IRC log started Fri Aug 30 21:53 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 Washington Post article on Ayn Rand, and will be moderated by Tym Parsons. 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 Tom Wright. Go ahead, Tym. :) OK, I expect that this topic will have trouble eliciting discussion. So first off, what is the significance of the Washington Post article? Will not have trouble rather Let the fray begin. I think it will immediately attract the type of person who would like to prove Ayn Rand Wrong, but they will come away with a different view. I think it's good for Objectivism in general, even though it says some negative things about Rand. Okay, I'll start. Hatchet job under guise of objectivity. Tym: They are reporting a fact -- that Ayn Rand's influence is growing. They don't know why or what it means. I think that the article, even with its negative elements, will attract more people to Objectivism. (Gardner@U) The significance is that it is a major piece of news media that actually refers to authoritative sources about Ayn Rand's ideas and life. (Angus_@U) It said some very negative things about objectivism also. Or implied them. I would suggest that the real signficance is that it suggests that the left has finally recognize the real comepetition. Betsy: could you elaborate? Don: I don't think so. I just think they didn't want to write about Republicans OR Clinton. The article almost has shades of the Alan Sokal affair Observe that it was a FEATURED story in the SUNDAY paper with a teaser on the outside of the paper. They know Ayn Rand is popular and that her name sells papers (for some reason). back in a bit Betsy: and the fact that Rand's ideas aren't a fad, AREN'T going away....:) OK next... JayT: You may well be correct. However the article was most definitely an attack on Ayn Rand and her ideas. I want to look at parts of the article in particular to tell us the author had in mind, and what he actually conveyed. Don: agreed. Tym: Bottom line: Ayn Rand is what's happening. Ayn Rand is NEWS. I liked the following line: "-- the culture's ongoing fascination with Rand begins to make some sense. She was dealing in ideas that are still very much on our minds." Betsy: You ARE the eternal optimist! Ayn Rand has been "news" since the 50's. :) He is acknowledging the *universal* relevance of her ideas. Jay: Just realistic. The Post doesn't understand Rand, but they know a trend when they see one. Tym: The author doesn't seem to know the definition of altruism. Note the end of the article, where he talks about Rand's gift to Mimi, he implies that this contradicts her beliefs. BradA: I notice to that the author did his best to denigrate those ideas--albeit unsuccessfully. What are we to make of the following quote? Draeco: Or that being "sensual" is opposed to being "rational." Such is the content of an Ayn Rand book. Though, like all novelists, she is concerned with the inner lives and the fates of individual characters, it is the macro-political and social questions that really engage her, and they are the sorts of questions we still hear every day. Is it really true that that was what really engaged Rand? Draeco: The author was obviously an altruist. But I found interesting that he didn't stridently attack her egoism, and seemed to be more wistful about altruism, than defensive -- as if its demise was already a fait acompli. Tym- Yes, but not exclusively those things. Well for one thing, politics is only slightly less important than breathing. (Which sentiment, I am beginning to share.) I don't think the writer was deliberately trying to put AR down. He was just trying to report about something his concrete-bound mind couldn't fathom and it came out like that. Betsy: yup! Note that he says that Atlas shrugged is second only in influence to the Bible. He didn't pick up on the absurdity of the book coming second to pure mysticism. I think it would be extremely difficult to try to sell hardcore altruism openly anymore, and I think Rand has had a significant hand in this -- she is what I call a "Toohey buster". Betsy: Surely you are not suggesting that Mr. Powers suffers from ossification of the neurons? OK, comments on this: And what happens to the individual in a Rand novel? If he is a hero, he spouts stilted, chilly pronouncements about his principles, and never ever compromises them. In the end he triumphs over his enemies, who are despicable do-gooders, moral relativists, socialists. Tym: Well, re "macro-political/social" -- just look at the space Ayn Rand devoted to social commentary. Sounds good to me! "never even compromises them", he seems to think that man is incapable of adhering to principles. Tym: I had to read that sentence more than once. It seems to have suffered from a typo. Nevertheless we can expect... Brad: the thing that annoys me is they didn't refer to her theory of concepts :/ Tym: the "extremism monster" to rear his head in the near future. Thanks so much, Sube. no problem Or it's an attempt to denigarte the quality of her fictional writing. Tym: I *really* wanted to ask him personally, whether he thought heros should *sacrifice* their principles, and act like louts! Don: He is a typical journalist. If one person says something it is a rumor. If two people say it, it is a confirmed story. If three people say something, it is a confirmed fact. He took all the things people said about Rand and tried to make sense out of it without looking at his subject first-hand. Typical. Brad: so should the heros NOT be "stilted" and what does that mean? heroes Tym: Well, he most obviously does not have the conception of the importance of philosophy, and its relation to other fields of knowledge, as Objectivists do. Brad: I doubt if Powers knows what a principle IS. Not "naturalistic". Brad: and I think that's a BIG area that O'ists should concentrate on. Otherwise it's just "my morality over yours". Tym: His esthetic evaluation of Rand's works was laughable, but he did not provide any arguments or representative evidence to support his view. Betsy: I have to disagree. I think Mr. Powers knows what principles are and he fears them--or people that adhere to them. Brad: but she's typically described that way. Tym: True, that what I heard from quite a few high school english teachers. Betsy: Oh, he seems to think principles are BAD -- they are the things intransigent heros like Rand's refuse to sacrifice. Don: What evidence do you have? There is PLENTY of evidence in the article for the author's concrete-boundedness. Tym: I find it difficult to take seriously the pronouncements of an esthetic establishment on Rand, based on today's cultural wasteland. They will all get exactly what they deserve. Modern intellectuals are in their own little shrinking universe. What I see is bad psycho-epistemology leading to the inability to deal with ethics or esthetics. What are some of the unusually accurate perceptions in the article? Betsy: right! Tym:How well her books are selling. Betsy: Quoting Powers "This brave loner, willing to stand up for himself (or herself) against....etc Tym: A couple of times he managed to quote people who knew what they were talking about, but a quotes a quote. I think he's a typical skeptic. He would be making the same type of comments about anyone who had definite convictions about anything. Tym- What someone already pointed out, that Rand's ideas are relevant to the world of today. The left is intellectually bankrupt, and being mostly subjectivist, it will attach itself to whatever sounds good intellectually and appears to be popular Here is one: "Rand poses such questions not in the dreary rhetoric of convention speeches and Op-Ed pieces, but through dramatic, and often melodramatic, stories of individuals. This conception of fiction as applied political theory -- Hobbes meets the Harlequin romance -- is one reason for her endurance" Aaron: yes! :) What a wonderful essay....humph! NOT. This is Rand's view of literature as morality's handmaiden. Brad: It's not a handmaiden... Can an altruist also be a skeptic? Jay: Can an altruist be anything but a skeptic? Brad: and that ties in with the fact that it characterised Rand as a *woman* doing philosophy. I think Powers was trying to report that (for some unknown reason) a lot of people think Ayn Rand is relevant. What Powers thinks is a stab in the dark at an explanation. (ToddM@U) Subetai, I found it and have read it. Thanks again:) How do I connect to