What to do with the idiots who agree with us?

[TheEgoist]

I wasn't sure which forum I should have posted this in, so I went with misc. Move it to it's proper place if need be.

My question is: what should we do with people who Objectivists disagree with, who are trying to side to some extent with us?

This question came up in the Rush Limbaugh topic and I didn't feel like making that topic about this question specifically. But when someone like Rush mentions Ayn Rand once or twice a day, do you embrace that kind of exposure? It's one thing for a talk show host to give up 3 hours of broadcasting to the spokesmen like Dr. Brook and Dr. Ghate, Alex Epstein and others from the ARI, but what about when they rattle off about Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand without anyone there to inform them of what she really meant? Certainly it's good for people to hear some of these names. If they haven't yet checked out Atlas Shrugged or Objectivism, it's great. But what about the people who kind of lop in Objectivists with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the conservative movement? The conservatives and Objectivists certainly have a common foe in Obama, and to some extent we oppose Obama for the same reasons. However, the social views, religious views and general ignorant rhetoric of the Republicans and conservatives could have Objectivists pigeon holed as narrow-minded adherents to conservatism. Now anyone who knows what Ayn Rand said and has a slight bit of intelligence can tell we have little to do with anything Limbaugh says, but many people simply won't even touch Atlas Shrugged because Limbaugh mentioned it. We get the same stigma the Republicans do.

It's happened many times where I debate with someone and they lump me in with the right wing of politics and it's figureheads of Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and others. Then I'll mention I'm actually an Objectivist, and then there is a very long conversation that never gets resolved how I'm just as much opposed to conservatives as I am to socialists and liberals.

So, long question short again: how should we react to these "plugs" from religious and social conservatives who probably don't have much of a clue what Ayn Rand actually said? Just more intellectual activism countering that? Is that the only real answer?

[SD26]

Well, radicals will plug one into any hole they can find, even if one doesn't fit. That is important to recognize. It's a matter of a pecking order. When the radicals dispose of each "group", whether one is part of it or not, it's on to the next one.

Rush is in entertainment. He's a trader too. I would argue that he has a lot of the same moral beliefs of those that call themselves Objectivists. However, he's in a position where he can affect change because of actually having an audience as a political entertainer.

I don't see how that is bad.

Additionally, there is an opportunity for an exchange of ideas. Rush and Beck have been on the freedom band wagon for a long time. It's becoming a more important issue lately for the obvious reasons, so, they are heightening their talk about it.

Religious views? Aren't those based purely on freedom? As an Objectivist, is there freedom of thought? If one's view exerts no force upon you, what is the problem so long as you can continue to trade.

[K-Mac]

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh "religiously" every day. Then I read Atlas Shrugged.

Basically, a lot of people just don't know any better. AS will educate them. Sure, there will be plenty that read it and take what they want from it, but I think more good than harm will come from it. If it completely "converts" some the way it did me, great!

[SD26]

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh "religiously" every day. Then I read Atlas Shrugged.

I wasn't a fan of Rush. I had others that I listened too. Started listening to Rush occasionally. After I read Atlas Shrugged, I found there was more that Rush said that was basic "Randian ideology". Most of his info is that way.

You disagree K-Mac?

[K-Mac]

Sometimes, he'll get on one of his rants and be so dead on, then blow it all out of the water with one stupid comment about God, or abortion or some other crap. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me, but I agree that much of what he says is good, but the bad stuff is so bad that it leads me to believe he just doesn't get it.

That being said, I would rather be fighting Rush and his types right now than Obama and his cronies.

[SD26]

Sometimes, he'll get on one of his rants and be so dead on, then blow it all out of the water with one stupid comment about God, or abortion or some other crap. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me, but I agree that much of what he says is good, but the bad stuff is so bad that it leads me to believe he just doesn't get it.

That being said, I would rather be fighting Rush and his types right now than Obama and his cronies.

Completely understood.

God is a personal thing. It's really not worth getting too in depth about. I don't know that Rush has espoused a particular religion that he embraces, and, given some of the railing on religion, that isn't a bad thing. My growing up Catholic was always about being your best and the like. Don't kill, don't steal. Still basic ideas of freedom. And it's always choice of what you do. Yes, we can talk about how some religions and religious have a lot of basis in guilt upon the believers.

