G. Gordon Liddy Will Devote A Full Show To Ayn Rand

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

This would have been a great opportunity to distinguish Objectivism from all of the failures of rationalism and religion by pointing out the Objectivism does not believe in the perfectibility of man.

I thought all three hours went well, and those being critical of some of the answers have probably never been put on the spot where an extemporaneous answer was to be taken as the gospel truth.

Besides, the perfectibility of man most definitely can be accomplished via Objectivism, it's called being rational, which is possible to every man -- and here you were not even making an extemporaneous reply

Edited November 18, 2008 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[KendallJ]

ARI's response to the caller Jane (hour 2, at 6:05) on Rousseau, the goddless French Revolution and the Bolshevik takeover in Russia as examples of what excess devotion to reason can do was lame. Their response to this attack on reason was the assertion that the American founding fathers based their philosophy of government on Locke and Enlightenment thought and not religion. A better response would be to attack the French and Russian revolutionaries as not reasonable.

Having listened to this specifically, I'd say that they did exactly attack those at the source. His discussion of Rousseau specifically stated that he was anti-reason, pro-emotion, and he differentiated Objectivism from Rousseau on that basis.

I think they directly answered the issue which was the basis of the American founding. I think the point about perfectability is a technical, philosophic debate and it is not the purpose of their appearance.

[Mammon]

Well, as I told Mammon, when you work for them, you can correct all their mistakes.

Or when they work for me.

What Kendall responded to was a comment I made in the chatroom saying that I thought they made some good arguments and some bad arguments. I said in response that I wouldn't expect him to criticize these guys in the first place. Anyways, I try to step back and listen to this as if I've never heard of Objectivism, because what they don't mention I can mentally fill in the blanks my self having more knowledge on the subject then the readers who aren't familiar with the philosophy.

I think in the beginning they came off kind of "whiny" in a way repeating that the government was responsible for everything without really getting into why. But they hit some good points when talking about the two political parties and the question about Rand being a secular humanist.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Mammon

[Mammon]

And for some reason the post I just made isn't showing up on the front page. I think the forum hates me.

[Grames]

Having listened to this specifically, I'd say that they did exactly attack those at the source. His discussion of Rousseau specifically stated that he was anti-reason, pro-emotion, and he differentiated Objectivism from Rousseau on that basis.

I think they directly answered the issue which was the basis of the American founding. I think the point about perfectability is a technical, philosophic debate and it is not the purpose of their appearance.

He didn't combat the premise behind the question, the dissmissal of reason and Objectivism as hopeless utopianism, and worse, something that has already been tried before and failed.

And the point about perfectability is exactly the idea that unites the bloodiest ideologies of history. It is not so technical that people can't understand it or are uninterested in it. This is the theme of the movie Serenity and the character Mal gives a little speech about it. That the perfectability of man was brought up by a random caller on a nationally syndicated radio show refutes that idea that this is a mere technicality that should be left for another day.

[KendallJ]

He didn't combat the premise behind the question, the dissmissal of reason and Objectivism as hopeless utopianism, and worse, something that has already been tried before and failed.

I'm sorry. He did. He specifically addressed the fundamental claim regarding Rouseau. She grounded the Revolution in the philosophy of Rousuea, and he specifically said, for anyone who has read Roussea that the claim that he was based in reason was absurd.

Jane also stated that the French and Bolsheik revolutions were dedicated to the proposition of the perfectability of man through reason, while the American founding fathers believed in the perfectability of man by rebirth of the spirit through Jesus Christ. This would have been a great opportunity to distinguish Objectivism from all of the failures of rationalism and religion by pointing out the Objectivism does not believe in the perfectability of man.

I'll take your characterization of the exchange as correct as I remember it. The essential point here is was the American founding based on religion or reason. The perfectibility of man was not the issue. He answered that point right off. [paraphrasing] "The American founding was based upon Enlightenment philosophy. It was based upon a dedication to reason." It is a common claim that America is a Christian nation, and that Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, et al, were products of atheism. It is not a common claim that the issue is perfectibility. The answer spoke to that claim directly and would be recognizable to anyone as an answer to that question. A discussion of man's perfectibility (which as Thomas points out is possible) would have been off track regardless of what she said. It simply is NOT the issue.

Ironically at the very end of Hr 3, Brook specifically addresses that issue. "... and Ayn Rand believed in the perfection of man, but she believed each one of us is capable of that perfection... She believed that every human being can attain perfection by pursuing their own rational self-interest..."

Edited November 18, 2008 by KendallJ

[Grames]

My criticisms here all to be taken as "what a missed opportunity" rather than a condemnation of a failure. The answers given were adequate as far as they went, but were not as "vigorous" or as complete as Ayn Rand would have given.

I will start another thread for discussion of the perfectability issue. (I have listened to all 3 hours now and have been unable to find Yaron Brooks further comments on perfectability. Have you got a time reference?)

Overall this was a successful appearance and Liddy was a sympathetic and gracious host. Liddy raised the possibility of further appearances in the future and I hope they take him up on it.

[KendallJ]

I will start another thread for discussion of the perfectability issue. (I have listened to all 3 hours now and have been unable to find Yaron Brooks further comments on perfectability. Have you got a time reference?)

Sure. 3rd hr. End of the show. End of Yaron Brooks biography of Rand.

[Capitalism Forever]

And for some reason the post I just made isn't showing up on the front page. I think the forum hates me.

Obviously, it's trying to punish you for sanctioning such a fascist show by listening to it ... with your volume turned up to maximum, no less!

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The downloadable show is available here: http://www.radioamerica.org/POD_ggl.htm

It seems like it is not done right however. The audio is too faint to hear without cranking your volume up to max. Maybe e-mail their tech people while your sending a comment haha.

The audio appears to be good now.

Turns out today's show is about firearms (a subject on which G. Gordon Liddy is fairly hardcore) for you (fellow) gunnies.

Sounds like his voice has softened in the last 10 years.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The audio appears to be good now.

Turns out today's show is about firearms (a subject on which G. Gordon Liddy is fairly hardcore) for you (fellow) gunnies.

Sounds like his voice has softened in the last 10 years.

This is the 17th November show (you have to scroll down for it).

Alas the third hour is still an earstrain. First two hours were reasonably good.

His voice is somewhat more like I remember on the gun show.