IRC log started Fri May 23 21:59 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "The Servitude Summit" and will be moderated by Tom Miovas. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Tom. Ok, as you know, President Clinton had a summit on servitude in which he claimed Americans simply weren't doing enough, and we all need to pitch in a little more. Most of the former presidents and the former Joint Chief of Staff was involved in the paen to altruism. Briefly, what was their message, besides what i just noted? We want your life in our hands:) Anybody else? you have a duty to serve others "I want to redefine citizenship." B.C. That individual productive effort doesn't count. Powell called that "being on the sidelines." That servitude is morally correct. or to be more precise, the productive have a duty mencken: What else did Powell say about that? It's "volunteer"--for now! The only "game" he talked about was volunteering. More than that escapes me. :) Powell said he wanted to give businessmen a guilty conscious. That every citizen has a "duty" to serve Morality requires the productive to seek out the wretched and lift them up. (ie exploit the poor guys) Ok, I think we've covered all the bases. He specifically said that, Tom? That he wanted to give businessmen a guilty conscience? He actually said that? What were some of the other protest's saying about the summit? Subetai: yes. Hmm. Okay. That the voluntary helping of the poor wasn't enough. The state had to force service or the bankrolling of it Was anyone besides ARI protesting the *morality* of the summit? nope Tom: i think we ned to mention that the summits goal was not necessarily helping people, but sacrifice *in and of itself*> thatis why he wants people to volunteer, rather than donate money (which for a high payed person, which would be a much more effective way to actually get help to the kids) Not that I heard about. Some were protesting that it didn't go far enough. Not that I was aware of. A few others made comments against it for the media. But there was no other organized protest at the summit. So, given the wide coverage of the summit, it was basically our culture versus ARI? the arguments were typically about the mandatory service for students and such Sacrifice per se wasn't its explicit goal, to be perfectly accurate. It was implicit in many of the comments made. our culture? There were other protests, but not on moral terms Subetai: but did those others actually speak out against altruism as the ideal? As I said, "volunteer"--for now! I'd say more like the political-media culture vs. ARI. kpart: Well, the predominant culture of the USA. Jon: Right, labor unions argues that it would take jobs away from them. How about: our *intellectuals* vs ARI I'm not sure, Tom. I heard TJ Rodgers made some comments about that, but I didn't personally read what he said. joe: I'll buy that ;) Others felt that money would be better spent on healthcare, the envrionment, etc. There were the people that didn't want the government to waste money on this volunteerism gig, but put it into health services and such that are "proper" government functions. I think this was the first major *philosophic* protest in this country...any one disagree? The most common objection i heard was that the govt. should be doing theses things. Subetai: TJ Rodgers' NY Times article was mostly utilitarian in its orientation, and only in the last paragraph did he hint at morality, writing "...a moral principle long forgotten in Washington." He didn't name the principle. Some of the actual volunteer groups themselves protested that it undervalued what they did. TomM: aside from the Am. revolution ;-) Frode: ok Well, if we discount that "TJ Rodgers vs. the nun" thing, I'd tend to agree. joe: Or that the government should stay out of it, since altruism is a private thing. Sube: TJ Rogers made pragmatic arguments rather than moral ones. What was ARI's message? The first major philosophic picketing, you mean? I'd doubt that, actually. Tom: exactly: the right vs the left. mencken: Were the protests of the 60's philosophical? (I assume that's what you are referring to.) There was a MY Times article by a young lady from PA who was denied a diploma because she wouldn't serve. (Objectivists were behind that one.) weren't a lot of the (leftist) 1960's protests philosophical? Some of them were at times, especially earlier in the war. But not many, true. Betsy: sure, but she didn't really protest the morality of altruism. I think "pro-reason, pro-egoism philosophical" was implicit in the question. Betsy: That's the daughter of that Objectivist psychologist who has a radio talk show? I forgot the name, now.. Joe: Infighting among Kantians, little