Abortion? I think some of that is related to the US Government funding, with our production taken in taxes, to provide abortions to countries outside the US and inside. Welfare, altruism. Simply, it doesn't belong in government. Certainly, there must be some agreement there?

[Space Patroller]

This opens up a can of worms that needed to be opened.

If you've read my columns then you've seen me bash the carp out of Matt Allen over the last few months for advocateing a "Johm Galt solution" to welfare and using our terms "moochers and looter" and then peddling things like "mass consciounsss" and "We need to get to a basic belief in God, country and family".

The question here has two components. one is philosophical, the other is psychological. One pertains to the explicit belifes as stated and the other pertains to personality variables and what implicit, unstated and aften unknown to the person they go better with. It is this that MIss Rand talked about in "Philosophy and Sense of Life".

The conservative shares many personality veriables with us. Mostly those associated with an absolutist, objectivist mindset/worldview. An example is the abortion issue. The pro-abortion side has chanage over the last 20 years from a rational, science-based view that was its leitmotif in the early 1970's to the "Pro-Choice" nihilists of today, who, when asked "Do you think the [embryo, early fetus] is a living being" do NOT say "no" but instead say "I don't want to get involved in such philsophical matters [read "blank out]" and I have actually heard this. Now to Randians. philosphy is an essential. In such a case we may be better served in supporting the Pro-life side side. Ayn Rand said "A person with principles, even if they are the wrong ones is better than one with none"

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/07jun.html

However, you can't ignore things that are just plain stupid like when Rush says "God is making more oil" or when they talk about achieving "victory in Iraq [which cannot be since the 3 biggies nevery happened. Now credible WMD threat. The Iraqis aren't throwing roses as our feet, they're trying to blow our feet off and "regime change" was a floating abstraction that led us to oust a secular tyranny in favor of a Shi'ite theocracy; read "tyranny that will tilt toward Persia so the whole causus belli was bogus]". Personally I run like hell from that This does more to help the libs than all the media spin in the world. As miss Rand put it "If I had to choose between capitalism supported by mysticism or not at all, then 'not at all'".

Where does this leave us, then? 1976 saw the beginning of an 8-year alliance between the younger Objectivists and conservatives to stop the libs. Neither of us was strong enough alone to take them on. On this matter Miss Rand was either out of the loop or gave it a wink and a nod. Even Human Events printed an article on a book positing the idea that Marx was not an atheist, but "An enemy of a God in which he believed". However, I don't know if that alliance is possible now.

Of most convervatives one can say that their implicit philosophy is better than their explicit one. At the psychological level we have much more in common with them tthan the libs and whatever rationality the libs had as part of them has evaporated to the point of insignificance. What proper stands that they take is only to spear the conservatives, not actual beliefs. Their system is more in line with the religions utopia.

We can form alliances. An alliance is not a love-fest but simply an agreement to suspend hostilities over a given issue to combat a more serious threat. Rand stated something to that effect when she said, in the Objectivist Newsletter "...come togehter on an ad hoc basis"

It must be remembered however that the conservative is an unreliable ally.

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/endof.html

and will fall to the liberals once the libs find out that they are more in line with the "will of God" and force the cons into a choice which will cause them to follow their personality variables and throw religion under the bus, or follow their explicit philsosophy and throw, among other things, capitalism out the window.

This addresses the issue of "fellow travellers". the Right is not a monolithic structure but a "big tent" that has us, conservatives and the better sorts of libertarians (libertarians are not a monolithic structure, which was the only criticism I had with an otherwise on-target article by Peter Schwartz).

Back to the personality variables. for us, the average conservative is more likable by virtue of being a "real person" than the lib. In the early 1970's, most of us liked Archie Bunker with all his warts and despised "Meathead". I don't know if Norman Lear knew what he was doing, but he did more for the Right than all the position papers or philosophizing ever could. He (inadvertently?) showed the two kinds of characters in the perspective of the real world.

This is not a new issue and it's not going away any time soon. It seems to rest more on the concretes of time and persons than a rule of themb based on explicit beliefs.

In the case of Matt Allen, there is, however, no choice: Delenda est.

