Old Toad

Regarding the North Texas Objectivist Society ("NTOS"). To all, I am pleased to announce a milestone in our growth: We have reached 100 members! Over the past year of our activity, we have been adding about 5 – 7 members every month! We are working to build a critical mass of core membership to help us define and build our local society centered on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and reason. Think of all the good people we have met! Think of how much we are inspiring each other to do! Just for the highlights: We have continued to add and information to our group’s “About” page at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/ In particular, we are working on clarifying our “Community Standards.” Any comments or suggestions you may have would be sincerely appreciated. You can always contact me to make suggestions via meetup.com at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ We have hosted more than 20 social events, including a Thanksgiving Feast and a celebration of Ayn Rand’s birthday! You can always look for new events at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/events/ Remember, our next big social gathering is Saturday, April 1, 2006 at the Ranch! Yours truly has learned to cook on the grill for our social events without burning everything. For those who miss the original “charred flavor” of our cookouts, I am a slow learner! Greg Lucas has volunteered to cook for us again when he can be certain he will be in town. He and Paul put on quite a spread for us last summer. (I think Greg personally prefers medium-rare.) We have a very active message board for our group. It seems we are enjoying posting with people that we may be able to meet in person. See our message board at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/boards/ Dean Cook has started the Plano “OPAR” study group. It’s probably not too late to join and catch up! For more information, you can contact Dean via meetup.com at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/member/2137140/ Nikki Allen has started a group in Grapevine listening to Nathaniel Branden’s original audio course on the philosophy of Objectivism. It’s probably not too late to join this one, either! For more information, you can contact Nikki via meetup.com at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/member/1623018/ Chad has started the Central Oklahoma Objectivist Group. We are honored that Chad and Ahmad Hassan have made the effort to drive several hours – each way – to visit with us. For more information about Chad’s group, see http://aynrand.meetup.com/153/about/ Dean Cook is also spearheading a group of us who are interested in recreational pistol shooting at a local gun range. See our message board at: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/boards/view/v...?thread=1735280 You can also contact Dean via meetup.com at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/message/?recipientId=2137140 Our next social event is April 1, 2006 at the Ranch! Please mark your calendar and take a moment to RSVP at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/events/ Let’s warmly welcome our newest members and their friends & families! -- Todd Your Organizer http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/suggestion/ North Texas Objectivist Society http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/ Of course, the postings, other public statements, or actions of any of our members, friends, or families do not necessarily express the ideas of Objectivism or our social society, its organizers, or any of its other members. Our group is not affiliated with any other organization whatsoever. See all information and DISCLAIMERS at http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/about/

Now I'm depressed.

Hi BurgessLau, You said from the beginning that definitions would be important, and I agree. But I am not sure that the definitions you now provide are adequately clear. For example, is it possible for a "conservative" to be "implicitly objective"? In response to your questions to me about our local efforts to build a society, I initially note that some of our participants are interested in "evangelism" for Objectivism, so the participation of some "others" is OK to them for that reason. We also have some who are interested in the debate of philosophical issues, even with non-Objectivists, to test their own reasoning and debate skills. I have not yet used any express filtering other than interest in the stated subject matter of the socials. As a consequence, I estimate that attendance at our first 16 biweekly socials, most of which have about 30-50 people, has been about in the proportions of the hypothetical question I previously proposed to you, that is, about 10% interested in "philosophy for Ragnar," about 30% interested in "philosophy for Rearden," about 10% “significant others” (spouses, etc.), about 20% children, and about 30% non-Objectivists of various types, including “Antis,” “good moral, implicitly objective people,” and, in case it might be considered a separate category, those who are sincerely interested in learning more about Objectivism coming from any of various backgrounds. However, I think our socials do have some “self-filtering” on a more informal and individual basis. First, we go to great lengths to host socials at a venue that allows people to move about and mingle freely. In particular, we open up at least five separate but flowing “meeting” areas within the venue (our ranch), including three separate but adjoining living areas, dining area, and kitchen area, plus, weather permitting, a covered patio and pool deck. This means that with sufficient participation people can find others of particular interest, and can even avoid others of particular disinterest. Second, Objectivists make up what I would characterize as the “core” of the socials, even if accounting for only about 40% of all the attendees at any given meeting (and remember, another 30% are spouses and children of Objectivists, who generally socialize on subjects other than philosophical discussion). By “core” I mean that there is no other subgroup of participants defined by any other philosophy or any other common interests that has any coherence or continuity in the socials. Accordingly, most of the “others” tend to fall away of their own accord after a meeting or two. I suppose in those cases, our “evangelists” are unsuccessful in that pursuit – but arguably successful in contributing to informal filtering. We have not yet experienced any “trolls” at our socials (the likes of which we sometimes encounter online), but any such would be ejected.