more than that. Maybe we ought to skip the 60's for the time being. Tom: I think it was the first philosophic issue Objectivists made an explicit issue of I can think of a handful of other cases, mostly local. Joe: The _New_ Left of the '60's was blantantly anti-ideological. Betsy: ok. Odegard: That wasn't Ellen Kenner's daughter Naomi, if that's who you mean. BlueGreen: Not quite true, ARI has sponsored several full-page ads of protest in the NY times in the past. The SNCCers and Quakers I once worked with were more philosophical in their protests. Betsy: She was the one who got national attention? I didn't catch the relationship. Tom: Ah...was not aware of that. Hard to get the NYT in the Canadian sticks :) Anyhow, what was the message of ARI's protest? Women's right to vote protests? Betsy: Oh, okay, though Naomi was the one on the Peikoff show, right? Something about how her Mom had had a talk with the school board. :) ARI's message was that the government has no right to control the public by forcing our youth to "volunteer" their time and talents. "Your life is your own." Amy: I think it went deeper than that. Kyle: that's closer. Altruism is immoral. Subetai: Bingo. With the elaboration that it was *not* altruism that once made this country great. Don't know how clearly that message came across, though. the problems of this country are not a result of a lack of self sacrifice, and having more won't help. The elaboration that SELFISHNESS made this country great. Tom: The ARI's message was that No human being has a "duty" to any other human being Why is such a message important? i mean, why not keep quiet about it and let people volunteer if they feel like it? Jim: Right. Subetai: that's the next question ;) Because letting the premise get established would lose 90% of the battle. kyle; What battle? Not doing anything about it sanctions it BlueGreen: Why? such things are said every day. why protest this time? Because (1) it promotes something in the culture that's going to hurt us, sooner or later (2) because we have a say in how the country's run, like anybody else. Anybody else? Because this was a very clear-cut case. Tom:One should protest every time. I think it had to be done this time because it was a trial balloon of how well American's respected freedom vs government enslavement. I agree that this was a very clear issue. After all, if the government was not directly involved, we could have let it pass as just another cultural suicide attempt. I agree with Tom. The fundamentality of the issue makes it a touchstone -- if the road had been left clear the steamrollers would have been right behind. And people could have spoken out privately, as they had the time. TomM: Sort of running it up the flag pole, and hoping people would salute? (Apologies for the mixed metaphor.) Stephen: a very good analogy ;) So, if the message was that altruism is anti-American, how well was the message presented? Presented, or conveyed by the media? Jon: Both. Unfortunately, most people are buying it, or ignoring it. Very few are opposing it. JonA: more like mangled by the media not very well. CNN couldn;t even decide how to prounce "Ayn" Let's stick with ARI's presentation first. Well, I think they made it clear it was "anti-American" all right. I don't think that equates with "immoral" in most people's minds. TomM: I think it was presented very well to its target audience: the average American. Rush Limbaugh, who is quite typical of the group got it. In other words, were the opinion papers and the protest signs adequate for presenting the message? Betsy: i would argue that he didn't. People typically understand by "Anti American" something that goes against long tradition. ARI's LTEs made the messageq quite clear. I thin kthe Bloomburg radio intervuew did as well Did ARI present the message in terms of essentials with good examples? TomM: The signs were as good as they could be given so limited a medium, but the op/ed pieces were excellent and made USA Today and the L.A. Times. when you have only a limited time, isn't it better to use words like "individualism" and "self-sacrifice", rather than (respectively) "selfishness" and "altruism", since these latter terms have so much baggage attached to them? I don't think 'anti-American' worked, because the proponents were using de Tocqueville to support their claims that volunteerism was a large part of the growth of this country. I agree, joe joe: Maybe, but I'm more concerned with: If an intelligent reader read the opinion papers, would the message be clear? Tom: don't get your question. I thought the message was quite clear; I'm less sure about how persuasive it would be to those not already in agreement. TomM: I gave