hypermall? (Subetai@U) Todd: Type "/server irc.hypermall.com" Betsy: yes, and I want to examine that more closely. TomM: Sure. An altruist can be a mystic. Jay: fundamentally, an altruist *must* be a skeptic, since only individual minds are capabl;e of understanding exist3ence. -3 FB: I have this hypothesis that modern liberals are undergoing a fairly rapid metamorphosis from altruism/collectivism, to individualism -- many liberals have claimed to be champions of the individual, and the secular left has always been more intellectual than the mystic right. Philosophy DOES work, and does obey the law of identity. Brad: Did you see Clinton's speech? Those who have a reasonable respect for reason, and mixed premises, can, on average, be expected to migrate to the better side of their mixtures, over time, if presented with better ideas. BradA:yes BradA: You're talking about the OLD liberals. They had principles. The young liberals are goons. BradA: This is an interesting theory. What do you see as evidence for it? Tom: No. But I am not claiming victory *yet*. Brad: and that's precisely why the appearance of the article is so encouraging. What are we to make of this: So why does she make us so squeamish? Tom: Ayn Rand used almost that exact phrase "literature is the handmaiden of morality", I believe. "So why does she make us so squeamish? Because she demands that we think! I think this is telling. Tym: I suspect it is because accepting objectivism means throwing out most of the old Christian morality. Don: OK hi all, sorry Im late, I had to finish reading the article. Brad: The Catholics said "Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology." I think that was the reference. greetings and salutations all Don: every generation or so has had the opportunity to accept Rand, and most of them don't. Hi Don: As evidence, I see the growing loss of interest of liberals in foisting more left-wing programs, and more "moderates" and even conservatives in their ranks, becoming influential. That has happened in the Liberal party here in Canada. There is a positive little battle going on internally, between the left-wing and right-wing factions. Tym: Most of them don;t HAVE to accept Rand. History is made by a minority of principled people. Tym: Agreed. However, we still see an increase in numbers each year. It is a heartening thing. Don: you mean that they can't have their altruist cake and accept Rand? Betsy: let's assume that's what we're talking about then. Tym: Absolutely. As a recovering Christian I can readily attest to this as a fact. (Angus_@U) Right. She demands that people think, achieve self-respect, and these threaten any subjectivist's system of ethics. It makes him sqeamish because she says he should not exist in a rational world. Tym: Objectivists have pretty well cornered the market on thinking people. Notice how Powell cannot conceive of having a self-contained motivation -- he cannot consider any goal or ideal as inspiring (he uses words like "cold", "bracing", etc.) unless it is directed at *others*. Brad: That's HIS problem. ;-) I lost connection for a few minutes.... ;( He seems a cross between Peter Keating and the bleeding heart wimpering of one of Rand's secondary altruist villains. Brad: Or more like the villians around Mr. thompson: We didn't really hear that, did we?" BradA: Ooh! Good observation! Let's see if we can figure out which one would fit him best. Angus: notice that it shows that there's a feeling of national GUILT, that people can't blank her out entirely. Ayn Rand is definitely not going away. BUT, Christianity did blank out Aristotle for 1000 years! What sorts of opportunities does this article portend for Objectivists? There is no question about that Betsy:) Tym: The opportunity to be the only ones who know what really going on ;) Tym: I think he has invited some pungent mail from me for one thing. I dislike the way he characterized me. I just love this part: TomM:Isn't that Casandra's curse? (Angus_@U) don: Keating recognized that Roark was correct, but couldn't accept it because of his compromises to "what everyeone else thinks." The Whimperers wouldn't even have listened to Roark in the first place. Perhaps this is because today Rand is, as she was during her lifetime, simultaneously one of the most intensely loved and deeply despised American thinkers, and the two sentiments somehow cancel each other out, leaving a weird silence. Tym: I would point out to newspaper editors that Newsweek and the Washington Post say Ayn Rand is what's happening. I'd hit them up for an Objectivist columnist ("Every paper should have at leat ONE.") Don: YES! We can all comment on it and generate comment on it in the media ourselves. Betsy: brilliant! :) (Angus_@U) The two are not cancelling each other out. Rather, those who resent her cannot think of a good argument. Those who love her feel that she is too sacred a thing to be discussed with those who hate her. They only cancel each other out if we compromise with the despisers Actually, there is no silence, it's wishful thinking on his part. But wishing won't make it so ;) (Angus_@U) This is why there is such silence in general conversation. Tom: I think the "weird silence" he's referring to is the guilt part again. Tym: I think Dr. Peikoff hit on the head. Both sides have problems with Objectivism and things they like about it. All this is "nice", but the US is still going down. If there is silence (which characterization I disagree with) the explanation is that people *are* talking about Miss Rand and Objectivism, but they aren't listening. msg madelaine I see. (Angus_@U) There is a lot of discussion among those who love her, and there is discussion among those who despise her. doh! When was the last time that Ayn Rand's ideas were this popular, or at least scrutinised so? ....and WHAT happened? (Angus_@U) But I've never heard anyone talking about her much at all in general conversation, and they always talk about shakespeare, Poe, etc Tym: I've seen it as a growing (and now snowballing) trend for almost 35 years. Angus: I rarely hear those names pronounced...you must be living in a utopia of literati ;) Canada's Globe and Mail has a very Objectist-friendly columnist, who is probably the most read columnist -- he certainly is regularly attacked by prominent left-wing figures in the Letters section! He is great as a means of building readership and sparking debate. That is what newspaper *owners* should be interested in. :) I dont think they are listening because they have no explicit knowledge of her philosophy. As Rand says, "you cant start discussing a philosophy in the middle and get anywhere." (Angus_@U) tom: Not quite. I live in Alabama. It isn't a utopia of anything. Brad: Yep, controversy sells newsprint. "Ayn Rand's ideas sell product, regardless of one's views on them." Betsy: so yr definitely of the view that it's not going to subside? It can't subside. Tym: _I'M_ not going to subside. Are you? Angus: Oh, that explains it, then. Alabama is centuries behind : ) I know, because I used to live in Mississippi. Subetai, Betsy: what is the difference btw this crest, and say, the early Sixties? Truth has this funny way of overwhelming wishful thinking. Tym: This is more broadly based and runs deeper. In the sixties it was all really just based on Ayn Rand. Don: And the "truth" here is that we get Dole or Clinton, not Piekoff! Betsy: I started Rand, in the late Seventies when she was more underground. It was years before I met other Objectivists. Betsy: and that helps explain why *I* won't subside :) JayT: I intend to vote for Clinton. He is far less dangerous than that pair or their Christian janissairies. Tym: Old Objectivists die out slower than new ones are made. Betsy: OK, good. This is totally crucial. Betsy, you are right. It is growing and will always grow. Peikoff is leaning toward Dole, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. The men of mind kept Aristotle's writings alive and the same will happen with Rand's writings. Subetai: Old pseudo-Objectivists die out -- thank God! I;'m still here. What are we to make of this? Comments? Glenn, you are absolutely correct:) This kind of thing doesn't bother the earnest college sophomore cruising the cafeteria of life philosophies, but sophisticated adults won't swallow such writing. GlennM: Let's hope it doesn't get that rough again. The dark ages were dark enough and there were no nukes in the mix. GlennM: I do believe that, but I don't