Hi BurgessLau, You limit membership in SPON to people who subscribe to the view “that, for our local network, the issue is not that the members want to socialize only with other Objectivists in all aspects of their lives, but that they want some one place where they can go at least quarterly and be assured that they will meet Objectivists -- and not anarchists, leftists, conservatives, moral-tolerationists, religionists, and other opponents of Objectivism,” and then you use that selective experience to write: “I have seen no such evidence that Objectivists in our local network -- who want to meet only Objectivists at Objectivist socials -- would be satisfied by meeting non-Objectivists.” (Original emphasis.) Of course this says nothing about possibilities, but only that a subset of people selected according to your criteria of rejecting other possibilities meet your selective criteria. My evidence for your having accepted living on one side of the “false dichotomy” includes: 1. You wrote: “These [sPON] members have plenty of opportunity to socialize with such people, that is, non-Objectivists, in other parts of their lives -- and want an occasional refuge from them, for that very reason. (Original emphasis.) 2. Your club, SPON, after 11 years of practicing “filtering” in a large metropolitan area, is still very small (20 members) and has infrequent meetings (quarterly). So unless SPON members are otherwise social hermits, they are regularly and voluntary socializing with non-Objectivists (“gravel”) in virtually all aspects of their lives, from which they are presumably obtaining pleasure. Then, on just a few days a year, they must seek refuge? Further, you had previously mentioned that “ome of our other [sPON] members are married, but their spouses don't attend.” Why is that? Are they non-Objectivists? Do you make any efforts to welcome spouses, do nothing on the issue, or do you filter spouses of Objectivists? Finally, “false dichotomy” is actually how you characterized the contrast between our respective efforts to build local Objectivist socials. It was an unfair characterization as I did not say that I thought these were the only two ways. For example, I had actually suggested above that ARI would seem to be in a position and able to help local social clubs find other people. As I stated above, I do not understand why it would not help at least an exclusive club like SPON.

Hi BurgessLau, Thank you for your positive and constructive comments. In thinking about what would make a successful local club, including based on questions of quality, I make several observations: 1. People do not socialize based on shared philosophy alone, but also based on other factors, such as: a) stage of life, for example, single people, married people, people with children, and older people; shared life experiences, good or bad, such as owning a business, war combat, or death in the family; c) shared interests, such as in education, work, or hobbies; and d) personality, such as loud vs. soft spoken; 2. Objectivists are socializing with non-Objectivists -- some Objectivists may even be married to non-Objectivists; 3. Some people are struggling with learning about the philosophy; 4. Some Objectivists are interested in helping others work through philosophical issues, while others are not; 5. If people are able to move about and mingle freely, they seem to be able to find others of mutual interest (and avoid those who are not); 6. The non-Objectivist, such as a spouse or child, tends to be able to find another person he or she enjoys talk with who may be similarly situated; 7. What makes a social event a personally enjoyable experience to a participant is having the opportunity to meet at least one other person of particular interest, not necessarily everyone there; 8. If a participant in a social event does not have a personally enjoyable experience, he or she will be much less likely to return; 9. Even if a social event is personally enjoyable to a participant, if it is not enjoyable to the participant’s significant other or family, he or she will be much less likely to return. I have been thinking that for our local club we should strive for frequent “social events” each having a “critical mass” of about 50 people, and where at least about half the adult attendees would be Objectivists. I think that these would be the minimum conditions to allow the majority of attendees to each find at least one other person they would be glad to meet, whether on philosophical grounds or otherwise, and so that more than half the attendees would be likely to return for another meeting to keep the ball rolling and growing. Later, we might be able to be a bit more selective, but I think that the generalities of my observations would still apply and that filtering would then probably reverse the growth and ultimately kill the club. You reject as a “false dichotomy” the alternative I have suggested, but you appear to have in accepted living on one side of it. And I think you may not have taken into account the possibility that some of the people you call “gravel” may actually be the “glue” that could help form and hold the society together. Even worse, merely by not welcoming their participation, these people are likely to be pulling Objectivists away from our meetings, and with it, our chances to meet.