copies of the op/eds to intelligent non-Objectivists at work and most of them got it. Jon: Aren't those people dropping the context of what was meant by "volunteering"? Betsy: Ok, that will do as a test case. joe: I guess what I'm asking is: Were the papers self-contained? As stand-alone articles explaining the issue? tom: oh ok, yes. I would say that de Tocqueville did. I found it interesting. If an individualist went to soviet russia and wrote about the society as he saw it, and Stalin used that as the basis for his political decisions, we'd say he was an insane political short-timer. Apparently the same standards don't hold here. Tom: If by "intelligent reader" you are refering to an Objectivist -yes. If you mean intelligent in terms of todays standard then - no. It would be going against most "intelligent" peoples philosophy. There core belief system. The one on Volunteerisn destryong education wasnt but I think the others were TomM: The op/eds didn't say _everything_, but they certainly said _something_. BlueGreen: I think one has to separate out understanding from agreement. Ok, I think they did a marvelous job, and hopefully got a lot of people thinking. Which leads to the next question: How well was ARI's message received? Perhaps op-eds should be tested on a sample (of the ultimate target) audience to see how effective the presentation is. The was a set of people who read the op-eds, a subset who understood, a subset who agreed, and an even smaller subset who perceived the need for action. I think it was received very positively, given that it attacked something a lot of people accept unquestioningly. The "media" hardly covered the protests. Tom: perhaps you should first ask how welldid the summit "trial baloon" fly w/the Am. public. Just for some background. I listen to rush very often. A few weeks, and up to a few days, before the summit, he was silent. Then he read Harriman's paper. joe: Ok, we'll take up that issue. Jay: For such a small protest, it wasn't bad. I think Rush reading that paper is a good sign, even though I think he rejects the explicit morality therein. A few people who were there stoppped by here and mentioned that their presence was VERY demoralizing to the organizers joe: You brought up a question, can you answer it? Tom: no, because i have not been to the US recently :-) TomM: I listenned to Rush on that day, which is how I found out about Harriman's paper, and Rush claimed that he had finally found someone publishing that agreed with him, implying that he already held the views... but like the essay. joe: Ok ;) Limbaugh talked about it "a little" the day before he read Harriman's paper--said the summit made him "uneasy". Jim: True, but I noticed he didn't read the whole thing. The parts he skipped, or elaborated on, where the core moral denouncement of the summit. What was impressive for me was that after Rush read Harriman's paper, he actually championed selfishness for awhile. Days later, he was back to disavowing achievement as selfish. Bu t a general question to americans: what did the people around you (collegues at work, people on the street, neighbors, etc.) say about the summit. did they even know it was going on? Jim_N: So much for Limbaugh :( In short, rush is too Christian to accept the ARI view entirely. Tom: a question: How "big" is Rush in media, in USA today? (As a foreigner, I heard about Rush a couple of years ago, the Swedish media said he was one of the important force of the conservative "revolution".) The exposure of the O'ist position on Limbaugh was fine, but isn't anyone uneasy about such an alliance? Smells like a 1930's Nonaggression Pact. Jim_N: He really said that ? Achievement is bad and selfish? (By the way, I don't intent=d to keep Rush's name small...sorry Rush.) ;) Stephen: there's no alliance. He helps O'ism unwittingly by talking about it. Odegard: No, he loves achievement, but doesn't call it selfish. He can't accept that it is selfish. Stephen: Rush is allying with US. We're not allying with HIM. Trader: he is that, and I think him reading the paper represents a good step forward for this country. Jim: Right. that's why I said he couldn't accept the paper fully. Jim_N: But you said he disavowed achievement as selfish? Odegard: When reading Harriman's essay, Rush was for a moment aware that productiveness is selfish and is properly defended as such. Sube & Betsy: But he excluded the philosophical underpinning of the argument. Did Rush speak about ARI? or just about the Paper - and speak in opposition to the ideas of endentured servitude enforced by the govt? (just curious) To answer the earlier question, I don't think American's accepted the summit as much as the Left/Mid would like it to have