Why

He is clearly trying to usurp the ideas of Miss Rand expressed in Atlas Shrugged and create some half-breed bastard child that relies on our ideas to successd and that has to be obliterated to the point where not even a speck of DNA can be found.

[Jake_Ellison]

In the case of Matt Allen, there is, however, no choice: Delenda est.

Now I'm intrigued. Unfortunately, you haven't linked us to the source of your criticism, and that's a pretty common name, so I doubt I could find him using google.

(and you insist with the Randians thing, even though it clearly annoys a lot of Objectivists-I wish you would at least explain why it is so important for you to use a word Ayn Rand considered an insult)

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The conservative shares many personality veriables with us. Mostly those associated with an absolutist, objectivist mindset/worldview. An example is the abortion issue. The pro-abortion side has chanage over the last 20 years from a rational, science-based view that was its leitmotif in the early 1970's to the "Pro-Choice" nihilists of today, who, when asked "Do you think the [embryo, early fetus] is a living being" do NOT say "no" but instead say "I don't want to get involved in such philsophical matters [read "blank out]" and I have actually heard this. Now to Randians. philosphy is an essential. In such a case we may be better served in supporting the Pro-life side side. Ayn Rand said "A person with principles, even if they are the wrong ones is better than one with none"

I have argued about a hundred times that the pro-abortion side will *lose* the fight if they do not explicitly, at every opportunity, challenge the premise that the embryo/fetus is a living human being. Instead they (mostly) blow it off and start screaming "Laws off my body" which is an *irrelevant, pointless* argument if you have implicitly conceded you want to use that as an excuse to grab the "right" to murder a human being.

Objectivism makes the ONLY coherent defense of abortion rights that is out there today.

[SD26]

I have argued about a hundred times that the pro-abortion side will *lose* the fight if they do not explicitly, at every opportunity, challenge the premise that the embryo/fetus is a living human being. Instead they (mostly) blow it off and start screaming "Laws off my body" which is an *irrelevant, pointless* argument if you have implicitly conceded you want to use that as an excuse to grab the "right" to murder a human being.

Objectivism makes the ONLY coherent defense of abortion rights that is out there today.

I'm torn on the ability of anyone to successfully argue abortion.

I was brought up as a Catholic, and I probably don't need to restate the Church's side of that. My mother was Catholic, and a registered nurse. A nurse from "the old school": capes and starched uniforms. Kind of like the military. Anyway, my mom's experiences in nursing school left her supporting the rights of individuals to get abortions. I was always kind of shocked by that as, first, it reflects the ability of individuals to still make moral decisions for themselves. Second, that my mother saw instances where it was rational for that opportunity for an abortion made sense to her as a person that could make choices, even as a medical professional recognizing how biology and her religion came together. She graduated from a Catholic school of nursing even.

How I see conservatives being problematic for Objectivists. I think that conservatives in government have had to become reactionary to certain items placed as law and in government restriction of freedom. That's not necessarily liberal in nature, as some would like us to believe. I believe there are radicals that seek to pit both liberals and conservatives, potentially the "biggest groups on the block", against each other.

Abortion is a perfect example, isn't it? Neither side can win, however, each attempts to counter and one up the other with restriction, laws, and cash flow. As an example, a radical playing off the liberal side can develop a bill on roads that has some kind of a rider that contains money for abortions in Africa or where ever. Well, first, why is that kind of altruism happening? So, now the conservative has to stand in the way of that. A conservative might generate laws that restrict abortions for certain age groups requiring parental consent for the reasons of liability (radial lawyers suing) and so on of a current age very full of ridiculous law suits.

The continued countering of each plunders everything and plays into the hands of the radicals that seem bent on only destroying individual freedom and even the desire of individuals to be involved in the process because of its complexity and ineffectual opportunities.

Any thoughts on my ramblings?

[SD26]

I'm torn on the ability of anyone to successfully argue abortion.

Let me finish that off too...

I recognize what Ayn Rand said about abortion. It is a closed system, so I'm not arguing against the philosophy. I recognize that it is a choice. And really, under a government that is really moral and just in individual rights, that is all there would be: choice.