Hi softwareNerd, Thanks for the technical explanation. Although I do not have your technical expertise, I had expected this would be the case. Meanwhile, I do recommend Meetup.com for organizing local clubs. It has been a big help to us in the North Texas area.

Hi softwareNerd, Looking at other local clubs around the country, and considering the local efforts in my area over the years, I think that some people have made or are making efforts to get things going, but to little avail. But I think the efforts seem to have been limited by the following: 1. The meetings are geared towards a study group; 2. The meetings are held at sit-down venues; 3. Irregular and infrequent meeting schedules; and 4. Interested people have had a hard time finding each other. Regarding the first, the study group format fails to address many social issues. For example, it seems to me that often one person in a romantic relationship is more interested as a “philosopher for Ragnar” than the other. In such a case, a study group is less interesting to the other, who may at best be a “philosopher for Rearden,” perhaps not even that interested, occasionally even actively disinterested. So a study group format competes for the couple’s social time. The competition for social time is even greater when a person has children, too. A social allows a broader range of social interactions, from light-hearted to serious discussion. Regarding the second, meetings held at restaurants, etc. are often sit-down affairs where people end up adjacent to one-another by chance with little ability to move. So the social experience can limited, or worse, one of being trapped at one end of the table or room when a more interesting discussion or social interaction may be taking place out of reach. A social should also have a venue that allows the participants to mingle freely amongst one another and to find matching interests (and even to avoid mismatched interests). Regarding the third, the meetings are so infrequent and irregular that the participants do not have enough time to build personal relationships with each other. For example, the most frequent meetings I see is about monthly. So imagine if a person goes to a first meeting and meets someone he might like to visit with again, then he has a conflict causing him to miss the next meeting, then a monthly meeting is cancelled, then the other person misses the following monthly meeting, etc. -- the two people may have the chance to see each other only a couple times a year. The meetings should be much more frequent if we are to foster personal relationships or any sense of community. Regarding the fourth, where and how can we find each other? The largest Objectivist organization in the world, ARI, probably has built up over the years a mailing list of many thousands, including hundreds and hundreds in each of the major metro areas. But for reasons that I do not know, ARI will not help a local social club. That has been frustrating, but with the maturation of the internet and with persistence, we should be able to find each other. Can we consider adding functionalities to ObjectivismOnline that would help those of us who would like to meet each other to organize and so more easily? We have been experimenting in Dallas with Meetup.com, and had some initial success. ObjectivismOnline is a focused subject matter forum, and the functionalities for organizing local meetings of the type that available through Meetup would seem to be a good addition here.

Hi BurgessLau, I am having a hard time getting my mind around your statement. Are the types of Objectivists you would like to meet so terribly difficult to separate from other people that a 40/60 ratio would be some kind of a “contest” to see if you could find them? To use your analogy, most people can separate jewels from gravel easily and, moreover, would be very glad to do so for much less than a 40/60 ratio. On the other hand, you say that you would “probably attend one meeting, gather names of Objectivists and their email addresses, and then during the next week organize another group, a network only for Objectivists.” So assuming we could manage to find other Objectivists in such a crowd, what would make going to a regular social where 40% of the attendees were Objectivists (and 60% were not) so unacceptable “as an end in itself”? Sure, we are all looking for “the highest quality we could achieve” in our socializations. But what is "the highest quality" alternative that we have achieved in an Objectivist context? It seems to me most local Objectivist clubs around the country are somewhere between tiny, languishing, or dead. For many of us in most parts of the country, even big cities, all we have is a once-a-year nationwide gathering and the rest of the year sitting at home and “socializing” via a keyboard on this forum. Is this acceptable “as an end in itself”? We excuse this by lamenting that Objectivists are “one-in-a-million.” B.S. Another excuse we make is that Objectivists are very busy and not socializing much. More B.S. Objectivists are out there. And Objectivists are socializing -- just not with each other. I think it is high time we faced it and try and find out why. Can we consider fostering the ability for Objectivists to meet in person? Can we think of different ways of organizing meetings that might be more productive and give us all a better chance to meet one another? I wasn't exaggerating about a local club with 1,000 members. In eight months we have built a local club in which about 200 people have expressed interest, and over 100 people have actually attended various ones of our first 16 meetings so far. For example, our last meeting had 45 people, including 30 adults and 15 children. The ratio of participants is about as stated in my hypothetical question. I am glad to see that our first study subgroup composed of “philosophers for Ragnar” is beginning to form out of the club. I doubt they would not have started but for the broader “society” of the club and the opportunity it provided for them to meet each other. I think a local Objectivist club with 1,000 members is realistic for a big city, and we are going to try.