been accepted. megsi; I heard he did mention The Ayn Rand Institute. He mentioned that Harriman was with ARI. megsi: He mentioned ARI explicitly...and they were listening ;) ok :) Odegard: Sorry, I meant that he stopped defending achievement on selfish grounds. Stephen: The fact that he read it is a start. Rush's heart is often in the right place, but his head needs help. ARI can supply people like him with the intellectual ammunition they need. Stephen: It helps that people talk about it. Makes people curious to find out what it is. Next major question: What difference did ARI's protest make? Tom: did americans consider it and reject it, or just ignore it? Jim_N: ok joe: That's the present question ;) TomM: Well, the institute got some media attention! Rush Limbaugh would be a very dangerous man to the modern govt if he started speaking like an objectivist :) If pigs had wings... TomM: I think it's too soon to tell. I think is will have an enormous effect, but we will only see it in hindsight about 10-20 years from now. ...then they'd fly? Odegard: Lots! But is there any evidence people are more curious about Objectivism now compared to before the protest? :) Novak ("on the right") of CNN's crossfire made some comments that sound ike he rea some of the ARI materials. Well, what were the statistics on the ARI web site like during and after the protest? tom: around me, I haven't noticed a thing! nobody's talking about it, I haven't seen anything in the newspaper or on TV. but... Betsy: I tend to agree. We can not go around expecting "instant conversions." It's bad for morale ;) My local newspaper had an op/ed by a syndicated writer (Hearst papers) who mentioned ARI by name in an article about the Summit. someone DID write "who is John Galt" with gum on gum alley gum alley? Jon: I haven't checked on that. However, there were upwards of 50 protest interviews. JonA: Not as high as they had hoped, but it's an improvement. It did cause a huge increase in donations from existing ARI donors, though. JonA: Keep in mind that the institute is pretty new to the web - they'll get better at exploiting it as they go along. megsi, yeah, it's pretty neat Odegard: Mostly to fund the protest, I'm sure. Joe:But Novak remains a devout religionist, mouthing "some" of ARI's points to push his adgenda hardly makes him or Rush a tool. I question who's being used, by whom. "neat" is one word for it. ;-) stephen: sure. Tom:Someone out there might have gotten an answer to philisophical questions bothering them,or an avenue to persue their thinking along more rational grounds TomM: Partially that, but also because donors are inspired when they see the institute go out there and drum up some attention. Follow-up question: Given the media attention (or lack thereof), are there signs Objectivism is becoming accepted? BlueGreen: That's the hope, but can you point to cases? Odegard: No doubt. Nope :) Stephen - don't you think that is important that the ideas are percolating through the media as a result of this summit - maybe not promotion for ARI - but promotion for sound ethics.. In that sense I think it was a success Tom: accepted by whom? the intellectuals/media? or the public? Tom: Not yet, it'll take more of this for it to be _known_. I think a combination of current event commentary and activism and long-term work in universities is needed. joe: Anyone. TomM: one example, see magazine Forbes, issue May 5th. Ok, given the hoopla surrounding the summit, is there evidence ARI's bold stance encouraged anyone not associated with Objectivism to speak out against the summit? TomM: We're considered a "mainstream minority" with something interesting to say on important issues. We've come a long way from the old days when we were ignored. The media came to _us_ this time. trader: Yes. I'm more optimistic than ever, though - as the movement becomes more visible in the media it is able to get more funding and we'll continue to grow. Tom: maybe not to speak out, but perhaps to question it for themselves. Betsy: Yes, that's really awesome. Betsy: Uh...maybe. The media was sent pre-announcement papers ;) TomM: No, really, the media did contact ARI and also Ken West, editor of AOB News. I got the impression from listening to Rush, that he may not have known what to say without Harriman's paper, but I might be wrong. Trader: Forbes is becoming an Objectivist front. There are Objectivist staff writers and they are looking to bring more on board. Odegard: Ok. But after the press releases, I'm sure. TomM: Ask Scott at ARI, I don't know in detail.. Odegard: I agree, and I see look forward to a sunlit future in USA! :) Betsy: Objectivist staff writers?! Wow... how many? TomM: USA today came to ARI. Harriman wrote