Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

WGD

Regulars
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by WGD


  1. Ayn Rand put the Kent Lansing statements in context. It's about creative genius fighting against mediocrity and in the end it must triumph.

    "There were many wealthy men involved and the corporation was ruled by a numerous board." "Wealthy men"- meaning not their primary occupation or they got their money from inheritance and "numerous board" - top heavy, more of a social group.

    Then Roark says about groups: "I can get along with people--when they're alone. I can do nothing with them in groups." Then the Kent quotes above.

    What the board members says brings it home. "...how're you going to vote, do the big boys approve of him or not." "I'm not going to decide till I know who's voted for or against." "I don't like Roark's face--he doesn't look co-operative." " I know, I feel it, Roark's the kind that don't fit in. He's not a regular fellow." "Why? I don't know why. I just don't like it, and that's that. Haven't I got a right to an opinion of my own?"

    In the end "At the end of July, Roark signed a contract to build the Aquitania."

    And

    When Ayn Rand created the Foundation for the New Intellectual in the sixties, it had a board.


  2. Your right Sparrow, I missed it at logbook.

    But that makes it 10X worse.

    First TOC white washes the religious nature of the whole event. [see post above]Then it uses phases like "true individualists are not slaves to irrational whims" and

    "Hudgins talk met with positive reactions...exhibiting the wide appeal of Objectivist principles."

    What speech questioned "Christian morals" as irrational whims? Who made the case for Objectivist principles?

    Read Hudgins statements here:

    www.atlasusa.org/reports/event/04_slc2_Hudgins.php

    It reads like a George W Bush speech. You wouldn't know Objectivism was atheistic.


  3. I wonder why the Objectivist Center didn't announce Hudgins as a speaker at this event????

    On August 13/14th the Atlas Economic Research Foundation held the "Communicating the Ideal of Liberty" which had Hudgins as a panel member.

    www.atlasusa.org

    The keynote speaker was Foster Friess: "putting a human face on economic liberalism."

    <"In our society, I think we too often see the disease of envy," he said. "We have to get rid of this disease in America if we want to get ahead.

    People with an excess of money should use their money to be a steward for God, he said. Friess said the fact that he is a successful businessman who is a Christian helps him to realize he is a channel to bring God's help to the needy people of the world.

    "I'm excited to make money to help other people," he said. "It's not my money but the Lord's money."

    Missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints were a major reason the [Atlas] held workshops in Salt Lake City>

    The keynote speech on day two? "The culture and religious foundations of Private Property".

    <> is from the Deseret Morning News for 8-15-2004


  4. Incidentally, does anyone know whether Hudgins is even an atheist? He received his PhD from the Catholic University of America, and some of his op-eds are strangely soft on Christianity. I wonder.

    I wondered that too after reading his op-ed "The human spirit of Christmas."

    Diana Hsieh gave that as an example in her "A public statement on the Objectivist Center" www.dianahsieh.com/toc/statement.html

    [it]"repeatedly appeals to Christian ideas in such a way that a person unfamiliar with Objectivism would never guess that the philosophy is atheistic, let alone that it wholly rejects the Christian moral ideal. The basic approach to ideas in the op-ed is not only misleading and condescending, but also contrary to the Objectivist rejection of appeasement.

    Also on her blog: www.dianahsieh.com/blog

    "Ed Hudgins' op-eds are a paradigm case of bad publicity for Objectivism: they are tepid, weak, confused, contrary to Objectivist principles, appeasing, and so on. People reading them unfamiliar with Objectivism would come away with a totally wrong idea of the philosophy-- thanks to its supposed defenders at TOC.

    TOC is not merely ineffective in its work to spread Objectivism, but actively destructive. They are all about bad publicity for the philosophy."


  5. Hudgins worked at the religious/conservative Heritage Foundation before CATO.

    If you look at TOC's "tax returns"(990s) they almost went bankrupt in 2002. They couldn't even pay their AMEX card on time. Since then they have been raising money just to get above water. They were even using money raised in fund raising to pay for part of the the summer event. So if you contributed to TOC since 2002, you've funded other peoples vacations.


  6. But if two people have the same principles and they come to a different conclusion on the same issue, one's facts are wrong. Someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong because the facts are the facts.

    What?

    They both are using the same facts. They are not disagreeing with each others arguments. Their conclusions are different because of what they think "a president"(Bush or Kerry) can do to effect things happening in a culture.


  7. This is a very good lecture concerning the evil of the "just war theory."

    But he makes some historical mistakes about occupations. US troops were killed in insurgencies after WWII. The attacks died out as the US handed more power(non-military) over to locals(also fear the Americans would go home and let the USSR take over).