think I'll live to see it. Tym: Well, it's wrong. Here is Ayn Rand's quote on literature: "Art is the indispensible medium for the communication of a moral ideal." Psycho-epistemology of Art. (Angus_@U) It seems that he doesn't see the meaning of the passionate scenes of the books. Tym: As a "sophisticated adult" I would like to take issue with that statement. Betsy: since you have a perspective on the Sixties that most people here don't, that's very convincing sign of change. Tym, the person who wrote this needs to define sophisticated. that's just argument from intimitation. "No sophisticated adult would find the writing acceptable." Tym: That smear-phrase is the typical, "I read Ayn Rand but then I grew up." Angus: It would be easier to list the things he _does_ see (if anything) than all the things he doesn't. ;-) Todd, Betsy: what do people always say this, when it's so wrong? What should we do, if anything to disabuse people of this? ToddM: Do the "sophisticated" indulge in sophistry? Sounds like that is what he means. Tym: You could ask them if they always employ ridicule as a substitute for discussion of the facts. (Angus_@U) He talks like they are two separate things, the sensuality is just thrown into so people who read harlequin romances will buy her books. Brad: yup! (Angus_@U) betsy: Very true. The fact that the Left feels compelled to bring Objectivism/Rand up even to smear her is an indication that the ideas are too pervasive for them to ignore any longer Tym: They say that because that's how THEY (or the people they know) took Objectivism. Most people give up all their ideals by the time they are thirty -- not just our ideals. phil: yes. That's the essential significance of the article. Don, I think he means psuedo-intellectuals who are "sophisticated" because they are popular. Betsy: they do? Esplain. ToddM: You may well be correct. Mr. Powers may not be sophisticated enough to know what sophistry is. Tym: Most people never take ideas seriously and give up what personal values they have much too easlity -- a la Peter Keating. That phrase is "I liked Ayn Rand when I had ideals, now that have "matured into a skeptic", I see that she was wrong. Betsy: that's a rather frightening thought, but I think yr right! The article had "please dismiss Ayn Rand" written all over it. Betsy: and I think it shows on the part of Powers too. Tym: I agree with Betsy, but would add that frustration also plays a role in many lives. Don, very few people actually know what sophistry is. Glenn: that's my next point. Comments? Those who went through a youthful Rand period tend, after they grow up, to fall into two classes: those who would rather forget that phase, and those for whom Rand opened an intellectual door. Tym: Why should it be frightening -- to us? That hopeless bunch of losers is our opposition. ErikT:Correct. Remember the title was "Ayn Rand was wrong" Betsy: I guess it's just a startling thought, when yr not that way yrself. Betsy: Hear! HEAR! Correct Eric, I dont believe he has actually read her novels and if he has it was with blinders on. I heard on the radio yesterday that Hillary Clinton went through such a period. Coincidence? Ghaki: No. She thought Orrie Boyle was one of the heroes. Ghaki: Coincidence, no. Broad influence, YES! If they're a "hopeless bunch of losers", then are we a "hopeful bunch of winners" and does one article justify such a statement? In some sense, he is a nihilist, because while acknowledging the value of Ayn Rand's writings, he tries to pursuade people to give it up, without offering anything better to replace the void with. Ghaki: and that makes Hillary Clinton thrice-damned in my book. She should've known better, having read it and the way she is today. Tym: That comment of his is *very* telling, for he acknowledges just how incommensurable are the two views of man he has been implicitly discussing: the first-handed egoist vs. the second-handed altruist. I bet the latter types would like to forget Rand! I bet Hillary wants to forget! (Angus_@U) ghaki: Powers quoted her in the article: "And of course, I went through my period of reading Ayn Rand." Goes to show that the "ex-Objectivists" never were Tym, his statement about the two classes was backed up by flimsy examples of a people who had read one novel once and the others are the rest of us. Jay: I think it's significance lies in that it shows that Rand's ideas aren't to be trifled with. <> BradA thinks the title "It Takes a Village" sounds just like an Elseworth Toohey column title. :) Jay: We are engaged in an intellectual battle with disarmed opponents. It's just a matter of time. We have powerful waepons and they have nothing so numbers don't count. BradA: I missed that and it is a *very* important revelation. Betsy: I don't think it's a matter of time. I think it's a matter of getting the work done. Reason. Reason. Reason. Egoism. Egoism. Egoism. say it. say it again. say it again. Don, you said it. The Clintons are closer to pure socialist than anything. Eric: Rught! Let's get to work. Todd: Oh, the Clinton's are hardly "pure socialists"! Is this new reportage, or did this happen in the 50s-60s? Such groups can be found all over the country, and their members tend to be middle-class Americans in search of a way to live rationally, honestly and with integrity. There are national conventions, mail-order books and tapes, even a national essay contest for high schoolers. What does this say about Objectivists? Brad, ok slight exaggeration:) Tym: It says that we think in terms of the long range and are not "selfish" in the classical sense. He cannot understand the appeal of reason. Tym:That they represent "old and discarded" American values. Tym: Objectivism has grown so much since the 1960's and now it is growing in a more deliberate and planned way. Betsy: yup! OGC is making a stunning amount of difference, plus OPAR. Tym: That quote was straight reportage by a concrete-bound journalist. And the key to victory in this long range campaign is taking over the halls of academia. I think Objectivism become dominant in the culture, in the same scale as Christianity became dominant several hundred years after Jesus's death. Yes Betsy I think you are right, I have met more and more people in everyday discussions who are reading and studying Objectivism. I've argued in enough forums to know that there are no serious opponents. I think we have to do more to teach proper thinking methods, especially Objectivist epistemology. Betsy: to me its significance lies in the fact that it's a liveable morality, practised as a middle class thing, as opposed to the academic intellectuals. Don: That's one of them ... and writing in all media ... and producing romantic art .. and being a political activist .. or giving money to ARI or whatever strikes your fancy. There are many fromts in this battle. EricT: yes! Good parallel in some ways. What ways and what ways not? One thing we must always keep in mind, is that ideas are distinct from the number of people who hold them. The battle is over idea A or B, not so much over implanting idea B in massive numbers of heads. Adoption of ideas follows almost uncritically from the results of debate at the intellectual level. Glenn, exactly. Thats the problem with education today. People arent taught to understand the basics of concept formation. Betsy: Agreed. Each should fight on the front he is equipped to address. Tym: That's the key. 80 percent of y happiness comes from factors totally within my control and Objectivism help me be happy big time. Tym: Except it's not going to take several hundred years. So us good guys don't need to worry about being smaller in number. It only takes one good professor to blast the ideas held by 200 bad ones. Betsy: good point. brad: good point, alas, i still feel very alone in this world Tym: Dave yourself today. Save the world tomorrow in your spare time. (Angus_@U) eric: Of course there are no arguments. You cannot argue reason with non-reason. And bad ideas only persist for two reasons: 1) by virtue of sanction of the good people; and 2) lack of better rational ideas to refute them. EricT: what does that say about the perceptions of Objectivists from the surrounding culture? Tym: To borrow a term from psychology, "denial." Most who like Rand in the beginning and then fall from Objectivism, don't really understand how to validate what it is that they like about Rand. They can easily be talked out of it. Right Brad, because