RoR: Forum

Robert's "clue" to producing an outreach magazine is different.

First, have a religious conservative[or anybody] write an article, keeping to narrow, non-integration of the facts. Making sure there is no connection to the moral and epistemological roots of the issue.

Second have an Objectivist, in a separate article, discuss the philosophical issues.

Hudgins for instance. He could use "conceptions like the sanction of the victim," and tell readers about the "need to fight for freedom based on rational and responsible[???] self-interest." Maybe he'll be able to "bring some readers around to our perspective[???] on various issues."

Speaking of the "creationism" controversy, Robert's comments on Hudgin's article on the subject (he is speaking to religious conservative TNI writer, Robert Jones) tells you how Objectivist the philosophy will be.

RJB: "I think any thoughtful religious person like you will find Hudgins piece on creationism to be a thought-provoking, as he is really addressing people like you: not fanatics, but thinking individuals who happen to accept a religious framework."

Even Robert implies its an appeasement of religion with boring generalities. Well you can go to TOC,and read: "Human spirit of Christmas" and "Passions of Moral Message" for clues how this new article keeps it "religious framework."

Post 21

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:11pm

Ramblin' Robert and Ed, congrats on and best of luck with TNI.

How do we introduce Rand's ideas to the American public without appearing to be crackpot crusaders? Is a liberal-type or a conservative-type more likely to support a return to the ideals of the Founders?

I go back and forth. The liberal tends to have a genuine intellectual streak and so they do engage somewhat in ideas. The conservative seems to have a more reasonable "sense" but they tend to avoid engaging in real debate. The liberals tend to be tree-huggers who want to make government larger (if that's even possible). The conservatives tend to look to God for inspiration and are also quite happy to make government larger when it suits their whims.

In the end I shrug because their views are so alien to me. They show no interest in what made America what it is.

Still, it's a noble pursuit to work at spreading Objectivist ideas and I work at it too in my own way. It's hard to be optimistic.

Post 22

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:25pm

Thank you, John. Your concern is one that I share, and in each particular case I have to make a careful judgment about how the presence of a certain writer will be perceived.

Writers such as Bruce Thornton, Hank Holzer, and Robert Jones (to name just three) are known for having a range of views on a wide variety of issues. Their positions are philosophically mixed (though they would probably argue otherwise). As a result, publishing an article by any of them on some specific topic would not suggest to any reasonable reader that I endorsed anything beyond what is contained in the article itself. (This, incidentally, is exactly the same sort of reasoning employed by some prominent ARI-affiliated Objectivists for choosing to appear before certain "mixed" groups: precisely because of that philosophical "mixture," the association does not imply endorsement of some particular position.)

But in some cases I would reject the appearance of a prospective author out of hand. For example, a religious leader, the head of some advocacy organization, or a prominent champion of some cause contrary to Objectivism wouldn't get in the magazine, no matter what the merits of his article. The reason is that such an appearance could be interpreted as implying the compatibility of Objectivism with their very definite anti-Objectivist "isms" or positions. I normally wouldn't risk doing that -- and in extraordinary circumstances where I might, I wouldn't do so without adding an explicit disclaimer as to what was intended by that person's appearance in the magazine.

Happily, that isn't the case regarding any of the philosophically "mixed" non-Objectivists I'm now publishing. However, that could change if any of them becomes prominently identified with some anti-Objectivist position in the future.

Let me also stress that most of the writers who will appear in the magazine are, in fact, Objectivists -- and include members of this SOLO list. I'm working on their manuscripts even now.

So I suggest that those concerned hold their fire until they actually see the magazine -- and then criticize it for its actual contents, rather than for their fears and speculations about what it might contain.

Those who are denouncing it pre-emptively, without having read it, will no doubt continue to embarrass themselves. But meanwhile, fair-minded observers will draw their own conclusions concerning the possible motives for such guttersniping.

Post 23

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:36pm

There is a subtext rolling around here that I want to address.

There is the implication of hypocrisy by TOC or, at the very least, colossal idiocy. I see neither. I see tremendous integrity and a Class A magazine. I'm currently in the middle of reading a terrific article on the erosion and restoration of individualism in America: "The Need for a New Individualism" by Ed Hudgins - the main essay in the Volume 8, Number 1 issue.

Linz was once invited to work at TOC and he left over a disagreement on the rating of New Zealand in terms of freedom, if I remember correctly. He also found the "mingling with the enemy" approach against his nature, so he did the most honorable and morally perfect thing a man can do on this earth.