an op/ed a while ago that got LOTSA responses. ;-) I don't mean to keep plugging Rush, since most of us know he is not an Objectivist by a long shot, but he has an audience of 20 million. And *that* kicked the protest off to a good start. -see Now if they can only get the Bible quotes out of there. I think ARI needs to take some lessens from PETA about getting attention :) Betsy: Ah...didn't know all that ;) Odegard: Amen ;) Betsy: Great! :) Odegard: Look for anything by Brigid McMenamin and the new web-based "digit Tool." "digit Tool" ? Is that on the Forbes web site? Betsy: Btw: How is Steve Forbes planning his comeback? Madelaine: Keep in mind this was ARI's very first organized protest. They will learn. Odegard: A new Forbes technology magazine online, I hear. Trader: Don't know. "Digital Tool" would sound more likely. :) what took them so long? Thanks, I'll take a peek. Odegard: Right. Ok, the hour is about up. Any last thoughts about the protest and the summit? TomM: Only that we need more of this kind of media visibility. I should mention that a few of us were protesting on the summit's front porch web-wise. We were posting letters to the Summit Action Youth open forum, and may -- stress may -- have reached a few on-lookers. We need a blitz of op-eds and letters to the editor. Yes. I'm doing a little 'net work for ARI. How many people have high school and college students in your e-mail address books? Would you be willing to send a message addressed to them from ARI? Media "hits" grow exponentially. Since media research is so shoddy and typically involves mostly searching old news databases, the presence of a few mentions in the media can quickly grow. A media blitz requires a media event. many are not open to this sort of protest. Betsy: I would. They don't have to be Objectivists. We want to circulate a "read and forward" chain letter about the no_servitude petition. Tom: That it is amazing that the summit could even occur. One should always pronounce moral judgement whenever evil ideas are floated so that it will not come to the world stage with such acceptance I was very surprised to hear ARI being mentioned every hour on the hour by CNN on the Sunday before the summit. joe: Good point - if ARI keeps popping up everywhere when journalists do research, it will be mentioned more often. betsy, I'll help... and I'm not an O'ist... I have plenty-o-student friends they might even be sought out for opinions, to "balance out" a story. BG: It was a trial balloon, to see if American's were willing to accept servitude by draft. I think they rejected it, but on the wrong grounds. We must position ourselves as "the other side of the story." Then we can demand -- and get -- coverage. Tom: on what grounds did they reject it? You all sound very optimistic. joe: They rejected it on the grounds that if they are forced to do it, no moral worth comes of it. Tomm eww Betsy: Yes, so it's important to pick causes where we make up the other side almost in its entierty. Then they'll have no choice (the journalists) but to give us attention. sounds like Murray Rothbard we have to be, Jay, our freedom depends on it joe: A kind of secular Christian view. tom: ok, well at least that is halfway there :-/ TomM: Exactly! Rather than reject on moral grounds, most Americans reacted viscerally to the Govt. telling them what to do. They didn't reject the tenets of altruism. I think most American rejected it for the same reason Rush L. did: it made them "uneasy." Now it's up to us to tell them WHY. joe: it may stop a dictatorship long enough for us to win the minds of enough people to make a difference. Are this observations of the public first hand? Stephen: I quoted Galt in one of my protest letters to SAY: Now is the time, not for you to return to morality, but to discover it. Does anybody have any kids that are going to be affected negatively by the proposals? joe: it's what they said when asked on virtually all avenues. TomM: Excellent quote. ok In that sense.. I mean - kids that are going to end up having to put in their slave time - in order to get their degrees? Megsi: A 13 year-old son and I hope not. Maybe I'll pull and "Ellen Kenner" and be "very vocal." I did get one letter from a Catholic teacher involved in the SAY group, thanking me for my input, but nothing since then. Betsy good on you Good night all. Thanks for a very interesting discussion. what has happened to the kids who refuse to comply and are refused diplomas? are they being addmitted to universities? Betsy: Was Kenner's daughter the one interviewed on "Good Morning America"? joe: No, they must get a GED. where is this happening TomM? Tom: I didn't hear about that. Jason Crawford was on C-SPAN and MSNBC. Betsy: I