the educated from those good professors will be the doers while the others will be the stagnated. Angus: We don't have to win over the bad guys. We have to get the good guys. Galt went after Dagny -- not Floyd Ferris. This "mind" is going on strike next July when the Kennedy-Kassebaum Bill takes effect! Glenn: Yes! Why is that? It might make sense for Objectivists to become more involved politically. I know that in Canada, the youth wing of the conservatives is really radically pro-capitalist, at least in comparison to the elder wing. It has been a big news item. JayT: Stick around in case I need you, please? good point Betsy, so many people keep trying to change the minds of the second-handers instead of finding first rate thinkers. What's Kennedy-Kassebaum bill? (Angus_@U) betsy: Yes. But the reason vs. non-reason is why they cannot argue against us effectively, aside from shouting "heresy!" Jay, what is that Bill? Tym: They don't understand the epistemology that the ethics are based upon. They don't understand how to validate higher level concepts. Angus: Let 'en shout. When their voices are gone, we'll take the podium. philo2:let's make it a discussion topic? Jay: .. go ahead <> Odegard tells JayT to check his private messages :) They don't know what a higher level concept IS. Look at all the Objectivist wannabees on h.p.o. who can't tell a philosophical principle froma dogmatic pronouncement. Piekoff called the Bill the criminalization of medicine with jail terms and stiff fines (thousands of dollars) for a incorrect, even naive error. Betsy: What is h.p.o? Please forgive my ignorance. Jay: Hmm Don: the Usenet newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism which I helped launch. Betsy: Unfortunately, many people are left in the netherlands between being epistemologically mangled, yet still desirous of personal redemption, such as the "Wet Nurse" in Atlas Shrugged. Anybody else having cofnnect problems? All: what about this gem? TomM: Mine's holding fine so far. This is true. But it's also true that Rand placed her godlike characters on a plane far above the rest of humankind, where she felt they deserved to be. To the reader, it is clear she thought that such super-beings not only should be running everything, but were the only people who mattered. (Angus_@U) brad, betsy: Right. All of us were won over at one point. Tym: That junk was written by one confused/dishonest person ... not worth blowing outtta proportion BradA: All we can offer the Wet Nurses is a good example. It worked for Tony in _AS_ - just too late for him. This is plain hatred of the good for being the good; and hatred of hose who amire the good, for admiring the good. Tym: It is a failure on Powers part to understand anything at all about context. Tym, this is just complete ignorance of what she wrote. Tym: Well, as strange as it may seem, in a sense it is a correct analogy. The nrational man needs rational heroes in the same way religious people need God. Ah, now that is dishonest. There are far too many places where Rand explicitly extols the virtuous men of more limited ability, to present this "semi-fascist" nonsense. phil: but as I've shown with other things, maybe this is an idea widespread that needs to be disabused. Should we address it and how? Eric: I think you are giving that article way too much metaphysical significance. betsy: you mean metaphysically puny people are incapable of hating? Tym: Also, it's the author's declaration that he does not want to look up to anybody. Brad: yes! I see the article as an attempt by a concrete-bound journalist to make sense out of something way beyond his ability to grasp. TomM: yes! It's not beyond his ability to grasp; but it *is* beyond his willingness to grasp. Betsy: That's why I said earlier it reminds me of Rand's article: "The Inexplicable Personal Alchemy." Tom: and I think it shows just how people give up their values, as Betsy mentioned. I think Betsy is right. It is just not clever enough to be a calculated smear piece, like some of the shocking things I've read, such as the New Yorker article, and an article on Objectivism being a cult, I read once. (Angus_@U) She and Peikoff both said that even if O'Connor was not as intelligent as she was, he was the closest she ever came to finding an equal. TomM: Since he believes that no one is really right about anything, how could he look up to anyone? It's like he's saying: In a world which extols selfish obedience to others, how can sod many still be heading towards selfishness? Eric: They are capable of "impotent rage" as Rand put it. When the enemy is Wesley Mouch, he doesn't deserve th4 effort of our thoughts. Glenn: True as well. (Angus_@U) O'Connor was hardly one of her "superbeings" Brad: I think it has more perceptive insights than usually offered, along with the trash of course. Love is just so much *not* about specific questions of intellect. betsy: I am still at a loss to understand how you can say I place too much metaphysical importance on evil, just based on my observing that the guy seems to hate anything that is good. Angus: Frank was the model for Francisco (for his sense of life) and for Galt (in terms of his looks). Tym: I agree. He somehow points out her virtues, but cannot sanction them. Eric: I don't see that. He clearly has some positive things to say about Rand. Glenn: yup, he's as clueless as the rest :/ Tym: His phrasing is always "She is good [grudgingly], but she is to be ignored [gleefully]." I am vastly more attracted to someone who is willful and efficacious, but not intellectual, than someone who is extremely smart, but not very like my conception of an ideal. Eric and Betsy, the metaphysical does not deal with evil or good. Value judgements are epistemological. Angus: To call that incompetent article "evil" is to give it more metaphysical significance than it deserves. Never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity. Eric: what about this? Despite the chill her philosophy can induce, to some people Rand's view of existence makes a great deal of sense. I also do not see it as evil, but it is incompetent only in the sense that since the author refuses to look up to rationality, he can't see was is rising above his head all around him ;) Tym: that's the grudging part...look further, and you'll see the gleeful part. was=what (Angus_@U) Betsy: But as far as ability and intelligence, he was not on the level of either. I don't see stupidity as a morall neutral thing, in this context. (morally) Eric: but at least he admits it, and that's a good thing. (Angus_@U) I think that may not have come out exactly right. Tym: Yes, what the hell does that mean? "chill"? In other words, reality is chilling, but blind worship of irrational, groundless altruism is "warming?" Eric: I think he was being evasive...he knew too much about Objectivism to write such a stupid comment on it. Nor do I see any form of evil being not stupid. Brad: right! *laugh* Tym: He is reporting the fact that (1) Ayn Rand's ideas give him a chill (for reasons he can't understand) and (2) other people thinks she makes a great deal of sense (which he can't understand). Brad: Reasoning is cold and impartial. Betsy: But he goes on to make personal attacks on Rand. It's whim worship on his part (Angus_@U) betsy: ;) that was from EricT, actually Betsy: It's his mangled mind calling out for attention... Betsy: yup! (to himself, not to us) Betsy: Petty comments about her writing style. Accusing her of hypocrisy, etc. Angus: But a person's ability and intelligence (taking just the non-volitional apects of those), are not moral factors, and are not what one most responds to in others. The fact that that particular reporter was clueless or even dishonest is irrelevant ... the existence of the article itself is an indication of the growing popularity of Objectivism Eric: He is just reporting what people say in good "if three people say it, it's a confirmed fact" journalistic style. brad: yes, believe it or not, a drug addict goes through withdrawls (similar to someone who lives in fantasy suddenly truely seeing reality must give up the lie) i don't think some of you understand It is only possible to deeply respond to *volitional* aspects of a person, since they are the only aspects that have significance from the aspect of a being with a volitional consciousness. OK, another thing: She was not a god or even a demi-god, though she often seemed to think she was. Nor was she the direct