He built something else to his liking and vision - Solo - and he stayed with the Free Radical. I see tremendous integrity in that act.

Does Linz's act completely invalidate TOC? Of course not. Are they both displaying the highest standards of integrity by being true to their stated goals? Yes. There is even a technical reason for their different approaches.

Their target audiences are different.

I mentioned the following before, but I will mention it again. When I had less sense than I do now, I was acquainted with the underworld in S�o Paulo. There was a saying that was constantly on everybody's lips back then.

Q. Who always wins in a fight between bandits?
A. The cops.

So I ask, who always wins in a fight between the defenders of reason?

Think about it. Then think about the motives of those who encourage such fighting.

Michael

Post 24

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 12:18pm

Robert, you didn't mind giving criticism of "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" before it was even published. 2) I thought someone hired to edit an intellectual magazine would know what an ad hominem argument is? I would have to attack them, or their ideas.

Well at least you admit Jones, Holzer, and Thornton "hold views incompatible with Objectivism." So why are they in an "Objectivist Magazine?"

Post 25

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 1:46pm

For what it's worth, I take the same approach in FreeRad as Robert is describing here with TNI�if the content of an article is sound as far as it goes (& it's well-written) I'll run it, regardless of the writer's stance on other matters (unless the writer is a known scumbag). I've even got a piece in the next issue by a devout Christian, as I gather Robt does in TNI. But the magazine's own stance is laid out unmistakably on the back cover of every issue, along with the disclaimer that the opinions expressed by the writers are not necessarily those of the editor or of each other. Sometimes I have added additional disclaimers at the top of articles. But no point in ghetto-ising the magazine. Lots of non-Objectivists have excellent things to say.

It would be different if the magazine purported to be exclusively by and mainly for Objectivists, but it doesn't.

Sir Edward Hudgins wrote:

... articles for TNI that will best serve their function cannot be either boring term-papers (which would attract the righteous wrath of Linz in any case!) ...

Darn tootin' it would!! :-)

Linz

Post 26

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 1:56pm

Though he does quite well on his own, to buttress Robert B's views further, if Glenn will remember back to The Objectivist, etc Henry Mark Holzer's articles appeared there under Rand's editorship. But I guess if you're not 'pure enough' one shouldn't be allowed to write for TNI.

And to strengthen the case, and generalize it, one should remember back to endorsements of, for example, Brand Blanshard's work. Blanshard, as was noted back in the early 60s, was (and remains) one of the finest critics of 'modern' philosophy of the 20th century. And his own philosophy was quite far from Objectivism. He did believe, however, strongly in reason and basing one's case on logic and fact.

One could make similar statements about Veatch and a number of other writers.

TNI, or any publication, would indeed be fortunate to publish writers and thinkers of that caliber. And if that makes TNI a less than 'purely' Objectivist publication by some absurd standard, then so much the better.

Post 27

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 2:43pm

Robert B,

Congratulations on your new magazine. I wish you well, and to hell with the naysayers who demand Objectivist "purity" of your contributors. It's the message, not the messenger. We need to look for where Objectivist principles manifest themselves throughout this great big world of ours, not just in explicitly Objectivist circles. That's why Linz's advice about not ghettoizing your publication is savvy.

By the way, Linz, I must apologize for my ignorance about your own dead-tree magazine. Looks like there a couple of new subscriptions I should be getting.

Andy

Post 28

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:12pm

Glenn -- Refresh my memory. In which major or other publications does you work appear? And what results have you had in moving people to Objectivism or Objectivist views?

Post 29

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:15pm

You betcha! If you're not a FreeRad subscriber, you're on the lowest rung of hell along with all those suicidists. :-)

Post 30

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:16pm

Andy�the above post was for you. Sir Edward came between us. :-)

Post 31

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:20pm

Well, that might explain why it feels a little hot around here, Linz. Time to reach for the next rung. Will I need to tender kiwi bucks or will greenbacks do? ;-)

Andy

Post 32

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:28pm

I leave all that filthy money stuff to Business Manager Shirley Riddle - shirleyriddle@clear.net.nz

Or just go to www.freeradical.co.nz & hit subscribe

Make sure you give the full 9-digit postal code. We've recently come up against some bureaucratic crap where the US Postal Service refuses to deliver where the code is incomplete. MSK & Adam Reed, your dear friends, can fill you in. :-)

Post 33

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:01pm

Jeff Perren,

I guess you missed this thread: Poll Discussion::favorite Objectivist/libertarian magazine.

