet and I know objectivists/ism is rarely, if ever, brought up.

In sum, objectivists and libertarians are doing a miserable job of recruiting. Leading by example is impossible when you're standing in the shadow.

-LB

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.