heir of Aristotle, as she claimed to be, or "the 20th century's greatest philosopher," as Penguin will describe her in a promotional campaign this fall. Betsy: Style, yes. Method, no. He is making deliberate decisions on which people to listen to, an how to weigh what they say. He want's people to be "warm & friendly" and be willing to bend their principles. You can *admire* physical beauty or intelligence, but you don't fall in love with these as such. wants Tym: Just more of the same "I refuse to look up...what's all this fuss about?" Brad: right, becuse intelligence and beauty are attributes, and falling in love requires somethin concrete Tym: Sounds like a barking dog to me. Eric: To someone who thinks reason and emotion are incompatible (to give one example) Rand DOES look like a hypocrite for espousing rationality AND being passionate. Betsy: How true. (Angus_@U) Brad: I think I worded that badly. I did not mean that O'Connor was unworthy of Rand because he was less intelligent. I mean that it disproves what Powers said about the "superbeings" Betsy: Or for offering "kind" advise...what's that got to do with the intellect...isn't kindness an aspect of the heart? Tym she never thought of herself as a god , and if she isnt the heir who is? TomM: it's so obviously LAME. No supporting statements, as if a shared assumption made with a wink. I think he's not being honest here. Tym: As I said, I think he's evading on a grand scale. Todd: good point. Betsy: I can't buy the argument that he could have reached his standard of certainty that Rand is a hypocrite. I think he just didn't want to consider the issue, and had some vague feeling of dislike for her, and felt some gleeful satiscfaction attacking her. TomM: and I think at least some people will HAVE to pick up on it :) Tym: I think he is just uncritically reporting what random people told him without any intellectual standard for sorting the good from the bad. Eric, in other words, he lacks self-esteem. Note also that he left out the master stroke of that quote where Galt takes Dagny for the first time: "Nothing else could be desired...ever." No explicit standard, but a vicious implicit standard. Betsy: I think this should be pointed out in letters to the media. he's a minor villain, and he doesn't offend me quite as much as the woman he quotes who said she "only read the dirty parts of TF" and "never took that stuff seriously" - I'd like to tear her throat out, except she's not worth the attention. Eric: He didn't offer a single argument for why he thought Rand was a hypocrite. Not a single argument of the form, "Rand's principle is X; Rand's action was Y; Y is an instance of princple Z; Z contradicts X." Tom, he left a lot out of context in that scene. Tym: Write one. When they see the VOLUME of letters, we might get an Objectivist columnist yet. Sube- My thoughts exactly! Brad: No, he just "knew" it. Todd: Sure, everything that makes it a romantic love scene. Betsy: I'm planning on it! :) Subetai, just another person socialized by religious ethics. I knew a woamn once that thought Rand was into sado-mascicism because Dagny is left bloddy in the love scene with Reardon. Todd: I don't think so. She sounds like a nihilist. bloddy=bloody. Why is it so many people such as Powes expect Rand, or objecitivists for that matter to be the emotional equavilint of ... Tom, right. (Angus_@U) brad: Actually, he mentioned her demand for the usefulness of everything, and then gave an example of making love in a fur coat. Brad: His thinking wasd probably more like -- Every body says you can't be A and B. Rand said A and did B. People won't like her. Some people Do like her. Go figure! "Vulcans?" (Angus_@U) only they aren't contradictory, as he said. People have been telling me for years how some day, I'll "grow up" into a skeptic. Hasn't happened yet. Don: Because they don't know how to check their premises. Subetai, probably, isnt that the essence of religious ethics. BTW: I *liked* the fur coat idea. Will have to give it try. Eric: Kepp it up and you may grow up into a human being! Betsy: What is that supposed to mean? Don: The reason-emotion dichotomy is embedded at the root of many ideas. No one, until Rand to my knowledge, has actually *explained* what an emotion is, and its relation to thinking and values. Her ideas on emotions and the nature of art are some of her most profound -- it buries in a single brilliant stroke the strawmen ... Eric: yes, that's another perception that I'm going to challenge. little baby eric :) arguments of what reason is, that have done far more to hurt reason than help it. Eric: When you grown up you'll be a human instead of a skeptic. Betsy: What does it mean to be grown up? night all Eric: It was a strange sort of compliment. Eric: It means being knowledgeable and having a long-range perspective on life. BradA: And it is the healing of this dichotomy that makes objectivists rather more passionate than others. TM: I figured that, but I want to know strange in just what way <> BradA thinks the idea of making love in a fur coat is right out of a Rand novel! Betsy: How knowledgeable and how long-term? <> BradA thinks the idea is very sexy. Eric: Those are things that take years of work, so kids don't master them until they are adults. Eric: Knowledgeable enough to take the rest of your life into account. Betsy: How many years? Subetai, Powers mentioned Greenspan in the article, is he stil in favor of Objectivist thought, because it doesnt appear to be so.? Todd: No, he always pops up...I think it's evasiveness on the part of journalists, since Greenspan is not an Objectivist. Brad: I'll have to report you to the animal rights people. So sorry! Here's one helpful misconception cleared up: Some of the letters suggest that a humane and even at times unselfish person lay beneath Rand's formidable surface. Does anyone here know Greenspan personally? Eric: Commensuate with your age, experience, and interests. As long as you're growing in knowledge and perspective. I'm 52 1/2 and I'm still growing. Todd: I have no idea. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Tom, thanks, I didnt think so. Tym: That's an admission on the part o the reporter that he doesn't even understand what Rand meant by selfish. Eric: yep. <> BradA hopes Betsy is only growing intellectually/existentially, not horizontally. You beat me to it Eric:) Tym: That means the conception of "selfish" accepted by the reporter is the lone wolf type prowling the streets for carnage. Tym: Observe how he thinks that selfishness and humaneness are incompatible. Very convential thinking. Very concrete-bound. <> Odegard gives Betsy a big watergun :) We're "wandering". See you next week. night jet <> Betsy hopes so too. Betsy: yes! Subetai, his policies at the Fed dont support it. Betsy: As I see it, one is human while and as long as one is growing in the appropriate ways; one can be human from an early age all the way through old age; inhumanity is a state one reaches by violating one's own mind through evasion. I have to go now. See you all soon. Todd: Correction: his *running* the Fed don't support it. Eric: Sounds good to me. Thanks for the correction Brad. Todd: I don't know how he reconciles that to his philosophy, whatever it is. But he seems to have done asbout as well as anyone could being Chairman of the Fed. does anyone know if Greenspan ever formally said he stopped being an Objectivist? It is *not* moral to operate illegitimate government agencies. And the only real consequence of his tenure, is the trivialization of the gold standard (by association with him), and the reinforcement in people's minds of the theory/practice dichotomy. ("Gold may be principled, but fiat money is practical -- even Mr. Greenspan agrees.") not that I know Eric: Nobody really renounces it...it's too revealing to do so. Subetai, what about getting the US back on a gold standard? Eric: No, he hasn't Todd: That'd take more than Greenspan to do. Todd: There is -zero- chance of that happening any time soon. BradA: Isn't it moral to operate it while opposing it, in the same way it's moral to accept welfare money while opposing it? Aaron, unfortunately. Brad: could he mean that we're not going to switch anytime soom, so there's no point in talking about it, or does he say it's not a good idea? Running the Federal Reserve is about the very worst way I can think of to get the country back on a gold standard. The only way accepting such a post would be