I think the sticking point for conservatives is that given that the government forces them to pay taxes, they are looted, and the government funds or supports abortions in some cases, those individuals get angry about how the government works. I would say that they feel that the government works for some special interests, the basis being radicals that promote abortion, not those that are only making a choice, therefore they should and must give input into what their money does.

In the end, it's a mooching problem based in our government not standing up for the basic ideology of freedom. Freedom of a man to keep his money for his selfish needs.

[TheEgoist]

That isn't the issue with conservatives. Conservatives don't care that they are forced to pay taxes for it. Republicans have never been opposed to taxation for welfare or other entitlement programs. Their issue is they claim it is a human being with rights inside the woman.

[dadmonson]

That isn't the issue with conservatives. Conservatives don't care that they are forced to pay taxes for it. Republicans have never been opposed to taxation for welfare or other entitlement programs. Their issue is they claim it is a human being with rights inside the woman.

They also have a problem called, "consumerism"

[Space Patroller]

Now I'm intrigued. Unfortunately, you haven't linked us to the source of your criticism, and that's a pretty common name, so I doubt I could find him using google.

(and you insist with the Randians thing, even though it clearly annoys a lot of Objectivists-I wish you would at least explain why it is so important for you to use a word Ayn Rand considered an insult)

Matt Allen is on WPRO-AM 630 form 6 to 9 PM. I think he can be gotten on

http://wpro.com

If that doesn't work, try googling up the station by call letters

My esplanation for Randite/Randian is twofold

1) Objectism is a technical philosophical term that holds to the a priori existence of the external world. I got this from a book on philosphy from the early 1960's that preceeded the Objectivist Newletter. I think it is wrong to claim a larger term to name a specific element of that term. It is akin to what Roland did in the mid-'90's when they named their V K-7 digital Hammond clone "Combo Organ" diespite the fact that it came 30 years after the combo organ (Vox, Farfisa, Doric, FEM) hayday and was a Hammond clone and Hammond was not regareded as a combo organ. Another example "Bi-amping" is a system of electronic music performance of the 1970's where the audio input was split into the low and high frequencies and each sent to amps that were tuned to that part of the audio spectrum. Well, someon founded a company called BiAmp

2) By the above definition all Aristotelian philosophies have the chracteristic of objectivism since they all hold to the a priori existence of the external world. The two major ones are Aristotelianism and Thomism which was Thomas Aquinas' application of Aristotelian ides to Catholic Doctrine. On a world scale, we are a mere upstart. No it occurse to me that if we have 3 objectivist philosphies, Aristotelianism, Thomism and us. claiming it as a proper name is claiming a form of exclusivity to it. This involves the fallacy of the substition of the part for the whole which we know as the fallacy of the frozen abstraction; "objectivism" being the whole and abstraction and Rand's philosphy being the part (one of 3). Doing something to imply that claim of exclusivity "freezes" the abstraction "objectivism" in terms of Rand's Philosophy (granted is is far and away the best and probably the final form of objective philosphy, but this is 2009, not 3009 so we haven't grown that big yet. In fact we're a mere upstart).

Personally, as I explain in my website. My roots are in science fiction. In THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS Heinlein referred to our 22nd century counterparts as Randites. So it suits me fine

If you want to know just how good Rand's philsophy is, try

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html

That is why I do what I do. I got my understanding of Philosophy at Providence College.

[Jake_Ellison]

I got this from a book on philosphy from the early 1960's that preceeded the Objectivist Newletter.

1. What is the book?

2. Are there any other published sources in the world which define the term in the same way?

[K-Mac]

Abortion? I think some of that is related to the US Government funding, with our production taken in taxes, to provide abortions to countries outside the US and inside. Welfare, altruism. Simply, it doesn't belong in government. Certainly, there must be some agreement there?

I am pretty sure that Rush would completely outlaw abortion if left up to him, but I'm not 100% certain of that. (Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) I have a BIG problem with abortion being illegal in any way, shape or form, period.

I'm torn on the ability of anyone to successfully argue abortion.

Any thoughts on my ramblings?

I suggest you read http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong. It really opened my eyes on this issue.

They also have a problem called, "consumerism"

This is a problem with many Americans on both sides of the aisle. I don't see how you can attribute this to conservatives or Republicans alone.