    Robert E. Lee stopped a guerrilla war from starting because of how Grant and Sherman treating him and his troops at appomattox and the plans to let the south back into the Union. Lee pledged to Grant " his whole efforts to pacifying the country and bringing the people back to the Union." Jefferson Davis and most of the military was planning a guerrilla war. Lee's word stopped them. This was after Sherman pretty much won the war with his march to the sea.

    Also the Russians in Afghanistan and Chechnya and the French in Algeria proves the the "fist in the face" form of occupation does not work.


  8. August 10th, 2004 is the date for both Don and Diana's posts(for future readers)

    Good news: James Valliant's "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" will be published in February 2005.

    From Press release:

    "... a work that challeges the biased assumptions of Rand's critics previously held as truth. For the first time, Rand's never-before-seen diary entries are used along with the only in-depth analysis of the biographies written by [the Brandens]- to reveal that they are riddled with errors and misconceptions, thus giving a long absent voice to Rand's defenders."

    http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/8/emw151733.htm


  9. If anybody thinks Branden has changed:

    See Don Watkins blog at http://angermanagement.mu.nu

    and Diana Hsieh's blog at www.dianahsieh.com/blog

    They tell the story better then I would. I'll only add a story of Branden from the late 80's. A women name Virginia Hamel wrote a review of Barbara's book and was writing a review of Nathaniel's book.

    "It was the address that startled me. I had received an angry, denouncing letter from this address a year or so ago which was so virulent I had tossed it into my "far out loonie" bin. The severity of the hate etched the address in my memory. When I checked my mailing list, there it was. However, it was not under the name Nathaniel Branden but Norman Holland, 1427 Laurel Way, Bererly Hills, CA 90210, who had sent a letter in November 1988 requesting a copy of my article reviewing Barbara Branden's biography of Ayn Rand. A little while later, the letter with its angry tirade arrived."


  10. Odd thinks from "The Art of Reasoning."

    Kelley's definition of "definition" [p.32], "a statement that gives the meaning of a concept."

    Ayn Rand's "A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept."

    But in the glossary Kelley has a second definition of "definition", "A statement that identifies the referents of a concept by specifying the genus they belong to and their essential distinguishing characteristics ."


  11. Black Sabbath this is what you were looking for.

    "...we have to accept Big Government for the duration[he's talking about the cold war]-for neither an offensive nor defensive war can be waged given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores...

    And if they[American people] deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and attendant of centralization of power in Washington- Even with Truman at the reins of it all."

    This is 1952- After Yale- in the Catholic weekly, Commonweal. So he wants a "totalitarian bureaucracy" in America to stand up the the communists.

    National Review's opposition to Ayn Rand was more to do with her small government, free market, and more isolationist like foreign policy ideas, than just her Atheism.


  12. The problem with a VAT is that it's not seen. The taxes in Europe are high and the people don't complain because the tax is invisable. A flat tax would be better and no witholding would be best. Withholding was set up during WWII and was kept because if people didn't get the money they wouldn't complain about writing a check. Think about all the people who are happy to get a refund, as if it wasn't a interest free loan to the government.


  13. Also, Diana has a post on her blog for 08/06/04 about a debate toc is apart of.

    "A new low for Toc"

    www.dianahsieh.com/blog

    From TOC:

    A dabate: Are ethics objective or subjective?

    "Are ethics ultimately objective or subjective? This is an important question for classical liberals and libertarians. All agree on the goals of individual liberty, free markets and limited governments in a society in which individuals deal with one another based on mutual consent rather than the initiation of force. But on what moral grounds can they defend such a society and government? In this debate Edward Hudgins will take the objective side, basing his argument on the philosophy of Ayn Rand while Max Borders will take the side of a skeptical subjectivist."


  14. Democrat Presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry today announced that he has retained attorney, and running mate, John Edwards to file suit against the Democrat National Committee (DNC) over injuries related to an alleged "post-convention bounce."

    "We had reveived certain assurances from top DNC officials that this celebration of my client's nomination would result in a 10-15% bounce in the presidential preference polls," said Mr. Edwards during a news conference on the steps of a Boston courthouse. "Bounce implies vigorous upward movement. But my client's current polling numbers look more like a 'bump' or even a 'dip"."

    Mr. Edwards, who like his client is also a U.S. Senator, brought many of the gathered journalists to tears with his dramatic description of the plight of Mr. Kerry's popularity.

    "I can hear John Kerry's popularity calling out to you from somewhere in the darkness," said Mr. Edwards. "A couple of weeks ago his popularity said, 'I'm having a little bit of trouble but I'm doing okay.' During the convention speech, it said 'I'm having problems." And after the convention John's popularity said, ' I need help.' But help was not on the way."

    From ScrappleFace, but Edwards did use the idea in the last paragraph with a jury, a dead little girl and big evil company.

×
×
  • Create New...