correct, is in overseeing its dissolution. Then, you would want someone philosophically on side, who would do it responsibly. If he says things that sound too crazy given "conventional wisdom" he'll be thrown out. Subetai, do you know how the Fed operates? It would probably take a monetary collapse, and then gold and silver would come back by default. Todd: I have a basic idea. I'm not an economist. Brad: Agreed...if Greenspan found a way to shut it down, he be heroic, but I don't see that happening. And such a person would not be morally responsible for the existence of the institution, and would not be sanctioning its principles. There is a reality that government programs cannot be eliminated instantly. i must be going now later all Brad, youre right! (Angus_@U) todd: Won't happen. Right no if the gov't needs a loan, they print more money. Gold standard would take that awayhem, and money is one thing the gov't doens't let go of. Brad: so it wouldn't be correct to take the post to prevent things from getting worse at the Fed? The Fed is owned by its member banks. However the committee to oversee its functions is appointed by the President. Brad, The Fed is not a Govt program. It is a private company owned mainly by foreign investors. Tym: Inflation ahs been kept low while he has been holding the post, but I'm not too sure what to make of it. Eric: That is a completely different issue. In that case, one is simply getting recompense for existing (and certain future) looting. Also, it must be stressed that it is *moral* to accept government benefits, but it may NOT always be desirable to seek them. That is a different question. If Greenspan was explicitly opposed to the Federal Reserve existing, and took the post, to keep things stable pending efforts (including his own) to dismantle it, I would see it as being incontrovertibly moral. Eric: Agreed...but I have no evidence that is his stance. Eric: I think it's probably moral. Tym: I was told that Greenspan no longer thinks gold is necessary, though I've not seen a direct quote. He held erroneous views on money, even when writing for The Objectivist. Of course, to my knowledge, he hasn't made his opposition known, so he is at least partly granting the institution moral legitiacy Tom: I think there's some evidence consistent woith that. Tym: REcently? Eric, that is the only reason I see as valid also. Tom: He's done what's possible. In his role, the biggest service he can do is to do nothing - and he does that very well. That's hard when you're being pressured to lower interest rates everytime some politician thinks he's losing ground in the Night all polls Subetai: Sure, but what is his motivation...could be a sort of power lust all its own. Gold money could be reinstituted at a grass roots level, if people began denominating and trading in gold. The government would eventually have to acquiesce, as they did in Ontario over Sunday shopping -- eventually, so many stores opened, the law couldn't be enforced. Tom: Greenspan has always been interested in what he thinks is the practical, the achievable thing that can be done right now. good point,Subetai. Tom: I'd think a powerlust would be satisfied by exercising that power, not holding back. Subetai: He holds it as a threat. Brad: ? They outlawed shopping on sundays? Tym: Yes, I think he has become a pragmatist. Ghaki: It's know (or was known) as the "blue laws" in Texas. Tom: Obviously, he doesn't use it often since every President since Reagan keeps re-appointing him. Does anyone know how are national debt is accumulated? Tym: No. It would not. That is the white blackmail view. That is the reason Galt refused to become the "Economic Dictator" -- he explained the matter perfectly -- how can you achieve any value when the basic premises are incompatible with your own? Who can gain anything and who must lose in any collaboration between good and evil? Tom: where has he abandoned principle, as opposed to applying it contextually? These ideas are the very core of Objectivism's views on the nature of evil, sanction, and achieving change. These ideas are very correct. He was mentioned in Impact within the last year or so, and as I remember, it was not in an unfavorable manner. I think even the Reich-type economists are really scared of what might happen if Greenspan left. Brad: the context was different. That was in a dictatorship. Tym: by not being outspoken. If he wrote articles explaining the evil of the Fed while holding the post, people would listen, but he doesn't do that. Angus: Good point. The Government's credit rating would drop dramatically under a private monetary standard. This is one reason politicians are against it. Tom: and I think THAT may be a key disagreement btw him and LP and Rand, as far as I can tell. The Fed buys the currency from the mint at pennies on the dollar for the printing costs and then buys govt bonds at full face value which we pay back at full face value. i With honest money, where would that $5 trillion (or whatever) in debt be paid from? phil: Taxes. The politicians don't like gold and silver because they can't print it and give it to pressure groups. That's right Tym: Sure, and it's a BIG disagreement. Tom: so there's some pronciple that sez you have to be outspoken, even here? The interest accumulation on these transactions goes up one billion dollars a day. Todd: The Fed is NOT a private company. Where did you get such a notion? It is an agency empowered by federal statute, for a specific purpose. Don't confuse the fact that a government agency may be statutorily ordered to be "arm's length" with the fact that it IS a dept of government, LICENCSED TO EMPLOY COERCION, and typically granted a STATUTORY monopoly over some matter. Good night. Unless Greenspan was doing something "devious" like Francisco D'Anconia did. night Glenn Tym: Look at it this way...so long as Greenspan operates the Fed in a none disruptive manner, who in the world is going to question the need of the Fed. It would be better for there to be economic chaos so the Fed could be seen for the evil it is. TomM - the chaos would be blamed on Greenspan, not on the Fed The question of relatively low inflation is a canard. That is only in comparison with other periods. What the monetary relation would be *under free money* could be entirely different. I think prices would steadily drop, myself -- ie. a steady deflation. bazyar: it would be blamed on any economic czar, and that's the point. Brad: I would not call that deflation Brad: Call it production. ;) If that's the case, then we still have *real* inflation. Also, there are much more important moral issues. Why the hell should some agency be empowered to create the new demand? In a free market, only the *producers* of the monetary *commodity* can exercise new demand. The current system is egregiously immoral. Tom: wouldn't it be better to point to recognisance of proper principles that the Fed has followed, like not inflating the money supply now? Brad: Agreed. Brad: Indeed Has anyone here ever met Greenspan personally? Tym: but it *is* inflated at about 3% a standard accepted amount. Greenspan is a smart man. I don't know if he's an Objectivist - probably not. But among all the non-objectivist economists/politicians out there, he's the best I know of. Subetai: Do you think it would be moral to be the warden of a concentration camp, if you thought you could get away with sending a few less people to gas chambers? Brad: no Brad: There could be made a case for that being moral. Naw Ghaki: Oh, please -- I'm sure the US has laws governing Sunday opening of commercial premises all over the country. Brad: is that really an apt analogy tho? Context? Tom: Nope... I prefer the "assist the Allies in bombing the snot out of Berlin" scenario re: morality in that case Brad, in 1913 the Federal Reserve Act gave the power to regulate the money supply, but this did not make it a dept. of govt. there were 4 owners of the bank originally...Rockfellers, Chase Manhaten, national Bank of Commerce, and Morgan. This is all documented in a book called Vultures in EAgles Clothing. I'm not defending the morality of running the Fed. But among all the irrational actions I see around me, this doesn't seem like a huge evil. It's not like the Fed would disappear without Greenspan. Fractional reserve banking wasn't created fresh with the federal reserve either. It was practiced privately, and its inherent insnability is what created political