don't think it was her. I think it was that other girl who refused to graduate under the government thumb. ok. I would imagine that that depends upon the university tom: you mean the uiversities won't admit them unless they get a GED? does it affect theur chances of admission at the better uiversities? (Admission decisios usually come in before graduation time). How easy is it to get a GED? most admissions are based on grades + test scores megsi: Where is what happening? Denial of diploma's? In Maryland. I think strategically - those are the people that the ARI should pay attention to- in terms of showing the courage under fire of young people refusing to be chattel for the state TomM: That was the gal from PA. Objectivists have been involved with the group supporting her -- Paul Saunders organized it an Tom Bowden gave them legal representation. Tomm - I just wondered how wide spread the refusal of diploma's was TomM: Yes, in Maryland right now, and possibly in other states too, though I don't know which. joe: Those are good questions, but they are denied high school diplomas. admission is usually decided before HS graduation, anyway Betsy: That's the one. I had acceptance letters by Nov of senior year, if I recall wright: but may be conditional on graduation though. Joe: Jason Crawford got a GED and accepted at MIT, CalTech, and Carnegie-Mellon. usually conditional on grades... not sure what they would do in a case like that betsy: ok. maybe those universities never knew he didn't get his diploma? Blatantly unconstitutional. joe: I think if you can pass their tests, you can get in. Standard practice is that colleges want final transcripts Joe: He was "homeschooled" and his SAT's were so good that nobody cared. they reserve the right to cancel admissions if grades drop too low it's unusual, but it happens It would be realy neat if these kids' stories could make it to one of the TV news magazine shows (e.g. 60 minutes, 20/20, etc.) This sounds like somethig they might be intersted in. is there any way to lobby them? This is something that I wonder about.... Anybody hear if ARI got flooded with requests for more information since the protest? Public schools are funded by the govt. and I feel in a sense that a child does not have the right to a diploma any more than they have the right to an education... Naomi Kenner got a "special exemption" from service when her mother "got vocal" in front of the school board. That all right was for Kenner...but congrats to Wright as well ;) megsi: they do if they are paying for it (as a taxpayer) And if the govt - giving out this education wants to extract service in exchange.. I think that I don't have a problem with that Scheduled part of the discussion is now over. Thanks, Tom. :) If they try to get my son, I'm going to make a big, fat, public stink and complain that they are encroaching on my parental rights by forcing him to take part in a "religious rite" that is against our family's moral code. joe - but this is sort of the problem of the socialization of education... if the govt - take money to deliver this product... and we give it that kind of control over our kids... we have sort of given them the authority to make a stipulation on recieving of degrees.. Private schools are I think in a different category You are welcome. I think it went very smoothly. Thanks Tom. Yeah. :) Thanks Tom. Thanks Tom Thanks Tom for the discussion Betsy: You may be able to argue it that way. Let's hope so, anyhow. Thanks for hosting, Tom. Next issue: World Peace! ;) Not "World Hunger"? megsi: yes, but given govt run education, there are some basics they have to stick to: no religion, no slavery. Subetai: Peace must come first. :) Joe - In that sense. I believe you are correct since - they also regulate that you must give your child an education... Night Elaine. goodnight That one's easy Tom. Everyone just give up all rights including property and we will achieve world peace. We will achieve the "peace" all the empty headed hippies were clammoring for. The peace of the non-living. BG: And I thought it was going to be difficult to resolve ;) :) star trek peace nanou nanou peace winnie the pooh peace BlueGreen: I believe it will take much more than that. Stephen: Huh? winnie manedela peace Jimminey "wishful thinking" Cricket peace BlueGreen: "giving up..." Stephen: I don't believe that World peace is valid goal. Establishing individual rights in a irrational world is. I just think that it's going to be a much longer, harder road than some people believe. Just finished Florence King's The Misanthrope's Corner. Back page of The National Review. (only place she's published, only reason to by the NR) Skewers the Servitude Summit. Recommend highly.