Hi KHaight, Thanks for offering your explanation and definitions. I estimated that was what BurgessLau had been referring to, but I was not sure. I had substituted “Objectivists” for “philosophy” in each case, but had merely meant to focus, probably unnecessarily on this forum, that the philosophy I was speaking of was Objectivism. I, too, have observed that there are differing expectations for Objectivist gatherings along the lines you described. One possible way to describe this difference in interest level could be the “philosophy for Ragnar” vs. “philosophy for Rearden” types. I don't think these differences are bad, though, just a fact that makes organizing meetings more challenging, at least until more Objectivists can find one another.

Hi Burgess, I wish I had time for a turn to discuss right now, but I will probably be up all night working on a project for work due tomorrow. Can I have a brief extension? Meanwhile, I observed that you were the one who first used the terms "philosophers for Ragnar" and "philosophers for Rearden" in related postings, and I was a bit intrigued. So I thought I would entice you a bit using your words in my hypothetical question. I was hoping you would define the terms for me at some point.

Hi Burgess, My question was about the idea and possibility of adding to this forum some of the functionalities for organizing local clubs or socials. For example, at least 9 people have already posted to our local Dallas/Ft. Worth forum, including Greedy Capitalist (our Web God), Dismuke, me, and others. I would like to meet the others in person. Clearly, many of us have the desire to socialize with like-minded people. For example, you write that you have "... forty years of attending and fifteen years of organizing socials ...." Of course, organizing local Objectivist meetings, we have taken some risks, like you have, and we have met some "others." What if we could organize a local club or "society" having a membership of, say, 1,000 people? Suppose only 100 were "Objectivists for Ragnar," 300 were "Objectivists for Rearden," 300 were family members (spouses, children, etc.), and 300 were "others." Suppose we had regular social meetings with a random 100 of these members, some regulars, some coming in and out occassionally. Would such meetings be of interest to you?

We already have 9 who have posted in the DFW forum: Greedy Capitalist -- our Web God Old Toad -- yours truly Dismuke Lock_and_Rand Poncho Villa Kirk dbc Unconquered SoftwareNerd -- not sure where he is, though. Unless several of us stand up as being libertarian, moral-tolerationist, "Christian Objectivists," anarchist, conservative, or other, I think we have already blown through the 1 in a million number.