pressures which resulted in the federal reserve being created. It's not like the IRS would disappear without the neighbor of mine, growing up, who worked for it as an auditor. Should I have approved of his employment? Tym: that is irrelevant. The principle Galt was espousing was the fact that in any cooperation between good and evil, only evil can profit. It is not wrong to participate in *all* govt departments, but it IS wrong to participate with those that are completely illegitimate. The context is the moral legitimacy of the dept. not whether you are in a dictatorship. Subetai: I am forced to agree with you. I was trying to support a family during the "Cater Era" and hated the inflation. Subetai: No, but what if the Fed was seen as the arbitrary authority it is? I think that would be better. Tom: we have to integrate a realisation of the consequences of *not* having Greenspan there too. All that Greenspan is trying to do is match the rate of growth of the economy with an equivalent growth in the money supply, thereby keeping inflation down Right Eric, that began in England before this country was born and in this country in the early 1800's. Tym: sure...and rthe possiblity that an economic chaos would launch us into a dictatorship. Brad: that's the strongest case I've thought of. FB: IE, he is trying to preserve money's function as a store of value. Not very well, but he *is* trying. Tom has a good point. While he is the Fed Chairman, he has been utterly silent on gold. This is a perfect example of a way in which a good person must compromise when assisting evil -- and he is sacrificing something *more important* -- intellectual propagandizing -- with something less important, such as supervising reuse of paper clips at the fed. Brad: LP refused tobash him on his show. What does this mean? Tom: That's unlikely to happen. What's likely is that any two-bit politician will use the Fed in election years. The country will be in a mess, and no one will pin the blame on the Fed, because economics of that level is beyond most people. Subetai: A risk to be sure...but if sofmeone tells you it can be managed, and he does it, then it gives the impression that it may not be all that bad after all. Brad: there are more important, *achievable* things that can be done, as FB said. They'll say "even name-brand economists disagree about the role of the fed in our current misery. Any statistician can lie with numbers" That's not the kind of thing that gets people in an uproar. bazyar makes a CRUCIAL point -- any perceived success of an evil enterprise will be associated with its principles, and failures, with the GOOD people associated with it -- evil IS parasitical. Very true Brad! It's amazing what people get used to under statism. Greenspan "gives" us 3% inflation. In 1971, 2.9% inflation was so outragious that Nixon imposed wage and price controls. Brad: and Greenspan has been very principled in not inflating the money supply. Well, how much has the national debt grown since Nixon, Mencken? Menken: Nixon imposed price and wage controls when inflation ran over 4%. Mencken: A good point. Also, inflating at the rate of growth of the economy steals productive effort...keeping us stagnant even if it doesn't raise inflation all that much. perception is not as powerful as reasoned thought I completely disagree with Subetai's characterizing of Greenspan as "the best he knows." If was "smart" or "best" he sure as hell wouldn't be running the Fed -- he'd be fighting it like hell, and lobbying for its dissolution. And he might get somewhere. I don't think the money supply can be converted from paper to gold over night, any more that taxes can be eliminated overnight. Subetai: Not by much, as a percentage of economic productiveness. It's ballooned, but so has the money supply. If I'm looking around to clobber an evil economist, I'd start with Robert Reich. Greenspan would be way down the list. Subetai: of course... It's about 3/4 of one year's GDP. In both 1971 and 1996. Subetai: I've hated that guy since the early 80s :/ <> BradA disagrees that any case could be made for the propriety of running a concentration camp. Brad: it's not a concentration camp :) A concencration camp can be dismantled overnight without adverse infrustructural problems Brad: i meant that in the context of that movie that had a German own Jews in an effort to save their lives (supposedly). Brad - how about, it's not in your power to eliminate the camp, but you would do less damage there than some other? recent movie (can't remember the name of it). <> BradA thinks Subetai needs to reread Francisco's "Money speech" if he thinks the existence of the Federal reserve is relatively innocuous. TomM - Schindler's List Let's say the governmen announces tomorrow that paper money will no longer be accepted, and gold is now the accepted currency. All the people who were not foresightful enough to accumulate gold could lose all of their life savings. Eric, but if we do have major problems we will be there to redo everything. bazyar: yes, that's it. BradA: Few would say that the Fed is "innocuous," but other institutions are far more damaging It was not just a movie. It actually happened! Eric: yes, and I think that could be why Greenspan isn't in a hurry on it. Eric: re FRB -- exactly, FRB will always ultimately lead to government currency, or franchises. It requires a statutory savings from fraud for those engaged in it. Eric: it wouldn't happen that way...you'd be able to go to a bank and exchange your paper for dollars at your discresion. Brad: I never said it was innocuous. I said it won't disappear if Greenspan steps down. Eric, I dont think we mean eliminating paper, just backing it by gold. The price of gold will go up. Brad: you think the Fed's more likely to disappear without G.? At least in *paractise*? Tym makes a CRUCIAL point about integrating the consequences of Greenspan NOT being at the fed. This is Henry Hazlitt's great precept: always consider the unseen consequences. I'm not sure the government has enough gold any more to back up existing currency, without a huge shift in wealth taking place, from those without gold, to those with (imagine gold shooting up to $20,000/oz, and the consequences for those who have stashed gold, vs. those who have not) One of the gold mavens estimated about 5 years ago that if the price of gold reflected the number of dollars outstanding, it would be about $3500. Yet it's hovered arount $400. I have to wonder what's going on. And if I'm bashing every government agency that works like a concentration camp, I'd spend as much time talking about everyone who works for the IRS, EPA, FDA, OHSA, NASA, and a bunch of other agencies. You want concentration-camp guards, talk about the BATF types, not the Fed governors. Tym, the Fed will disappear as a regulatory force if we return to the gold standard. Mencken: doesn't make sense. Inflation's been very low. Mencken: The price would be a certain amount of gold for every dollar...so no immediate price increase in gold would follow. FB: The problem with Greenspan's goal of matching money to growth, is that it is purely arbitrary. It is based on the central planning fallacy, and completely ignores the fact that no aspect of the economy can be exised from its context and delivered wholesale into an armed bureacrat's hands for management. ...