The One Trick Pony is back.
It is amazing how much time and effort has gone into this article. It reminds me of those who are obsessed with some kind of religious proseletizing. I tried to read it all, but was put off by the snarky style and just didn't want to waste that much time. I mean, after all, there are real enemies out there: dictators, socialists, communists, fascists, thugs, thieves, etc.
Here are some of the assumptions that we are offered:
- The key people at ARI should not be selfish and should be working for less
- Or, that the amounts that they are being paid are out of line with what others are paid in comparable organizations
- Or, that something is unethical despite this being a free market arrangement where over ten million dollars were voluntarily sent in ARI
- Or, that their work is somehow so philosophically or politically wrong that it is more important to spend our time with a diatribe against ARI than anything else on the political/philosophical landscape.
- Or that it makes sense for this article's author to use Ayn Rand's name to bash ARI for using Ayn Rand's name to promote the making of money by providing more Objectivist information to the world
- Or, that ARI people should engage in some kind of altruistic sacrifice and pay their own travel expenses when on ARI business
- Or, that ARI should not be engaged in promoting Objectivism or the works of Ayn Rand to people in other countries, only here in the USA.
- Or, that the portion of personnel expenses to revenues is out of line for comparable organizations,
- Or, that net-net this purely voluntary association between funders/customers and ARI has not been even a tiny bit positive in promoting Objectivism and the works of Ayn Rand
- Or, that this incessant snarky harping of the author has some benefit
Is it just me, or is this author's emotional knickers all in a bind that makes no sense what so ever? I might disagree with a number of the particulars of Yaron Brook or any other ARI person, but I still see them on "our" side, if by "our" one means reason and political liberty. Obsessive, one-sided, petty factionalism is not principled. It is short-sided emotionalism made possible by dropping of context and a state of denial. Look at how the GOP divides itself in ways that don't let them agree on this single, simple operational principle: "Let us negotiate among ourselves to find the best compromise on details AS LONG AS that moves us in the direction of more freedom and only refuse to compromise when the net result would move us in the opposite direction." If they could do that, we would, for example, go to ObamaCare lite, then ObamaCare still lighter, then Not ObamaCare, then a free market for healthcare.
I've been around long enough to smell when something is either personal or a mental-emotional condition (Maybe he really does think he is being rational, appropriate and proportional!). I just wish the author of these on-going ARI-Watch articles (they don't Watch, they just carp) would be honest and tell us what really pissed him off. Was he turned down for a job? Insulted by someone at ARI? Manuscript rejected? What's the real story? I hate the kind of dishonesty of an approach that is dressed up in this or that set of principles but is really something totally different.