Post 34

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 6:27pm

Ed,

"And what results have you had in moving people to Objectivism or Objectivist views?"

Hey, don't ask me question you can't answer about yourself.

Don't start a sentence with "And." Bidinotto will call you a moron.

Post 35

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:16pm

Ed Hudgins and Robert Bidinotto,

May I make a suggestion? If I were you guys, I would refrain from engaging a dumb little troll who is posting on this thread. The work you guys have presented to the world is first class - I am convinced that many people have become acquainted with Ayn Rand's ideas because of your efforts - and you only grant publicity to the unearned by talking to this brat.

Sticking out your tongue instead of arguing is his level of discourse. It does not become either of you two, and that is where he always takes these things.

I have mentioned Nuno Cobra, a Brazilian author, before. I like a saying of his very much. He said that you should never fight an enemy you hold contempt for, so you will not have to lower yourself to the level of that which you repudiate.

You both have excellent careers and good solid names to look after. Now you have this magazine under a new direction. Forget the bullshit, as anybody who listens to that crap would never be a subscriber anyway. In my opinion, The New Individualist is well worth purchasing. It is a bargain for the money. I am putting my money where my mouth is

NOWWWWWWWWW...

(catching the ball from Linz...)

Yes, there was a problem with not receiving the last issue of Free Radical that I subscribed to. (I will leave the backstage correspondences to the readers' imaginations - let's just say that they were very colorful.) Part of the reason for the problem was the US Postal Service - including an insistence on address format and 9 digit Zip Code. As a consolation for not receiving Issue 68 yet, where my article was published, Shirly and Linz sent me several complementary back issues.

Wonderful customer service. (Hear that, Shirl?) I mean it. I am truly grateful for the attention you gave to this problem.

On flipping through the back issues, I see that Free Radical was well worth subscribing to - not just a Solo thing. Another bargain for the money. I will report on an article from those issues from time to time.

In the meanwhile, I cannot recommend a subscription to Free Radical highly enough. Go on. Plunk your money down. You will not regret it.

Michael

Post 36

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:35pm

Glenn:

The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Times (at least a dozen times since joining TOC), the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Boston Globe (see my AR birthday piece!), the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the San Diego Union-Leader, the Orange County Register, the Christian Science Monitor (who no, trouble!), Metro Business Chronicle, Washington Business Journal, Detroit News and Free Press, Investors Business Daily, the Baltimore Sun, East Valley and Scottsdale Tribunes, the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, dozens of smaller papers. Also Forbes magazine, National Review, Reason, Congressional Quarterly Researcher and a bunch others.

On the electronic front, CSPAN, The Bill O'Reilly Show, the Hannity and Colmes Show, the Neil Cavuto Show, the Chris Matthews Show, Fox News w/ Britt Hume, Fox News w/Shepard Smith, MSNBC Coast-to-Coast, CNN Lou Dobbs Show, a number of BBC shows, CNN Financial, Reuters, ABC, CBS and NBC network news, various CNN and MSNBC news shows, various Cox TV affiliates, CNBC's Kudlow and Cramer and a bunch of others.

More radio shows and station than I can count. (For a not up-to-date summary, see http://www.objectivistcenter.org/mediacenter/sightings.asp)

And you Glenn? (Ooops, I started a sentence with "and!")

Post 37

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 9:05pm

Robert, I read your editorial policy and I think it makes a lot of sense.

I used to work for an ideological publication. Often, someone would complain that it was "too radical," while another reader would complain that it was "barely ideological at all." As you know, dealing with that kind of criticism comes with the job, and it never stops.

In the end, you should just trust your own rational judgment and print what you like. You don't need to continually defend yourself to people who haven't a clue about how to produce a high-quality publication. The individuals who appreciate your efforts will undoubtedly far outnumber the ones who don't.

I wish you luck.

Post 38

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:39pm

Ed,

All that work and you still can't answer the question in post 34? Wow, maybe if you had an adequate understanding of Objectivism things would be different.

Now post 36, is an answer what question? Oh, you are answering your own question. That makes a lot of sense.

But you are making my case for me, thank you.

Its not that you don't show up -- its the fact you do that's the intellectual disaster. The appeasements, boring generalities, not making philosophical arguments, and appeals to emotions. A good example, anyone reading your work would never know Objectivism is atheistic.
Even Bidinotto thinks so:
"I think any thoughtful religious person like you will find Hudgins piece on creationism to be thought-provoking, as he is really addressing people like you: not fanatics, but thinking individuals who happen to accept a religious framework."

Post 39

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:29am