I think the situation is more complicated. I admit my understanding is rather hazy, but some additional circumstances are substantially as follows. The DFW "market" developed in the context of a mixed economy with government intervention and regulations. A long time ago, airlines and the local governments in the DFW area were considering building a huge international airport for the region. Various concerns regarding the small local airports included the downtown traffic congestion, jet noise, inadequate runways for increasingly bigger jets, fears of dangerous proximity to heavily populated areas, etc. As part of the package for Dallas and Ft. Worth and the surrounding areas to support building the huge new airport, all the major domestic passenger airlines in existence at the time contractually agreed to permanently move from Love and the other small airports to DFW. On this basis, including with the support of local governments, it was agreed that Love and other small local airports were to be reduced to intrastate passenger traffic only. Further, a federal law was passed to that effect. Shortly after that time, Southwest, then a new airline, started with intrastate operations at Love. Southwest was not in existence at the time of the DFW contract, and, therefore, not bound by it. Between the contract that the other airlines had signed committing them to DFW and the federal law, it had a virtual monopoly at Love for interstate passenger air travel. Southwest grew, partly, of course, because it was well run and offered low prices, but partly because air travel to and from Dallas via Love was more convenient for interstate travel than via DFW, which is farther away from downtown Dallas. After some years of Southwest operating only intrastate out of Love, Southwest started complaining that that the restriction to intrastate travel was too narrow, and that all it wanted, and all it would ever want, was an amendment to the federal law to allow it to fly regionally, just to adjoining States. Even so, Southwest's proposal did not sit well with the major airlines, who were permanently committed to DFW and had invested on that basis. On the other hand, the majors probably didn't really want to compete head to head with Southwest, either at Love or at DFW. So the parties worked toward a compromise that opened Love to regional passenger air travel, but preserved most of the local governments' and major airlines' various commitments to DFW. The compromise, including the 1979 Wright Amendment, was what Southwest had lobbied for and won! In rough summary of the compromise, Southwest expanded its virtual monopoly to "regional" flights at Love field and supposedly "voluntarily" stays away from competing with the other airlines at the "less cost effective" DFW. In exchange, the major airlines didn't fight for the "right" to fly into Love. So the consumer has low-priced, convenient, short-haul regional flights available from Southwest via Love field, and higher-priced, long-haul, interconnecting flights available from other carriers via DFW. Southwest and the majors have both been relatively happy, having compromised on the mutual protections of their respective types of local travel markets. Of course, these "protections" come at the expense of the Dallas traveller. Supported in the Love field market by these protectionist arrangements, Southwest has grown to have exclusive contractual rights on virtually all the gates at Love field. In this context, you wrote to your Senators that: "Airlines [should] have a right to fly to and from any airport they choose ...." In principle, yes. But in practice, because of the monopoly on gates, etc. the "right" for another airline to make any substantial numbers of flights to and from Love is illusory. Repeal of the Wright Amendment would only give Southwest, not all airlines, the "right" to fly longer-haul flights into and out of Love. What about expanding Love Field, for example, by building longer runways for bigger planes, more gates, etc.? This is totally opposed by local residents based on noise and other concerns (as is well known to Southwest), and very unlikely to be allowed anytime soon. And Southwest certainly wouldn't fight for the "Right to Fly" above these limitations becuase it doesn't want the majors to be able to use Love, competing on the basis of bigger planes, better connections, international flights, etc. In this context, you also wrote that: "If DFW Airport is afraid of losing airlines, they should lower their costs, not try to legislate other, more efficient, airports out of business." I don't think this is particularly relevant here -- it's never been a free market based on which airport is more efficient. Because of Southwest's overt participation in lobbying for such protections and it's continued reliance on other government protections for its Love field market, I am not so sympathetic to Southwest's call for the "Right to Fly" and "Free Love."

Hi Dismuke, My understanding is that there are about 6 million people within 100 miles of Dallas/Ft. Worth. Even if only one in a thousand people are interested in Objectivism, there must be a few thousand around here!

Yes, an e-mail network can work for a small club. Meetup.com offers "by invitation-only" functionality, too. Is it really that "the wackos would drive away the good people"? For myself, I think that having the opportunity to meet other people interested in Objectivism is worth some risk. Ayn Rand's books have sold tens of millions of copies over the years. In any large metro area, whether in Dallas (the buckle of the Bible Belt) or in Seattle, I extrapolate that there must be thousands of people interested in Objectivism. Can we consider fostering the ability to meet in person?

We have been experimenting with using Meetup.com for organizing local gatherings in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas. We have started with meetings about every other weekend with 15-50 people for each meeting. Organizing these meetings would have been much more difficult without the tools offered by Meetup.com. In connection with starting local forums here, would it be feasible to add to this forum some of the functionalities for organizing local meetings of the type that are available through Meetup.com? If so, this might make it possible to migrate the hosting of our local club (and others) over to ObjectivismOnline.Net. To see how we have been able to use this service, see: http://aynrand.meetup.com/71/events/