Edited March 4, 2009 by K-Mac

[th3ranger]

I've noticed this often as well (rush sounding objectivist and then blowing it minutes later with "the world was created 5000 years ago?"). I've suspected for years that he only throws those things in to please his listeners because he know so many are religious. Within the same hour he said something about evolution and mention a phrase like "millions of years ago" then say something about god. Strange. Either he is an something like an objectivist and he believes in god still or he has no idea what he is talking about and just mixes it all up so everyone hears things they like.

[Space Patroller]

1. What is the book?

2. Are there any other published sources in the world which define the term in the same way?

The book was PHILOSPHY MADE SIMPLE and was part of the "Made simple" encyclopedia. A set of encylcopeia volumes each of whch covered a different subjects that took the ideas of things, like electronics, electricity, and philosophy and put it into everyday English to make them understandable to the layman. Much of what I learned from this basic volume was borne out by what I learned at Providence College. A well-respected institution by those in the know, such as David Brudnoy, steeped in Atistotelian philosophy.

I got the ideas from the book, my years at Providence College confirmed it. I would not challenge the credibility of Providence College in such matters. Their philosophy department is probably the best in the nation. Most of the others are Kantian, Linguistic Analysis, Existentialist or Ligical Positivism. PC is Aristotelian/Thomistic and their Western Civ ourse is 20 credits; where I validated Rand's historical views.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a lock.

Why do you need to see something that has been published, Can't you evaluate argumentation from what is presented? That ability is part of making your own way in teh world. If I said that 1+1=2 and you had not seen it published, would that impeach that claim or would you work your way through the logic?

Edited March 6, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Jake_Ellison]

Why do you need to see something that has been published, Can't you evaluate argumentation from what is presented? That ability is part of making your own way in teh world. If I said that 1+1=2 and you had not seen it published, would that impeach that claim or would you work your way through the logic?

The definition of words is done by a different process than determining inherent truths such as 1+1=2. Choosing a specific sequence of letters or sounds to mean a specific thing is not a logical process.

Without any published source, I most definitely think it would be silly to use new words as if they're part of the English language. It would be impossible for people to know what they mean, without further explanation every time-kinda defeats the purpose. It's tough enough to communicate with people as it is. But alas, you do have a source.

While I'm quite happy to refer to Rand's philosophy as Objectivism, the name she picked (and since there are plenty of terms in English which have several separate meanings, no one has a valid reason to object to that -- I believe she did a pretty good job letting everyone know about it, being a bestselling author and all), I can even understand if you don't wish to use it, because you like the word you learned in college so much.

The question, however, remains: Why do you insist on Randism, which was a term she hated? Why not just say Rand's philosophy? Doesn't people telling you to stop saying Randism get old?

[Thales]

It's the strength of the ideas that count. Rush's religious beliefs are mistaken, but those beliefs are not going to be able to defeat Ayn Rand's philosophy. In the long run, the better ideas will win out and so it is to our advantage to have those ideas exposed as far and wide as possible. In fact, it is to virtually everyone's self-interest for Objectivism to succeed, including Rush's.

Btw, I give Rush credit for doing some good thinking on the matter. He has mixed premises, but I think he's doing his best. The chances of him ever giving up religion at this stage in his life are near zero.

[Space Patroller]

The definition of words is done by a different process than determining inherent truths such as 1+1=2. Choosing a specific sequence of letters or sounds to mean a specific thing is not a logical process.

Without any published source, I most definitely think it would be silly to use new words as if they're part of the English language. It would be impossible for people to know what they mean, without further explanation every time-kinda defeats the purpose. It's tough enough to communicate with people as it is. But alas, you do have a source.

While I'm quite happy to refer to Rand's philosophy as Objectivism, the name she picked (and since there are plenty of terms in English which have several separate meanings, no one has a valid reason to object to that -- I believe she did a pretty good job letting everyone know about it, being a bestselling author and all), I can even understand if you don't wish to use it, because you like the word you learned in college so much.

The question, however, remains: Why do you insist on Randism, which was a term she hated? Why not just say Rand's philosophy? Doesn't people telling you to stop saying Randism get old?