\ I think a better approach would be to phase out the federal reserve by making monetory competition not illegal, then gradually decreasing its prominance oer time. The price of gold is kept artificially low in this country. Todd: but that's not going to happen anytime soon :/ That was the theory upon which 7 decades of Soviet 5 year plans was based -- and look at the consequence. Eric, that would be to the great benifit of those who have been storing it. Brad: I trouble with that too. ToddM: And to the detriment of those who haven't been storing it. Brad - Greenspan's path is less destructive than a Keynesian's path of "Print Print Print!" Goodnight, All. See you next time. subetai: why and how is the price of gold kept artificailly high in this country (and by whom) ? ToddM: This kind of shift in wealth *is* zero sum. To the degree people have earned their savings, and they are not responsibe for the existing monetary mess, it's a matter of justice to avoid implementing policies which effectively transfer wealth from one group to another. joe: artificially low Eric: I don't think that would happen anyhow. Tym: do not fall into the trap of accepting your enemies' attempt to turn the status quo into a metaphysical given. What is "achievable" depends on the ideas propagated. Twenty years ago, environmentalists were considered loons. Today, they are given token board memberships, and their agenda is everywhere... TomM: How, exactly, would the government go about abolishing the Federal Reserve overnight? I'm curious. subetai: ack! yes, low No Tym, but it cant be dismissed because it wont happen soon. I still have about another 100 years to live and alot can happen in that time, especially if Im helping it along. Brad: you have to have a time-line tho. joe: By the government. There are laws in place to prevent the trickling out of gold from this country, because of the low price here. Eric: I didn't say that...but the first step would be to deregulat banks...and permit them to exchange gold for paper. And this is NOT just some alleged mystica automatic propagation of their ideas, because left-wing ideas are so prevalent. They have been FIGHTING for their ideas, stridently, tirelessly, for years -- and they acheived success, by default. or vice versa TomM: That's a gradual approach joe: We did a discussion on the gold standard a few months ago (logs on the website). I believe we went over how that worked. The same can happen with GOOD ideas. There is NOTHING which is unachievable. Eric: never said otherwise... TomM: ok subetai: ok, thanks. Subetai, that doesnt quite make sens, if the price here is low wouldnt the looters want to ship it to foriegn banks so that they can earn more on it? tym: Re "important things" -- I would say the most important things are the ones which reflect most crucially the bad ideas we want to fight. Why do you think Ayn Rand counselled people to fight anti-trust and the FCC? I don't think the price of gold is artificially low in the UNited States. If it were, it would be smuggled out, jut as drugs are smuggled in. Todd: Yes, they would. And not just looters. Anyone who wants to make a profit. That's why there are laws to prevent it from happening. What laws specifically, Subetai. I have a close friend who is a jeweler and he exports alot of gold . tym: Your remark about Greenspan being "principled about not inflating the money supply" ignores the fact that he has no business whatsoever controlling the money supply in the first place. What do you think "sanction of the victim" means? Why do you think Galt considered *DAGNY*, not James Taggart, as his worst enemy? I have a simple solution for breaking up the Fed. Let the banks appoint the Chairman of the Fed and the board, instead of the President of the US. And drop mandatory FDIC insurance. Brad: and that's my principle trouble with G. AR said that HEADING a gvt. agency that was invalid was wrong, because it was a job no one shoould be doing. After all, she only endorsed his Chairmanship ofthe Council of Economic Advisors. That would work, Subetai. Brad: I'm just wondering about the scope and application of that principle. Todd: I don't remember specifically what laws. I moderated that discussion and did some reading beforehand. It got mentioned during the discussion and would be in the logs. Subetai: Deregulation is the way to go...let the banks and the producers decide what they will accept as legal tender. principal even Eric: Has anyone suggested or even implied "the money supply can be converted from paper to gold over night" Tym - Galt's context was this: he knew the government & society were about to collapse utterly. Subetai, ok Ill find it:) baz: good point! Tym - the context of Atlas Shrugged is that of the bare essence of good & evil ideas. BradA: I think your comparing it to the concentration camp implies this Just as it would be senseless for us all to "go on strike" right now, I don't think I want anyone but Greenspan in that office. Yeah, we're not out to destroy the system, we're out to fix it. Subetai: Please explain why Galt considered DAGNY his worst enemy, not Taggart? The reason, is that Dagny was making EVIL POSSIBLE. In exactly the same way, Greenspan (and men like him) is making the current system possible. And if we're going to fix it, it's best to not have the entire thing crumble first. BradA: An evil institution in the order of a concentration camp isn't osmethingto phase out, it's to be dismantled overnight, or more quickly. Brad: yr still begging the question of context :/ Brad: in a way I agree...which is what I was saying earlier. Brad - Greenspan isn't responsible for the current system. I must sleep all, goodnight...I enjoyed my first night of discussion on geekspeak and Ill be around often:) bazyar: That's why these changes must be made in a logically timely manner. bazyar: How about, it is the men who compromise with evil who led to the camps in the first place. The same logic that makes it ok to run a concentration camp, is what created it. It is the principle that sanction of and cooperation with evil is EVER practical, on ANY scale, in ANY context -- that must be challenged. In the prevailing philosophical climate, if the Fed were put back under the control of a print-borrow-spend Keynesian, the country's financial system would collapse - and the blame would not go to government control of the economy, but just the *particular* government. Brad: There's no arguing against that point philosophically. However, one needs to also pay attention to specifics, like the *context*, the *magnitude* of the actions - good or bad, the proper ways to fix things. Rand paid attention to all that She set a context. We have to do that too. We can't take the context of AS and apply it here. If the Fed is currently being managed in a way so as to minimize the damage it's doing, then I'm all for it - and it's our job to bust our butts to change the philosophical climate, and have the Fed eliminated. Subetai: Excelent point. I think the thing most begging to get done with teh Federal Reserve system is a realistic plan of how to phase it out. I've never seen anything serious along these lines, and it's unreasonable to expect any calls for abolishing the federal reserve to be taken seriously without such a plan. Tym: The Fed will not be eliminated by cooperating with those running it, and giving them sanction. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why Galt considered DAGNY his enemy, not Taggart. <> BradA thinks the Objectivist view of evil and sanction is its least understood, and most crucial aspect. BradA: The context in AS was past the point of no return. We aren't at that point yet. bazyar: if this were a dictatorship, they'd have us by the balls, and assisting in that way wouod be wrong in that context. Tym - yes Brad: We all know that principle. Tym - the Fed doesn't exist because of some secret conspiracy. It exists because of a philosophy that says "government can cure all". baz: yep. and at the economics front, the idea that fractional reserve banking is anything but fraudulant. Until that philosophy is changed, you will *not* achieve any success - and if such agencies are managed without *any* regard to reality, a lot of innocent people are going to be hurt. <> Mencken finds it interesting that BradA would prefer the Fed be abolished at once, that this is the position of the Libertarian party, and that Brad has been quite contemptuous of the LP on the HPO newsgroup. Eric: Most people's wealth is not in dollars, but investments. DOn't make the mistake of equating value measured in money, with money itself. Most people only keep enough actual money to settle their transactions, and temporarily store value. ... In the shift to gold, the money relations would be altered without much adverse consequence. By running the Fed, Greenspan isn't sanctioning the evil president from Atlas Shrugged. He's minimizing the damage caused by the bad philosophy of the American public at large Mencken: do you contribute to IOS? Come again? What's IOS? BradA: Is that a comprehensive conversion plan, ready to implement tomorrow/ ? Mencken: That's the Kelleyiet organization. (ite) Mencken: Kelley's group. Anyways, I need to get going. Haven't slept in 48 hours. I'll post the logs to the bot tomorrow. Hi, I'll bbl. No, I don't, why do you ask? bye subetai. Thanks for the discussion, Tym. :) Well, the movie is over, so I guess I'll go as well. bye Tom Tym: There is nothing illegitimate about advising the president of economic matters. why would you think there was? Subetai :-0