Last point first: No., it does not get old. The wise do not tell, since they do not try to demean whom they do not know well, or even ask, me to stop, they ask "why?". The wise and knowledgeable understand a good pedigree. I have provided enough material for thsoe who would look to guage mine.

Beyond that. As I said. there is danger of verging on or incurring into a recognized, published, logical fallacy which I explained at length. Also, "Objecivism" is also used by some who have mixed it (and diluted it) with some other things. 'Randite" leaves now doubt as to where I stand. "Randite" has been publised and is perfectly understood by the literate in science fiction so I cannot even claim to have coined it. As I said, my roots are in science fiction.

It is also dirt common to add "ism", "ite" or "ian" to the name of a person who founds a system to name that system ."Thomism", "Newtonian", ""Kantian", "Marxism", "Einsteinian" and "Aristotelian". Those have been published, some for many centuries.

"My views are not part of Philosophy: Yet...." is what Miss Rand said. When we get out of the farm league, there are two other major objecitist philsophies waitint to take us on.

Year 2089: A Thomist asks one of our philosophical descendents. "and what do you call yourself"

"Objectivist"

"Are you so ridden with hubris as to claim that you are the only ones who believe that the universe has an a priori existence? I think you need a few more years in double-A ball": Boy meets World.

As the foundrss of the philosophical system it would make sense for her to not wish it to be tied to her name. I would wager that was common to all such. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, etc. Whe might have considered it a mark of arrogance to do so. However that could have died with her. i.e. be more a personal preference than a metaphysical reason. I've not heard that one. As for the idea of "noologisms" Do you see the huge noisey metal birds that fly over head. The problem with using multiply defined words is that you must state the definition you're using anyway and there comes a point where there are just too many definitions and they change over time. Do you know that "stink" once meant a pleasent odor? Was Miss Rand a best selling auther before or after she chose the term "objectivism" c1960? Then took where was there to go after ATLAS SHRUGGED? You've told the whole story of how the world works.

There is another name that we have: "New Intellectual". That goes beyond our philsophical views and touches more on how we operate.

I am not unhappy to be ID'ed as "an Objectivist" save for the stated misgivings (bear in mind that I did not say I was happy with it). It will have cache for one possibly two generations. However, I look to the future.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Space Patroller

[TheEgoist]

I was intrigued by a recent Newsletter e-mailed to me from the ARC on the progress of Atlas Shrugged sales.

This was one of the points made:

* On the radio, Rush Limbaugh has referred repeatedly to Atlas Shrugged in broadcasts to his tens of millions of listeners--and has applied the ideas of Atlas to the crisis we now face.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=uykYVVtHUotbGi8mQRtSZw..

Rush mentioning Atlas Shrugged doesn't bother me, however I fail to see how he "has applied the ideas of Atlas to the crisis we now face"? Certainly Rush is preferable in this light to a member of the Left, or some of the worse members of the Republican party but has Rush really represented the ideas of Atlas Shrugged well?

[Space Patroller]

I was intrigued by a recent Newsletter e-mailed to me from the ARC on the progress of Atlas Shrugged sales.

This was one of the points made:

Rush mentioning Atlas Shrugged doesn't bother me, however I fail to see how he "has applied the ideas of Atlas to the crisis we now face"? Certainly Rush is preferable in this light to a member of the Left, or some of the worse members of the Republican party but has Rush really represented the ideas of Atlas Shrugged well?

Not when he says he believes in creation

Not when he complains that the libs laugh at people who believe what can't be proved. Especially since he has made a living bashing them for intellectual shallowness.

Not when he says "God is making more oil"

And not when he tries to mix egoistic ideas with a base that is dedicated to altruism

Was there not in AS the 'back to Godhead" movement? Well I guess in one way he is representative of some of the ideas in AS, for what it's worth.

[K-Mac]

...but has Rush really represented the ideas of Atlas Shrugged well?

Economically he has.

[TheEgoist]

Does he advocate laissez-faire capitalism? I know, in comparison with the Republicans actually in office, he seems like friggin Von Mises but does he focus that much on the economy? Does he call for the complete deregulation of business, the end of social security and all of it's shootoff programs? Does he call for the end of the income tax, a return to the gold standard?